"As God is my witness" - (compare De.22::25-27)

[Evacuated]

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?

[Witness]

Concerning the events of rape in scripture, such as Dinah, it doesn’t say how Jacob her father, found out about it, or whether God revealed it to him as a “witness”.  All the accounts of rape in the Bible are surrounded with subsequent acts of gruesome violence.   How interesting today, that child abuse and rape among God’s people has brought its own brand of ‘violence’ along with it; and the GB, with its elder body, is oblivious to its effect.  They march on, stuck in their determination not to look at the deeper, bigger picture of their own actions; or that God sees everything.   1 Cor 10:11,12; Joel 2:6-9; Ps 119:126

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

Similarity in wording (witness) we have im Matt 18:15-17

Words says that some "brother commits a sin". Who know that he sinned? Obviously "you" (he is "YOUR brother"). You are witness or you heard from someone else. But for me logic and justifiability for your action is that you personally are witnessed to something that make you worried and how brother's action (in words or deeds), you by your reason and understanding consider as sin. 
Because of that you go in person (eye to eye) to tell him your feelings and view and ask him to explain his side of story. If you had not make issue clear in this initial conversation or perhaps in few more conversations ( WHY to stop on one conversation?? as they said here "night is wiser", that means you have to sleep over at least one night to continue on decision :)))))), and his answer and explanation not satisfied you, by Matthews words, you can if you want, to call, to involve some other persons (be careful whom you choose!) and then in one or few more conversations, arguing, reasoning try to establish more facts about what you see and how you see - and what he done or not done - and how it is possible to explain in wider context what happened or does exist some other explanation on issue. If all involved parties are honest and with open mind and not want to be self-righteous, perhaps this second step or steps can be seen as some sort of "investigation", but as in third step (before elders) persons that are involved in all this "suffer and misery" must be impartial and not want to highlight to achieve just or only LAW and RULES but JUSTICE. Justice is above every Law. Because Love is above all and Love loving Justice and Mercy and Compassion - not Law.

Fisher, Your observation was on rape and murder. This in Matthew seems something benign in comparison to OT example. Ancient people was also faced with problem of how to established, how to find the truth about what was really happened in situation when no one saw the event.  Perhaps "witness" is not just and only someone who saw or hear act and words. But "witness" can or should be also persons who participate in whole process about somebody and something. Just thought  

[Srecko Sostar]

22:28,19    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels^[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Here we have strange situation. Rapist are obligated to marry her. And she is obligated to "respect rapist" as husband. 

Very inspired verses. Imagine how can look like family life after such events.

In this matters no one ask for "witness". Just said, "if they are discovered".  Why?