"Two Witnesses" doctrine and child ab...

by stevieb1 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  stevieb1

  Like many others, I too am outraged by the Watchtower's legalistic doctrine over the reporting of child abuse to the authorities, but for those lead by the Bible we do have a dilemma because it would seem that the Society are correct in their interpretation of Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:16 and naturally they want to apply these verses to how they handle allegations of child abuse in judicial cases.

  But with that being said, does the Watchtower mis-apply these verses in any way? If it can be shown that they do the case against them will be much stronger!
• 

  JosephMalik

  The verse in Deut as part of the Law does not need discussion here as we are not under such law, but notice this verse that only requires one witness, the victim and says:

  :15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

  It the victim is willing to forgive and the abuser repentant then no further action is required but in the cases we are discussing this would seldom occur, thus we have this further aid to resolve the matter. The victim must of course report this crime to someone else for it to be even known. Keeping it secret will only cause such abuse to continue. But once revealed such ones would assist the victim and we now have.

  16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

  So only the testimony of the victim and the revelation of the crime is required to institute such proceedings, not two witnesses as the WT teaches. Such witnesses would act in the victims behalf, not the criminals behalf. And if this fails we have:

  :17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

  The WT has taken these simple verses completely out of context so perhaps this will help some.

  Joseph

  Edited by - JosephMalik on 14 July 2002 9:57:29
• 

  belbab

  Stevie,

  You state:

  But with that being said, does the Watchtower mis-apply these verses in any way? If it can be shown that they do the case against them will be much stronger!

  I tried to show the same point in the post at the following link, sometime ago. I have been intending to elaborate on it.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=24050&site=3

  Some of the people who responded to this post, in my view, did not grasp fully the importance of considering ancient texts from the Hebrew times, and dismissed them as outdated ancient laws that did not apply in our day.

  We must consider these texts because the WT , using freedom of religion, is basing their actions on words written down centuries ago. They are biased in their interpretations, not taking in the context, omitting essential points and using incomplete arguments. I will come back here and post further information shortly.

  Those of us who are ex Jehovah's Witnesses who have a knowledge of Bible texts have a responsibility to expose the WT false interpretations. We cannot rely on the news media or the courts to do this. They have no answer to answer the JW religious stance that two witnesses are required to establish a matter, end of story.

  I will come back here and post further information shortly

  belbab
• 

  JosephMalik

  belbab,

  The explanation given clearly shows that only one witness the actual victim is required to start proceedings. And this was offered without regard to the laws of the land in which such a crime occured. So the explantion extended to this end. But in the USA such a victim can and should report the crime to authorites as rquired by law. And anyone to which the victim appealed should do the same. The civil authorities should make all determinations as to its validity and the congregation would not be involved. This is the victims right and obligation and your explantions really do not apply to this specific crime. Regarding other matters in which civil law is not involved, the material offered is quite proper and should be followed in our times as our Lord explained.

  Joseph
• 

  2SYN

  It still amazes me that the Tower so rigidly enforces these ancient Hebrew texts, and yet at the same time ignores all the texts on Animal Sacrifice and Wave Offerings. Tisk, tisk. Bad Tower.
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  The issue of child abuse is obscured by imposing the Bible's authority on the matter. Obviously the Hebrew and early Christian cultures did not address the matter or, at the very least, it is not clearly addressed in the approved Bible canon. Stretching and digging through the Bible to find scriptural justification for either position shows the inadequacy of the Book itself and the folly of trying to "squeeze" out an answer to every question . Bible "Believers" have an agenda that begins with establishing the Bible as the final authority in all matters and this agenda is unacceptable to Caesar. It should be clear , even to "Bible Believers" , that crimes that require some kind of physical retribution are within the jurisdiction of Caesar otherwise the congregations would bear physical swords.Encouraging an investigation by Caesar is the same as using a resource . Discouraging the use of this resource endangers the congregations and the community at large. Thankfuly , Caesar is not bound by partisan views of the Bible and soon this will beome clear to the WTBTS . If the issue is whether to believe a child"s testimony over that of an adult then let the child have preference. They are more likely to be telling the truth. The Bible recommends that adults should become like children , naturally guileless. Let that be the "Bible" principle that takes pecedence over the "Two Witness " doctrine.
• 

  DakotaRed

  On the two witness rule found in Deuteronomy 19:15, we might back up to Deut. 17 for some clarification;

  *** Rbi8 Deuteronomy 17:2-5 *** 2 In case there should be found in your midst in one of your cities that Jehovah your God is giving you a man or a woman who should practice what is bad in the eyes of Jehovah your God so as to overstep his covenant, 3 and he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, a thing that I have not commanded, 4 and it has been told you and you have heard it and have searched thoroughly, and, look! the thing is established as the truth, this detestable thing has been done in Israel! 5 you must also bring that man or that woman who has done this bad thing out to your gates, yes, the man or the woman, and you must stone such one with stones, and such one must die.

  Is not a pedophile worshipping a god of sexual appetite, in a manner? If discovered, what do the JWs say should happen? Call the Watchtower Legal Department, thats what. Yet, the very book they staunchly defend as literal in verse 19:15 says that such ones should be put to death.

  But, verse 6 also clarifies the 2 or 3 witness rule;

  *** Rbi8 Deuteronomy 17:6 *** 6 At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.

  It would appear to me that the 2 or 3 witness rule is primarily for when the sentence is death.

  In a crime such as pedophilia, there is not going to be two witnesses, so to require them is ludicrous. And true, some may even be accused falsely. But, that is when it takes an investigation by trained professional investigators, not self proclaimed clergymen, to delve into the matter and determine the veracity of the charge. But, for it to be properly investigated by superior authorities, first it has to be reported to them. Not just in states that require it, but everywhere.

  If the JWs have no problem with local authorities investigating a suspicious fire of a Kingdom Hall, why would they have a problem of the same local authorities investigating the sexual molestation of one of their children?

  Lew W

  Edited by - DakotaRed on 14 July 2002 11:36:14
• 

  dungbeetle

  The only 'dilemna' Watchtower has is that it stuck its nose where it did not belong in 1967, and kept its nose there again in 1973, 1983 and 1989.

  Whether or not there are one or zero or 1000 witnesses to a crime has absolutley NO BEARING on anything. If Watchtower wants to say that WAtchtower can't do anything without two witnesses, so what! So friggin' what!!!

  In most countries, a rape or molestation survivor/witness has not only the RIGHT but many times the LEGAL DUTY to go to the authorities for justice and intervention and sometimes comensation. Jesus Christ and later Paul ORDERED Christians to be obedient to the law.

  The two-witness rule never existed as Watchtower claimed. In the woman raped in the fieled case, her attacker is put to death ON HER WORD ALONE. In teh woman raped in the city case, each person is put to death based ONLY ON THE WORD OF THE OTHER.

  The two witness rule regards the bringing forth of a matter, and the Jews, just to be on the safe side, brought the matter before the city gates for all the world to see. Nowhere does it say that there must be two EYEWITNESSES, just two or more witnesses to THE PROCEEDINGS.

  Watchtower thinks everybody is stupid. Watchtower thinks police and social workers and worldly birdfood humans are STUPID. They think we can't crack open a Bible and see how Watchtower lies, for ourselves.

  Well, Watchtower, the world is NOT stupid.
• 

  JosephMalik

  It should be clear , even to "Bible Believers" , that crimes that require some kind of physical retribution are within the jurisdiction of Caesar otherwise the congregations would bear physical swords.Encouraging an investigation by Caesar is the same as using a resource .

  Siddhashunyata,

  Of course and I will show this in a min. But the original questioner wanted a scriptural answer to specific texts that disturbed him. So I responded in context. When this was challenged by someone that was basically supporting the WT position then I explained further. But as to your point, the answer is very simple since scriptural laws have their limitations and must also be understood in this overall basic context, notice:

  Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

  All Governments, good or bad were created by Him and for Him to maintain order until His Kingdom is established here in their place. The scriptures clearly state: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, (rulers with authority) and that are in earth, (common man under their control) visible (local and near) and invisible, (remote and far away as in Rome) whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Everything described here is earthly and human and since such heavens belong to the Christ, avoiding them and their jurisdiction is unscriptural. Such authority includes the Church that exists along with such heavens and earth. So to your point and to some others that see this but cannot see the biblical involvement here is the scriptural precedent some are requesting. but again the WT has distorted such texts and their meaning so as to render such verses useless. Therefore the texts under discussion must be understood within this overall context as well and many answers have actually hit around this very point.

  There is no single answer, but biblically the WT has sinned and has distorted scripture to protect itself and its henchmen from such justice that is authorized by Christ.

  Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.

  Joseph
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  Joseph, thank you for a clear statement of a scriptural connection to the fact that all things operate together for the sake of the Son and His kingdom. The concepts, generated by Col 1:14-17, are impossible to understand from a normal human stand point. Do you agree? What I'm asking is how does one relate to a being like this without being Him in a very real but unusual way? Much of the language relating to "Oneness", being "In Christ", "Christ in you" , leaving "Self " behind , etc. ( and you know the list is long) indicates an unusual condition of mind. Is this the transformation that occurs when the ego personality dissolves and a man's true nature is revealed. That nature being only ONE ?