Channel C²

Always two or three witnesses?

Posted by RudPersson on Tue - Jul 8 - 4:08pm:

There has been heated discussions recently about the Biblical rule that every offense is to be decided only on the evidence of at least two or three witnesses.

I have come to wonder if this Bible rule really could be absolute. I base this on certain Bible texts. According to Deut. 22:25-27 a man could be put to death for raping a girl "in the country" (NIV) while the girl would go free because she could have screamed but "there was no one to rescue her." (NIV) This seems to be a case without even one witness; yet the man could be sentenced to death.

Also Deut. 22:28,29 shows that a man would be forced to marry a virgin he raped if they were "discovered" (NIV) The text does not say discovered by at least two or three but just "discovered", which could be by just one person. Evidently the rule about two or three witnesses was not ironclad.

Even at Matt. 18:15-17 the text seems to say something different than is often inferred. For the text does not clearly say that the two or three witnesses are witnesses of the sin mentioned at first. Rather it seems that they would witness the attitude of the offender.

I have not been able to follow Channel C for quite some time, so I do not know if this issue has been dealt with. But it seems that it would be good to look at it from more than one angle, seeing that cases of gross misconduct has been difficult to handle because of an ironclad rule that the Scriptures themselves may not take as completely unbending.

In this connection I note, too, that the confession of an offender is accepted as evidence in Witness trials even though no witnesses could be produced. However, the Bible hardly says anything to that effect. It only speaks about two or three witnesses, or have I overlooked something? If there is nothing to show that confession should be accepted as evidence it would not do to ignore the rule of two or three witnesses. If that could be set aside for one reason, it might be set aside for other reasons as well! Maybee it is time to look closer into this.

Only tonight have I been able to write on Channel C, using a new way. At the usual place I was unable to post for some reason.

Rud

View Thread *

Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by RudPersson - Tue - Jul 8 - 4:08pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by Euphemism - Tue - Jul 15 - 1:59pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by Echo - Fri - Jul 11 - 10:30am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by RudPersson - Fri - Jul 11 - 3:22pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by Truthseeker - Fri - Jul 11 - 9:19pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by RudPersson - Sat - Jul 12 - 09:25am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by Echo - Tue - Jul 15 - 08:49am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by RudPersson - Wed - Jul 16 - 4:31pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by Echo - Wed - Jul 16 - 10:56pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by ros - Tue - Jul 8 - 10:06pm

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by JJ - Sat - Jul 12 - 12:41am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by RudPersson - Sun - Jul 13 - 02:14am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by JJ - Mon - Jul 14 - 03:50am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by RudPersson - Mon - Jul 14 - 12:46am

Re: Always two or three witnesses? - Posted by JJ - Mon - Jul 14 - 5:49pm