Why 2 OR THREE Witnesses?

[lftc]

The whole subject of how the Law of Moses applies to modern life is disputed and contested and ignored. 

Jesus said whoever teaches against the Law is the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Psalms speak of loving the Law. 

Various people handle this subject in various ways, but even the most ardent that oppose using the Law in everyday life state that it has value for modern life by simply applying the principles.  In fact, most western societies claim that their Laws are derived from the principles of the Law of Moses.

I have my own strongly held opinions about the Law and what Jesus meant.  But this topic is not about that. 

Let me repeat for the people that have already decided to post about the applicability of the entire law.  This topic is not about that.

This topic is about a principle that is presented in the Law of Moses and repeated consistently through the teachings related to the New Covenant.

Establishing culpability based on 2 OR THREE witnesses.

I understand that this principle is exceedingly difficult for the modern mind to assimilate into a concept for managing modern life.  To the modern mind it appears to add to the victim's tremendous burdens. 

But we are faced with the issue of either trying to understand God's approach to retribution or finding a thought process to move these verses to a less applicable interpretation.  I can understand the intense need to take the second approach.  Our very being cries out for wrongs to be righted through exposure and punishment.  We have a built in belief that relief lies along this path.  I, too, feel the pull of this direction.

But the first option calls to those who desire to align their concepts with those of God Most High, the God of Moses.

the Scriptures:

Regarding any crime:
Deut 19
15“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil^c from your midst. 20And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Deut 17 has a similar passage that is focused on worshipping other gods.

Matt 18
15“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed^f in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

1 Tim 5
19Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

What does that tell us about how God thinks about Due Process?  

If I proceed to tell you what I think, I would be assuming the role of teacher, which no one here wants me to do.

So assuming the role of another God Pursuer pointing out things I notice: 

Notice that the 2 OR THREE is consistently repeated.

One thing that has really enlightened me is to ponder Why OR THREE witnesses?  If the goal is to convict, why would one ever need three?  The Deut 19 passage already says the judge is to investigate the witnesses thoroughly.  And the witnesses would already know that their very lives are at stake if found to be a false witness.  So if the judge already has 2 witnesses that actually saw the crime being commited, the judge can then convict on the basis of 2 witnesses.  So why "OR Three"?

And the last part of the Deut 19 passage says "purging the evil from the land". Seems like it has great bearing on the whole passage.  What evil?

I will probably not respond to many posts or click "like" on many posts.  Not because I dislike what people say, but simply to try to avoid the factions issue as much as I can.  Please assume that I like you.

[ReneeIW]

Reconcile what you wrote with Romans 13. 

 

[lftc]

42 minutes ago, ReneeIW said:

Reconcile what you wrote with Romans 13. 

 

Easily.  I encourage others to do the same.

[ReneeIW]

I may be misunderstanding the point of your post, but you seem to be suggesting that our modern culture is not in line with the teaching of two or three witnesses.

Is that what you are suggesting? If so, I strongly  disagree.

[lftc]

Going offline now. Getting late here. Will return tomorrow, but please read last paragraph of the OP.

[TraceMalin]

In the ancient world, they didn't have today's technology. DNA evidence, fingerprints, forensics, video surveillance, wire tapping, and a host of scientific advances such as handwriting analysis, etc., are employed as witnesses for or against someone. The more evidence, the better. When it comes to he said/she said crimes, a lawyer almost doesn't have a case without some form of eyewitness testimony or other evidence to back something up. In our modern world, we can see how the Law of Moses has inspired due process. With eyewitness testimony being the least reliable, "or three" witnesses are wise. Lawyers feel the same way today in most western courts. Scientists testify on behalf of the evidence. The evidence can be witness to a crime. 

[ReneeIW]

17 minutes ago, lftc said:

Going offline now. Getting late here. Will return tomorrow, but please read last paragraph of the OP.

I read the last paragraph of your OP. I was just looking for clarification of your questions so that I could adequately answer them. 

For example, you asked why would there be a requirement of three witnesses if the goal is to convict. I don’t know if that question is in reference to modern times. In modern times you have crimes where initially,  there is only one witness- the victim. But then an investigation is done and a police officer or forensic scientist become additional witnesses.

 The goal is to convict, but the bigger goal in biblical times as well as now, is to make sure no innocent person is ever convicted. Slander was/is a big deal. “A false witness will not go unpunished.” 

You seem to believe that by “witnesses,” there needs to be three people on the scene serving as eye witnesses to the crime. No rapist would ever be convicted if that were the case. Or no thief breaking into a store at night. Or all the white collar crimes that go on. And the list goes on.

 

[Willa]

2 or 3 witnesses also testified that a thing is true.  When Jesus was baptized he had a Voice from heaven the confirmation of the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus like a dove, the prophets and the testimony of John the Baptist.

[Dennis1209]

52 minutes ago, Willa said:

2 or 3 witnesses also testified that a thing is true.  When Jesus was baptized he had a Voice from heaven the confirmation of the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus like a dove, the prophets and the testimony of John the Baptist.

In addition too Willa's reply; it's relevant also today in the church if there is a problem with a deacon, elder or leader.

1 Timothy 5:19 (KJV) Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

[appy]

The answer to your question is in Deuteronomy 19:15

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

This same law is applied in courts today, just as it did in Old Testament times. A single witness has the potential (not that it is permissible) to give uncorroborated testimony in order to establish a false testimony against another person who is accused. Judgment based on false testimony could destroy the life or property of innocent persons and discredit the distort the court's system of justice. A single witness isn't able to give false testimony about another so easily if there are at least 2 or 3 other witnesses present.