RTS Papers / Genesis to Joshua / Fall 2017
An Exegetical Paper on the General Equity Principle
The aim of this paper will be to demonstrate the following thesis — False witness violates the image of God as such; and consequently all instances in the law of Moses are magnifications of the moral law, applicable to the state and especially to the church. Such a principle will apply both to the secular kingdom and to the kingdom of Christ. The mode of its application will be different in each. For example there are punishments in the civil sphere where the public has such an interest in what I will call “civil lying” (e.g. fraud, perjury, tax evasion, treaty-breaking, etc.). On the other hand there will be a kind of court within the church as well. Various kinds of lying will become matters of church discipline; and such a sacred court will have a higher standard of truth-telling than may be expected of the world. Our focus will be especially on the Laws Concerning Witnesses in Deuteronomy 19:15-21.
What is the significance of its context for its meaning?
What is the context of these laws? Our answer to that depends on what context we mean. There are various systematic theological contexts in which we better understand the specific laws by knowing what is meant by the three forms of the law—moral, ceremonial, and judicial—and the way in which the law relates to God in general (cf. Ex. 20:1, Jam. 2:10) and to Christ in particular (cf. Lk. 24:44-45, Rom. 10:4). Then there are the various biblical theological contexts. As to the historical backdrop, there is the law given at Sinai and there is the recitation of that law for the second generation at the gates of the Promised Land. At certain points there is nuance in moving from the former to the latter. As to the literary form it is “legislative text” or “jurisprudence” [Currid, 82]. in spite of its other narrative diversities.
Does this particular law occur multiple times in the Pentateuch?
Although the passage in Deuteronomy is our center, there are parallel texts found in Exodus 20:16, 23:1-3, 6-8, Leviticus 5:1, and Deuteronomy 5:20. In these various elements of our main text are included. Is there any significance in this repetition throughout the Pentateuch? If nothing else, it echoes that the true witness is crucial to justice in Israel. Of all of the related laws on truthfulness, Deuteronomy 19:15-21 is of most interest to the thesis.
One reason is that the laws readdressed in Deuteronomy often have a more progressive character. In other words, more of ancient Israel’s permanent life in the land is in view. The other reason is that in this text the idea of a witness and a formal process is explicitly discussed. It is as if there is an ideal witness and an ideal courtroom. We may shudder at such a thought today. A courtroom may strike us a cold and wooden place. But to someone being oppressed it is a place of refuge and potential liberation. Thus the Old Testament is filled with the language of doing justice for the downtrodden.
What are the elements of this specific law?
There are a few noteworthy components of the command: 1. the number of witnesses; the integrity of the witnesses; 3. the role of the judge, or judges; and 4. the punishment.
(1) The Number of Witnesses. This is especially pertinent when the crime in view is a false witness. The Mosaic law addresses this by the principle of at least two witnesses: “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established” (19:15; cf. Num. 35:30, Deut. 17:6).
(2) The Integrity of the Witnesses. Note that the false witness may be either the malicious witness or even the accuser. It is suggested by Gispen that the construction עֵד־חָמָ֖ס in this passage suggests “a witness of violence, of wrong,” in other words, “a witness who intended to do violence or wrong against the innocent by supporting the guilty party” [227]. It is a conspiracy of false witness. The other thing to notice about the integrity of the witness is that the prospects for justice in the case of all of the other commandments depend on the true witness. No doubt those who commit any of the other crimes will often maintain their innocence; and just as surely the innocent will often be blamed for committing those other crimes.
At this point the true witness is the hinge of the whole justice system. That is why the witnesses are cautioned against forming a faction to sabotage justice. In the Exodus 23 passage it says, “You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice” (vv. 1-2). Childs suggests the same Hebrew connotation of “set your hand with” תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙, in the conspiracy of kings (cf. 2 Ki. 15:19), in the good alliance of Ahikam the son of Shaphan to save the prophet (cf. Jer. 26:24), and in a plea of Job (cf. 30:2) [481]. In these there is a kind of locking arms together in a cause. This may have been a smaller “special interest group,” but may also be the more natural lure of the majority.
(3) The Role of the Judge, or Judges. To appear “before the LORD” shows us how the courtroom of God’s people has a kind of priority over secular courts. We will revisit this in the application section on the church. For now, we simply note that in Israel there was no divorce between the secular court and the priestly class. So it says to come “before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days” (v. 17). We may remember that the priests were to guard (שָׁמַר) the holy things of God. This refers principally to the sanctuary. However the courts of justice in Israel become a another kind of “sanctuary” so that the priests were also guardians of social justice.
In the Exodus 23 passage, twice there is reference to showing partiality toward the poor. Some have tried to make this mean the opposite. But Gispen points out that this was actually a temptation for judges, to appear a man of the people: a “false democracy” [227]. If this is really the emphasis, then we can see that a wealthier person is an image of God as well; and thus we cannot, out of envy, deprive even the rich man of his good name.
A classic New Testament passage is the example of Pilate — “he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves’” (Mat. 27:24). Such an action falsely assumes that one can opt out of rendering justice. It can be said of both the witnesses and judges that their chief object is justice. In a negative role they are obstructing justice. In Exodus 23:2, the verse ends with the infinitive להטת, which, in the English, is rendered “to pervert justice.” Note that the Hebrew word for justice is not present. One commentator argues that it is implied.
Neither the witnesses nor the judges are to show favoritism. They are not present to defend their own, but to tell the truth. If they know the truth, or know enough to find it out, then they are complicit in the false witness if they do not come to the aid of the oppressed with that truth.
(4) The Punishment Proper. Poythress remarks about the text that no damage was actually done. Hence the words “as he had meant to do.” Thus even where there is no material restoration there is still punishment. What then is prescribed? It says, “Then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother” (v. 19). What can possibly be meant by this? Are God’s people to lie about the person who lied about another person! This would change Gandhi’s maxim a bit: “A lie for a lie makes the whole world x.” However, this would miss the point. This particular application of the lex talionis only makes sense 1. if there were objective damages sustained to the image of God by the original lie, and 2. if there was a real constructive remedy for those damages.
Comentarios