Explanation of Deuteronomy 22:23-27
During Geoffrey Jackson’s testimony in the Australian Royal Commission, Angus Stewart questioned the requirement of at least two witnesses in relation to cases of sexual abuse. He referred to Deuteronomy 22:23-27 to support this proposition.
Stewart. Mr Jackson, that is exactly the point I want to get to. You will be familiar ‐ and perhaps we can go to it ‐ with Deuteronomy 22:23‐27?
Jackson. Deuteronomy 22:23‐27.
Stewart. That’s at page 304, where it is said:
“If a man is found lying down with a woman who is the wife of another man, both of them must die together …”
Now, let me preface this: I’m not addressing the question of the stoning, I am addressing the question of evidence.
“… both of them must die together, the man who lay down with the woman as well as the
woman. So you must remove what is bad out of Israel.”
Then it says:
“If a virgin is engaged to a man, and another man happens to meet her in the city and lies down with her, you should bring them both out to the gate of that city and stone them to death, the girl because she did not scream in the city and the man because he humiliated the wife of his fellow man. So you must remove what is evil from your midst.”
And then the next example is the one I am particularly interested in:
“If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.”
So the point of this last example is that there’s no second witness, is there, because the woman is in the field, she screamed, but there was no‐one to rescue her; do you accept that?
Jackson. Could I explain, Mr Stewart, that ‐ you see, I think already under testimony some of Jehovah’s Witnesses have explained that the two‐witnesses needed can be, in some cases, the circumstances. I think there was an example given ‐‐
Stewart. I will come to that, Mr Jackson. We will get through this a lot quicker and easier if we just address it one step at a time?
Jackson. Okay. So the answer to your question ‐‐
Stewart. The present step is this: in that example, you accept it is a case where there was no other witness beyond the woman herself?
Jackson. There was no other witness except the woman herself, but added to that were the circumstances.
Stewart. Yes. Well, the circumstances were that she was raped in the field?
Jackson. Mmm‐hmm. Yes, they were the circumstances.
Stewart. There being only one witness, it was nevertheless sufficient for the conclusion that the man should be stoned to death.
Jackson. Mmm‐hmm. Yes.
Stewart. Now, is it ‐‐
Jackson. I think we’re agreeing on the point.
Stewart. Is it not the case that had Jesus been asked about a case of sexual abuse, he may have referred back to this part of Deuteronomy and said that it’s not required to have two witnesses?
Jackson. I certainly would like to ask Jesus that, and I can’t at the moment, I hope to in the future. But that’s a hypothetical question which, if we had an answer, then we could support what you said.
Stewart. Well, it is hypothetical in a sense, but really what I’m driving at is, is the scriptural basis ‐ and you are the scholar, I’m not ‐ to the two‐witness rule really so solid or is there not space for your Governing Body to recognise that in cases of sexual abuse it need not apply?
Jackson. Again, if I could just mention the fact that we’ve already acknowledged that circumstances can also be one of the witnesses.
Stewart. Well, I will come to that, but my question is a different one. It’s whether the scriptural basis to the two‐witness rule in relation to cases of sexual abuse has a proper foundation?
Jackson. We believe it does because of the number of times that that principle is emphasised in the scriptures.
.14/08/2015 (155) 15971 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart)
Transcript produced by DTI
About two weeks later on September 2, 2015 in written correspondence, Jackson sent the following reply:
While these verses might appear to be an exception to the Scriptural requirement that there be at least two witnesses to establish a matter, that is not a correct reading of the passages.
Five chapters earlier, at Deuteronomy 17:6, the Mosaic Law clearly states without exception:
“On the testimony of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die should be put to death. He must not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”
And in Deuteronomy chapter 19, verse 15, it says:
“No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. “
It is important to note that the two contrasting situations in verses 23 to 27 of Deuteronomy
chapter 22 do not deal with proving whether the man is guilty in either situation. His guilt is
assumed in both instances. In saying that he:
“happened to meet her in the city and lay down with her”
or he:
“happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her”.
In both instances, the man had already been proved guilty and worthy of death, this being determined by proper procedure earlier in the judges’ inquiry. But the question at this point before the judges (having established that improper sexual relations had occurred between the man and the woman) was whether the engaged woman had been guilty of immorality or was a victim of rape. This is a different issue, although related, to establishing the man’s guilt.
The elders had guidance in determining if any guilt should be charged to her. In the second instance (verse 27), the woman would not die,
“for he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her”.
Such a cry for help might be admitted by her assailant, which would confirm her claimed innocence. On the other hand, if the assailant denied that the woman had screamed for help, the judges would not have a basis for refusing her claim, since, in effect, it would be her word against his and there was no one nearby either to rescue her or to serve as a witness one way or the other as to her scream for help. Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent. In that case (verses 25 and 26),
“the man who lay down with her is to die by himself. and you must do nothing to the girl. “
This is because (verses 26 and 27):
“{t}he girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. “
So it is not as though the woman at this point in the inquiry is seeking to prove the man’s guilt and finds herself as the only witness against him. However, it is of interest that the raping of a woman is said to be “the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him.”
(Deuteronomy 22:26) Thus, the crime of rape is made parallel to murder, equated not only as to reprehensibility but also evidently as to being established by the same Scriptural rules of evidence, which included having the testimony of two witnesses. (Numbers 35:30).
It appears that when Jackson says: “the man had already been proved guilty and worthy of death, this being determined by proper procedure earlier in the judges’ inquiry”, that proper procedure was that there had to be either two witnesses or a confession. This conclusion he feels is supported by Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15. How likely is it that the assailant confessed? What man is going to seize an opportunity to rape a woman and then turn around and confess to it, knowing that he will be put to death? On the other hand, how could it be possible that there were two witnesses sufficient to establish the guilt of the man and yet no one heard the woman scream?
But then he appears to acknowledge that there were not two witnesses present by saying:
“On the other hand, if the assailant denied that the woman had screamed for help, the judges would not have a basis for refusing her claim, since, in effect, it would be her word against his and there was no one nearby either to rescue her or to serve as a witness one way or the other as to her scream for help. Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent in that case.
So, under the law, the man would be judged guilty whether the sex was consensual or not. But, according to Jackson, all the woman had to do in order to escape death would be to claim she was raped since there was no second witness to contradict her claim. Read again what he says:
“On the other hand, if the assailant denied that the woman had screamed for help, the judges would not have a basis for refusing her claim, since, in effect, it would be her word against his and there was no one nearby either to rescue her or to serve as a witness one way or the other as to her scream for help. Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses.”
Hence, Jackson believes that, despite there not being a second witness, the man is automatically assumed guilty. Yet, by treating the denial of her assailant as if it was an accusation of consent on her part that could not be verified, no judgment against the woman can be rendered. But if the assailant is going to deny that the woman screamed, why would he not deny that he was the one who raped her? In that case it would be her word against his and the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against him.
It must be asked however, that if this is their view of Deuteronomy 22:25-27 why is this same logic not applied in cases of child sexual abuse? Why is the alleged abuser not automatically assumed guilty?
But then he concludes by pointing to the statement of comparison in verse 26 which says:
“This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him.”
The question is in what way are these two cases similar? Jackson believes it is because under the law in order to judge a person guilty of murder it is necessary to have two witnesses. He states:
“Thus, the crime of rape is made parallel to murder, equated not only as to reprehensibility but also evidently as to being established by the same Scriptural rules of evidence, which included having the testimony of two witnesses (Numbers 35:30).”
Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe there is indication in Deuteronomy 22 as to the man’s motive, and hence guilt, in the beginning of verse 25:
“If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her…”
Here the man is seen to have done this in a place where no one else would be able to hear her scream even if she did, similar to what Cain did. (Gen. 4:8) Also, the word choice in this verse is different from verse 23 in that it is said not just that the man lied down with her but that he overpowered her, showing that the woman was seen to be the unwilling victim and considered innocent. This seems to be the reason verse 26 says:
“This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him.”
Jackson links this with Numbers 35:30 But the proper similarity appears to be Numbers 35:20,21:
“If death resulted because he pushed him out of hatred or threw something at him with malicious intent, or out of hatred he struck him with his hand, and he died, the one who struck him will be put to death without fail. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood will put the murderer to death when he encounters him. (Numbers 35:20, 21)
In the case where a man was killed with malicious intent how would the judges go about determining this?
“But if a man hated his fellow man and he was waiting to attack him and he fatally wounded him and he died, and the man has fled to one of these cities, the elders of his city should then summon him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, and he must die. (Deuteronomy 19:11, 12)
The avenger of blood was allowed to put to death not the unintentional manslayer, but one who out of hatred struck the victim with malicious intent because he was known to be a hater of him formerly. In the case of rape where there is not a second witness, might not evidence of his inviting this woman into the field or previous attempts to seduce her be taken into consideration?
“So he said to him: “Why are you, the king’s son, so depressed every morning? Why not tell me?” Amʹnon replied to him: “I am in love with Taʹmar, the sister of my brother Abʹsa·lom.” (2 Samuel 13:4)
In this case, Amnon openly expressed feelings for his half sister Tamar, leading to some very unwise advice given to him by his friend Jehonadab as to how he could get her alone to himself. Afterwards he raped her.
I can’t help but conclude that the holy spirit did not help Jackson in his courtroom reply. Neither with time to pray and meditate and with the help of skilled writers back in Brooklyn could he come up with a valid response to this verse. It is greatly disturbing to me that instead of making a humble admission that the society’s interpretation of the two witness rule as it applies to rape was wrong, he further entrenched himself in the wrong view a view that had already been shown to have put countless children in danger.