Why 2 OR THREE Witnesses?

[Neighbor]

34 minutes ago, lftc said:

What is your understanding of the evolution of law and the variation of law by jurisdiction (regional areas of authority)?

 

As  a man once said I know just enough to think I know more than I do, so I know just enough to be dangerous ( Perhaps to self and others, ha!).

Unfortunately in my careers I have been  involved in many business decisions involving civil, criminal, business, administrative, constitutional and statute law laws. Also have some Business Law class college  experience, but mostly have spent years and years in  State and federal bankruptcy court hiring lawyers and also dealing with federal adminstrative law enforcement agencies for non profit institutions. 

The history of law that has had most bearing on what I have been involved in  and affects me most is the extreme difference between American criminal law codes and statutes, where it comes from and where Civil law comes from. One being English based and relying on a strict written law, the other being of French origin and very subjective giving the judge vast leeway to make justice as he sees it at the time.

Going into  civil court with the idea of justice and a strict idea of right and wrong that may be found in criminal situations can become very costly to the litigants! Mostly in bankruptcy court the idea  from the judge's position is to simply  posture, let the litigants wear themselves out all going quite broke from attorney fees, and then letting each bandage themselves and walk off defeated  no matter their "just" position. It is truly a system of the attorneys milking the cow while the oppositions pull  one at the head the other at the tail, and none winning, except all the attorneys. The Bible principle of law to follow is never go to court period, settle, settle, settle. And then move on trusting that this is God's plan  He has something better in mind something necessary for one's fuller sanctification.

 

[lftc]

On 10/22/2019 at 8:45 PM, TraceMalin said:

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. 

Hello Trace!

Good points.  I already replied about some the later points in your post.  I hope it is OK with you that I respond to the points about the presentation of technological evidence as fulfilling the requirement for witnesses.

To ensure that I don't interfere with @Neighbor's expected response, allow me to set the context as believing that the Law of Moses has precedence, and has bearing on modern law, at least as far as indicating the wisdom of God.  I go further than that myself, but I realize that many on these forums prefer their respective govenments to be the authority over law.  I also know there are some on this forum that would find great relief to be under the Law of Moses instead of the government in their region.

As to non-human witnesses fulfilling the requirement for 2 OR THREE withnesses:  The Deut 19 passage indicates that false witnesses are to be punished with the punishment decreed for the defendent.  This commandment and the commandment following are helpful in understanding the environment that God desired to have.  How is this requirement fulfilled with non-human witnesses?  It is not.  A brief review of cases involving technological evidence shows that such evidence is not without risk of false conclusions.  So who gets punished?  No one and the technology continues to be used (in many uses of technological evidence, but not all, sometimes it is paritally disallowed).

Again, assuming that a people group cares to use the Bible as aguide, it would seem that the punishment for false witnesses would be critical if the "evil is to be purged from the land".

[lftc]

Just now, Neighbor said:

As  a man once said I know just enough to think I know more than I do, so I know just enough to be dangerous ( Perhaps to self and others, ha!).

Unfortunately in my careers I have been  involved in many business decisions involving civil, criminal, business, administrative, constitutional and statute law laws. Also have some Business Law class college  experience, but mostly have spent years and years in  State and federal bankruptcy court hiring lawyers and also dealing with federal adminstrative law enforcement agencies for non profit institutions. 

The history of law that has had most bearing on what I have been involved in  and affects me most is the extreme difference between American criminal law codes and statutes, where it comes from and where Civil law comes from. One being English based and relying on a strict written law, the other being of French origin and very subjective giving the judge vast leeway to make justice as he sees it at the time.

Going into  civil court with the idea of justice and a strict idea of right and wrong that may be found in criminal situations can become very costly to the litigants! Mostly in bankruptcy court the idea  from the judge's position is to simply  posture, let the litigants wear themselves out all going quite broke from attorney fees, and then letting each bandage themselves and walk off defeated  no matter their "just" position. It is truly a system of the attorneys milking the cow while the oppositions pull  one at the head the other at the tail, and none winning, except all the attorneys. The Bible principle of law to follow is never go to court period, settle, settle, settle. And then move on trusting that this is God's plan  He has something better in mind something necessary for one's fuller sanctification.

 

Very well said!  And so true about people just hurting themselves with the need for recompense/retribution. 

I have not pondered the French influence on U.S.A. law, but I assume it has some heritage from the French Revolution.  I have read somewhat on the French Revolution and see the prinicple of extreme power invested in the judge present in the awful events there.

I always enjoy hearing of your experiences.

[ReneeIW]

On 10/23/2019 at 9:31 AM, lftc said:

would you agree that the U.S.A. law is not in alignment with the Law of Moses?   

The New Testament is not in alignment with the Law of Moses, so I don’t see the point of this thread.

U.S.A. law is in line with Romans 13.

Moses’s Law was to prevent men from slandering one another. Women were not even allowed to be witnesses.

Under Romans 13, our government creates the law. And yes you can be convicted without three witnesses and that is never going to change.

Witnesses are very important in the U.S.A., even to the point where we have witness protection programs to protect these important people, but you don’t need three. Sorry

[joebloggs]

6 hours ago, lftc said:

Answering that question, of course, would be very important.  As are all these questions since the administration of Law is the administration of judgement and condemnation of the accused, at times necessary to protect society from people devoted to evil, at times as a system of retribution.

Working from the Torah itself, the question appears to be left in the decision of the levite judge deciding the case.  To try to eliminate difficult decisions, the Jews immdeiately began adding teachings to the Torah (the Takkanot) to addresses issues like this.  I personally do not know how the additional teachings address this, I am not overtly concerned with those teachings for reasons that have to do with the recognition of canon etc.  

For the purpose of this post, based on the Law of Moses as recorded in the Torah, suffice it to say that the accuser could be chosen by the judge to qualify as a witness.  The judge is required by the Deut 19 passage to thoughly investigate the witnesses and punish any found to be falsifying information with the same punishment as was to be given the defendent.  Ouch.

If the judge were to choose the accuser as a witness (one can certainly imagine situations where this would make sense) then the judge COULD use the 3 witnesses as rule to apply to require a third witness.

But the judge could also use the 3 witnesses rule because he/she (remember Deborah was a judge), could be taking seriously the part of the Deut 19 passage about purging evil from the land.

What do you think about it?

 

ADDED:

On reviewing, I realized you said the accuseD.  Not the accuseR.  My mistake.

I assume that it could be the case if the accused confesses and the accuser agree, making 2 witnesses.  Could the judge require a 3rd?  Based on a plain reading it would appear to be within the judge's rights.  Again, I would think it would depend on the understanding of the overriding principle being presented.  For example, if someone confesses because they are suicidal and want to commit suicide by stoning, the judge could require other witnesses.

We have to follow the law of the land. The church doesnt convict and sentence criminals any more in the uk so this one is on the most part obsolete now.

[Neighbor]

3 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

The New Testament is not in alignment with the Law of Moses

Really? 

[ReneeIW]

11 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

Really? 

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...

Also

3The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who [a]made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8He said to them, “Moses, because of thehardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

 

 

[lftc]

16 hours ago, joebloggs said:

We have to follow the law of the land. The church doesnt convict and sentence criminals any more in the uk so this one is on the most part obsolete now.

Greetings Joebloggs.

Out of curiosity, do you have a blog?

I too observe that many things in scripture are functionally obsolete: no longer used as a guide.

I still consider the Bible the most important group of writings as I personally consider that God intended people to use it.

It gets tricky.

What do you think?

[lftc]

19 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

The New Testament is not in alignment with the Law of Moses, so I don’t see the point of this thread.

U.S.A. law is in line with Romans 13.

Moses’s Law was to prevent men from slandering one another. Women were not even allowed to be witnesses.

Under Romans 13, our government creates the law. And yes you can be convicted without three witnesses and that is never going to change.

Witnesses are very important in the U.S.A., even to the point where we have witness protection programs to protect these important people, but you don’t need three. Sorry

ReneeIW,

I remain concerned about posting my thoughts about your thoughts, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you.  I know that you have been through and are still going through difficulty that this topic has a relationship to.

But on the other hand, you have posted, so I assume I must honor your wish to discuss this.  I very earnestly ask that you take the discussion as between people that care about each other's well being.

You wrote:"The New Testament is not in alignment with the Law of Moses, so I don’t see the point of this thread."

I see Neighbor and you have discussed this somewhat.  Instead of quoting verses at you, I will ask that you do a little more research.  Can you find verses that indicate that the Law still applies in some way?  I can do it if you wish, but then it just looks like a scripture war.

You wrote: "U.S.A. law is in line with Romans 13."

Also 1 Peter 2 (which says almost the same thing as Romans 13, but with a slightly different twist).
And Jesus avoidance of the Taxes Trap set for him in Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20
There are several more references that speak to this issue, but those are the most powerful for supporting your interpretation.
Question:  How did the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. interpret that when they rebelled against the Crown?   I'm not trying to set a trap, the trap was set and sprung long ago.  The U.K. has the same issue with the forced acceptance of the Magna Carta etc. I have not completed an exhaustive search, but it appears there is not a single government on earth that has not come into existence without rebellion against the previous government in their region.  The closest examples are as the British Empire receded, the crown did grant some colonies autonomy without revolution, but how did the Crown come to be in power in those regions?

Still on the same topic, I watched in morbid fascination a few years ago as the governments in the U.S.A. legalized homosexual marriage, overriding the popular vote.  Which side had the authority of your understanding of Romans 13?

You wrote: "Witnesses are very important in the U.S.A., even to the point where we have witness protection programs to protect these important people"

In many cases, I can see evidence for your statement.  Just with brief research I can find some situations where this is not true in U.S.A.

I have great confidence that you are correct in your prediction that the U.S.A. is not going to change this and go to the "obsolete" approach in the Bible.   If that were to happen, I would be as surprised as you.  (if we lived through it).

You wrote: "so I don’t see the point of this thread"

Well, none of what we discussed here is really the point of the thread.  It does help form an understanding that is important as a foundation to the point of the thread.  In your earlier post, you asked a rhetorical question about how various criminals would ever be convicted under the Law of Moses.  That is closer to the point of the thread.

Now I must apologize for taking too long to make a point:  most concepts take some time to explain.

Edited October 25, 2019 by lftc

[lftc]

20 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

Moses’s Law was to prevent men from slandering one another. Women were not even allowed to be witnesses.

I forgot to respond to these good points you raised.

I agree that the commandment listed in the OP would prevent offical action on slander.  But it goes far beyond that; it would prevent punishment based on slander.  But it goes even further, as you and I discussed.

As to women not allowed as witnesses.  I have been intentionally reading the Law (Torah) for years,  I did not recall any commandment restricting women from being witnesses.  So I did some research.  Such a restriction was added and modified over the years by later groups.  Subject for another post.  The point would be that in the Bible that restriction is not in the Law.  I'm not sure why you were bringing that into the discussion, but I thought I would share what I found.