4. Advocates. We find no notice of professional advocates. The “lawyers” of New Testament history were men versed in the law and were teachers of law, but not by any means the modern advocate. Every man might be his own advocate, and even women were heard before no less a king than Solomon himself (1 Kings 3: 16–18). Noble-hearted, disinterested men seem in Oriental life to have undertaken this service voluntarily for the poor and the fatherless, of which Job gives a touching description (Job 29: 7–17). Isaiah exhorts to this duty: “Plead for the widow” (1: 17). It was the noble doctrine of this system—“Our law judges no man before it hears him and knows what he doeth” (Jn. 7: 51). Moses puts it thus—“Ye shall hear the small as well as the great” (Deut. 1: 17). “If there arise a matter in judgment between blood and blood, between plea and plea,” etc. (Deut. 17: 8).
5. Of Witnesses—the points of chief importance are these:
(1.) They testified under oath—the manner of administration being this: The witness listened to the rehearsalof the words, and gave his oral assent, “Amen,” or, “As thou sayest.” The passage (Lev. 5: 1) describes the case of one who sins in this way, hearing the voice—i. e. the words of the sacred oath, adjuring him to testify whether he has seen or known any thing in this case. Then if he will not make known, “he shall bear his iniquity.”——A special statute for the case of a wife suspected of conjugal infidelity shows how she is to be put under this solemn oath (Num. 5: 19–22). She listens to the words of the oath and responds, “Amen, amen.” (See also Prov. 29: 24 and Mat. 26: 63).
(2.) That the witnesses were examined separately and in presence of the accused appears probable from a comparison of Mat. 26: 61 with Mk. 14: 55–59. Jesus was present (Mat. 26: 62).
(3) As to the requisite number of witnesses—a criminal case of capital crime required two besides the accuser (Deut. 17: 6 and 19: 15). Hence the phrase—“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (Mat. 18: 16).——A supposed case is stated (Ex. 22: 10, 11) in which the complainant and the accused are the only witnesses. Both are put under oath; but the testimony of the accused under oath seems to be accepted as his vindication.
(4.) By another peculiar provision of the Mosaic statutes, the witnesses in certain cases must be first to execute the penalty (Deut. 17: 7, and 13: 9, and Acts 7: 58, and John 8: 7). This provision was doubtless morally wholesome.
IX. Punishments.
A few points not already brought to view deserve a brief notice.
1. Fines.—Some were fixed by statute. The highest known to the law (one hundred shekels of silver) was laid on the man who falsely accused his wife of previous unchastity (Deut. 22: 19). Another case among violations of the seventh commandment appears (Deut. 22: 28, 29).——In the case of an ox goring some one fatally, the penalty of death upon his owner might be commuted to a fine at the discretion of the judges (Ex. 21: 28–31)—a wise provision because the real culpability of hisowner must vary with circumstances. In another case (Ex. 21: 22), the suffering party and the judge fixed the amount of the fine.
2. The sin and the trespass offerings sustained a slight relation to fines, since the party bore the cost of the animal sacrificed—a young bullock, a kid of goats, etc. These laws may be seen in Lev. 4 and 5 and in Num. 15: 27–29. They pertain to sins of ignorance and of remissness; never to presumptuous sins. In addition to the cost of the sacrifice the penalty included a public confession of the offense, and was well adapted to make a good moral impression.