By James Thomas Rook Jr.
WHY would Jehovah's Witnesses reject Government calls for Independent Inquiry into sexual abuse?
Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?') BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life. How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that? The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did? THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands. Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive. Does it work?
By Outta Here
De.19:15 is pretty explicit:
“No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established."
However, increasingly, De.22:25-27 is set against this requirement as a justification for relaxing the 2 witness requirement in modern cases of abuse.
"“If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."
The witness absence factor is compared to a case of murder. We know there were provisions in Israel for this in the form of the cities of refuge procedures (Nu.35:10-32, where the single witness prohibition is stated at v30), and the bloodguilt removal procedure in the complete absence of a perpetrator as outlined at De.21:9.
With regard to the sexual crime, further procedures were in place in which Jehovah's participation as a witness was invited. These are outlined at Nu.5:11-31. Obviously, Jehovah can serve as a witness in the case of secret sin of this nature (2Sam.11:27) without invoking a ritual, because he is aware of these things.
Does anyone know of instances in Jewish history or commentaries where the matter outlined in De.22:25 was handled appropriately?
Has the Society ever ruled on what happens if a man or woman abandons their spouse forever ... is the one abandoned stuck forever ?By James Thomas Rook Jr.
Has the Society ever ruled on what happens if a man or woman abandons their spouse forever ... is the one abandoned stuck forever ?
By Bible Speaks
A New World of Justice
The Bible tells us what kind of rulership we can expect, rulership that all righthearted individuals now long for. Psalm 145:16 will then find fulfillment in its completest sense: “You [Jehovah God] are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing.”
Moreover, Isaiah 32:1 says: “Look! A king [Christ Jesus in heaven] will reign for righteousness itself; and as respects princes [Christ’s earthly representatives], they will rule as princes for justice itself.”
Regarding the King Jesus Christ, Isaiah 9:7 foretells: “To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.”
Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
Two pictures each moving and a GIF
Most OnlineNewest Member