Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The Bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to establish a matter. (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19) But under the Law, if a man raped an engaged girl “in the field” and she screamed, she was innocent of adultery, and he was not. Given that others did not witness the rape, why was she innocent while he was guilty?

Discover the depths of ancient justice in ‘Witnesses in the Wilderness,’ where the Biblical Law of Evidence and the unique case of unseen transgression are scrutinized. Learn how the Mosaic Law upheld truth and protected the vulnerable when no witnesses were present, affirming Jehovah’s role as the divine observer in matters of justice and innocence.

In the judicial systems established within the Mosaic Law, a matter of guilt or innocence was to be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). This principle is a fundamental aspect of the Law, underscoring the importance of substantiated evidence in the administration of justice. This standard, reaffirmed in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 18:16; 1 Timothy 5:19), upholds the value of integrity, truth, and the prevention of false accusations within the community of God’s people.

However, a notable exception to this requirement arises in the case of a supposed act of sexual violence, specifically the case of a man who assaults an engaged woman in a secluded location, such as a field, where her calls for help could go unheard (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Here, the Torah provides specific guidance: if the woman cried out and there was no one to rescue her, she is innocent of any wrongdoing, whereas the man is found guilty.

This might appear at first glance to be an exception to the requirement for eyewitness testimony, yet it is fully aligned with the principles underlying the Law. To understand this, one must consider the context and the protective measures that the Law sought to establish for the vulnerable.

First, the setting of “in the field” is crucial. The field represents isolation, where any call for help would likely go unanswered. The engagement of the woman, which in biblical times meant that she was legally bound to her betrothed husband, is also significant. It established a mutual responsibility and protection akin to marriage. The Law’s stipulation here is not an oversight in justice but rather a profound insight into the nature of violence and victimization.

It’s essential to recognize the overarching objective of the Mosaic Law in such cases: to safeguard individuals and the community by upholding justice and compassion. The scenario described assumes the worst-case situation, where the woman is utterly helpless and vulnerable. By stating the woman’s innocence, the Law effectively presumes her non-consent in this context and prioritizes her protection.

From a textual perspective, the Hebrew terms used in the account are telling. The use of the verb “to seize” (תפשׂ) carries connotations of overpowering and taking hold by force. The woman’s cry (זעקה) signifies her resistance and plea for help. These terms create a clear picture of violence against her will, thus establishing her innocence.

In the historical and cultural context, the expectation was that a woman would resist such an attack and that any silence on her part might imply consent. Therefore, her cry is her witness. It’s her vocal resistance against the violence she’s enduring. In a setting where no one could hear her, her cry, albeit unheard by men, is “heard” by Jehovah, who sees and knows all things. The judicial process, therefore, relied on an understanding of God as the ultimate witness and judge, one who is capable of discerning the truth in human affairs (Hebrews 4:13).

The man’s guilt, conversely, is ascertained because he has transgressed the commandment against committing adultery (Exodus 20:14). The Law condemned such a man for his action, predicated upon the presumption of the woman’s cry for help as an assertion of non-consent. Since there were no witnesses to contradict this presumption, the case hinged on this piece of circumstantial evidence.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Law here is remarkably progressive for its time, in that it protects the woman from being unjustly accused of adultery—a crime punishable by death—if she were assaulted out of earshot of potential helpers. The presumption of her innocence is a protective legal measure, acknowledging the realities of assault and the inherent difficulties in its proof.

Moreover, this ruling reflected the broader themes of the Law, which included protecting the innocent and vulnerable, establishing justice, and deterring potential crimes by imposing severe penalties on those who would commit them. It implicitly discouraged the crime of rape by placing the onus of proof on the man’s behavior rather than the woman’s lack of witnesses.

In conclusion, the provision in the Law that allows for the determination of guilt in the absence of eyewitnesses in the case of a man assaulting an engaged woman in the field is not a contradiction but a reflection of the Law’s deeper principles of justice, truth, and protection for the vulnerable. It acknowledges Jehovah as the ultimate witness to all actions, whether seen by humans or not. This exception demonstrates the Law’s sensitivity to context and its prioritization of compassion and care for victims of crimes, especially in cases where human witnesses could not be present. It stands as a testament to the Law’s complexity and its role as a guardian of morality and justice within the community of Jehovah’s people.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).