Elders/former Elders, help with this?

by wasasister 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rollercoaster

  So.....
  What if you have the confession from the mate on tape, but only stating that they stayed the weekend together? Of course there's a lot more to the story....
  Thanks Wasa for bringing up this subject, and thanks for the E-Mail, I'm on it, and will have things in play before the end of the week.
• 

  wasasister

  Hi RC and others!
  I brought this up because I have a problem with the strict interpretation of the "two-witnesses" principle. Some sins are, by their very nature, secret. Adultery falls into that catagory. "Behind closed doors" is the term usually given to such acts and because this is so, precludes witnesses.

  In reading the Mosaic Law, I find many exceptions to the "two-witness" rule. Circumstances were very much a factor in determining guilt. For example: a homeowner discovering an intruder in the middle of the night might take the intruder's life without blood-guilt. (What possible reason could a person have for entering a home, uninvited, after midnight?) Conversely, if a person discovered another in their home in the daylight hours and killed them, they would suffer blood-guilt. (Maybe he came to borrow some wine and forgot to knock?) And remember the virgin who was raped in a field as opposed to the virgin raped in the city? Don't even get me started with that one!!

  My point is, the Law implies that there are some sins which cannot be easily testified to. At one point in Israel, a woman accused of adultery only had to have her thigh fall off to be found guilty....whatever THAT meant! Obviously, a man could accuse his wife of infidelity and the priest could require a "test" since it might be impossible to bring forth witnesses.

  In modern times, if a body of elders learned - for example - that an unmarried couple entered a hotel room together and were seen the next morning emerging from that room, what would they be forced to conclude? If both parties proclaimed innocence, would they be believed? What if a teen-aged couple were observed in such a situation and later insisted one of them slept on the floor?

  In my friend's case, if the erring mate - a baptized brother - confessed to the innocent (also baptized) mate that adultery had occurred, yet there were no "witnesses", can the innocent mate be free to remarry without discipline? Let's take this one step further and assume, for this example, that the erring mate had been disfellowshipped before for the same sin. Does that establish a pattern of behavior? Or does each occasion require a clean slate and the burden of proof lie with the innocent mate?

  To me, it seems like a no-brainer: 1. Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law and the two-witnesses rule survives as a principle only, not a hard and fast rule. 2. Some sins are clandestine in nature and establishing their validity at the mouth of two is ludicrous.

  Thank you to all who have responded and I look forward to future clarification from informed individuals.