God’s Specification for Earthly Justice
Copyright Ó 1999 by Dann McCreary
Version of June 27, 1999
Corrections and comments are requested and will be
accepted with gratitude.
Introduction
What has become of justice in the world? We have
all, from childhood, learned to recognize the precept "Innocent
until Proven Guilty". When we look around us, however, we all too
readily find examples of the miscarriage of justice; the innocent
mistreated while the guilty go unpunished.
I believe that the root of this lack of justice
is ignorance and misapplication of Biblical principles. Sadly, we
have become accustomed to injustice and dull to the value of truth.
We no longer clearly recognize nor can we clearly enumerate the
fundamental principles upon which earthly justice relies.
The thesis of this paper is that God has given us
in His word a blueprint for the administration of justice. When the
blueprint is followed, justice is done. When it is ignored or set
aside, oppression is the result. Furthermore, because all justice is
rooted in truth, the keystone of God’s blueprint for justice is His
explicit requirement for two or three witnesses to establish the
truth of any matter.
Thankfully, the Scriptures contain many explicit
directives for the administration of justice, examples of the proper
use of testimony and evidence, and examples of the miscarriage of
justice by means of false witnesses, error, and human prejudice.
In this paper I will briefly summarize the
elements of Biblical due process, and will discuss in considerable
detail the essential requirement for two or three witnesses. In
light of the importance of truth, evidence, and testimony, let us
seek the answers to some questions. What are the Biblical standards
for the administration of justice? What does it mean to bear false
witness? What is a true witness? What directives and examples of
these things can we find in Scripture? When giving testimony, are
there standards for truth and penalties for falsehood?
The Elements of Biblical Due Process
God has provided us in His word with sufficient
information to understand how He expects justice to be administered.
The administration of God’s justice must follow a regular procedure
with definable elements that are to be applied impartially. Because
God insists that His ministers act justly, fair and even-handed
treatment is everyone’s right. This has come to be known as "due
process", that is, treatment that is due, or owed, to all alike.
"God is no respecter of persons." Acts 10:34. What, then, are the
basic elements of due process?
The Law -- In order for a crime to take
place, there must first be a law. The law sets forth some
requirement for behavior. Adam and Eve were charged and penalized
only because God had previously said to them "Thou shalt not".
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:17
Paul makes this principle of due process very
clear in his discussion in the book of Romans.
...For the Law brings about wrath, but where
there is no law, neither is there violation. Romans 4:15
…But sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 5:13
And so the existence and application of the law
is a prerequisite for any judicial action.
A Violation of the Law -- After there is an
established law in place, a violation of that law must occur. Some
person, to whom the law applies, must transgress that law.
And when they had threatened them further, they
let them go (finding no basis on which they might punish them). Acts
4:21
Obviously, if no one violates the law, there is
no problem and no further need for due process.
Witnesses -- In order to establish the fact
of a transgression of the law, there must be at least two witnesses
to the violation of that law:
One witness shall not rise up against a man for
any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the
mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall
the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15
This requirement for witnesses will be discussed
at great length in what follows.
The Charge -- There must be an accusation
made by the witnesses. In civil society, this accusation is known as
an indictment. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines
indictment as: "a formal written statement framed by a prosecuting
authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person
with an offense."
Pilate asked for an indictment when Jesus was led
before him in the Praetorium.
Pilate therefore went out to them, and said,
"What accusation do you bring against this Man?" John 18:29
In the church there must also be an indictment,
which, according to Matthew 18, may be brought by any member of the
congregation.
The Tribunal -- There must be a judicial body
qualified to pass judgment. In civil society, this is the civil
magistrate and the courts of law, and is known as a "court of
competent jurisdiction". In the church, this is usually the
governing body of elders, but ultimately, when a transgression is
not repented of, it is the whole congregation who passes judgment
(Matthew 18).
The Sentence -- There must be a just sentence
imposed by a duly authorized judge. When the Jews did not have the
requisite authority to put Jesus to death, they brought Him before
someone who did.
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and
judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him,
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: John 18:31
The Penalty – Finally, the penalty of the
sentence must be carried out.
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23
It should be clear that the process can and
should be terminated at any of several points if God’s requirements
for proceeding are not met. Why is due process important? It is
mandatory that those wielding authority adhere to God’s standard of
justice by acting in accord with these enumerated principles of
Biblical due process. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the obligation
of just judgment laid upon those who rule. Psalm 82 is short but
pointed:
A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the
congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will
ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and
needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the
wicked.
They know not, neither will they understand; they
walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of
course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the
most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all
nations.
According to Psalm 82, those who judge men are
exercising an authority delegated to them by God. In so doing, they
are obligated to judge justly. Judging justly means applying all of
the principles of due process enumerated in Scripture. Should they
fail in this solemn responsibility, they must answer to God. This
psalm applies to the ministers of God, whether they are civil
magistrates or rulers in the congregation.
The rest of this paper will address in greater
detail one of the most important elements of Biblical Due Process:
the requirement for witnesses who can firmly establish the
historical facts of any matter in question.
The Requirement for Two or Three Witnesses
The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, holds
up a very high, but clearly delineated, standard of evidence and
testimony whenever there is a charge against a man.
Simply stated, in order for an indictment against a man to be
considered valid or substantiated, it must be supported by the
testimony of no less than two, and preferably three, witnesses. This
principle is enumerated repeatedly in the Pentateuch:
Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be
put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not
testify against any person to cause him to die. Numbers 35:30
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three
witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at
the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of
the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and
afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil
away from among you. Deuteronomy 17:6
One witness shall not rise up against a man for
any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the
mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall
the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15
It is important to note these points:
Judgment against all crimes, from what is
arguably the most severe of crimes (murder), to any lesser crime or
sin, is subject to this rule which requires no less than two
witnesses.
The two witnesses who would testify against a man
did so in the knowledge that they would be required not only to
execute sentence, but that (should they be found to be lying) they
were subject to the same penalty that they sought, up to and
including death.
The consequence of false witness is described as
follows:
If a false witness rise up against any man to
testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between
whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the
priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges
shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a
false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then
shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his
brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those
which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no
more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life
shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot. Deuteronomy 19:16-21
Does this principle still apply to us under the
New Covenant? Both Jesus and Paul repeated the requirement for at
least two witnesses. Jesus said:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he
shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not
hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of
two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew
18:15-16
Even in your law it has been written, that the
testimony of two men is valid. John 8:17
Charles Hodge concludes that this Old Testament
law still applies:
This principle of justice was transferred by our
Lord to the New Dispensation. …. Every word,
pa'n rh'ma,
every accusation, a sense which, agreeably to the usage of the
corresponding Hebrew word, the Greek word
rh'ma has here in
virtue of the context, as in Matt. 5, 11. 18, 16. 27, 14. Shall
be established, i.e. legally and conclusively proved. [1]
Paul applied this principle of law in the
congregation at Corinth. When contemplating how he would deal with
the sins of unrepentant members of the congregation, he had this to
say:
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. II
Corinthians 13:1
Lenski has this to say on the matter:
Paul follows this reminder with a cold legal
statement, which is abbreviated from Deut. 19:15: By mouth of two
witnesses and of three shall every matter be established. That,
Paul says, is what this my third coming means if there should be any
in Corinth who need this procedure when I come. The corroborating
testimony of at least two witnesses was required by the Jews when
legal action was to be taken, that of three witnesses was considered
a maximum. The same principle holds good in law everywhere. The
Christian Church cannot possibly dispense with this principle when
it deals with cases of discipline, and its action may be that of
expulsion from the congregation. Jesus subjected himself to this
principle of law, John 5:31, etc.; 8:17, 18; he prescribed it for us
in Matt. 18:16; Paul holds to it in I Tim. 5:19. Paul’s word is
intended as a warning. He has just mentioned repentance (12:21). He
hopes that there will be no unrepentant sinners with whom he must
deal when he arrives. They will get a fair trial, but a trial they
will get.
Paul would, of course, not take such cases into
his own hands and out of the hands of the congregation, he would not
act as judge supreme and dictate the verdict by virtue of his
apostolic authority. In I Cor. 5:3-5 he did the very opposite; in II
Cor. 1:24 he declares the direct opposite. The congregation alone
can expel. It hears the necessary witnesses, it passes every motion
in every case. What would be Paul’s function? The same as that which
he exercised in his letters: to advise and to guide the congregation
in the true spirit of Christ.[2]
Paul reiterates this principle to Timothy when
instructing him as to how to deal with accusations against elders.
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but
before two or three witnesses. I Timothy 5:19
And so we see that God has instituted a very
simple, yet profound, principle of law for the protection of the
accused, and that this principle of old is just as valid today as it
was in the day of Moses. But some may say, "If we are required to
adhere rigorously to such a strict standard of evidence, won’t many
guilty go unpunished?" Of this objection, Hodge says:
In the judgement of God, therefore, it is better
that many offenders should go unpunished through lack of testimony,
than that the security of reputation and life should be endangered
by allowing a single witness to establish a charge against any
man.[3]
When the witnesses against the woman caught in
adultery (John 8) ultimately failed to press charges (i.e., there
were NO witnesses other than Jesus), Jesus did not condemn her
although He (as God) knew the truth of the charges.
Philip Edgcumbe Hughes discusses Paul’s
application of the principle of two or three witnesses to the
discipline of the Corinthian church.
The Apostle is forewarning the Corinthians that
he will not hesitate to execute condign justice should the state of
affairs require it during his forthcoming visit, but that everything
will be carried through in strict accord with the principles of
justice laid down in the Mosaic code and approved by Christ Himself
as applicable to disputes within the Church (Mt. 18:16): an adequate
number of witnesses will be called and their evidence considered
before a charge is accepted as proven and sentence passed. Paul is
saying in effect that he will deal with any such cases in a manner
that is both scriptural and also sanctioned afresh by Christ. The
abrupt quotation (which by this time was probably generally
recognized as not only a pentateuchal but also a dominical precept)
lends emphasis to his determination to take formal and effective
action.[4]
This is the source of the well-known precept
"Innocent until Proven Guilty". If this is accepted traditionally as
our societal norm, how much more ought this principle be applied in
the governance of the church?
John Murray, in his essay on The Sanctity of
Truth, soundly condemns precipitate judgments, unsupported by
evidence.
In entertaining belief or conviction it is
necessary that our minds be so informed and our judgment so
disciplined that we shall not allow conviction to be induced,
judgment registered, or representation made until adequate evidence
is discovered and evaluated to ground conviction, judgment, and
representation. No warning or plea is more germane to the question
of truth than that we cultivate the reserve and exercise the caution
whereby we shall be preserved from rash and precipitate judgments
and from the vice of peddling reports that are not authenticated by
the proper evidence. And we must also strive to be blinded by no
prejudice, nor impeded by the remissness of sloth and indifference,
which render us impervious to the force of the compelling evidence
with which we are confronted. Jealousy for truth and for the
conviction that is correspondent will make us alert to evidence when
it is presented and to the absence of evidence when it is not
sufficient. The man of truth is the man of resolute, decisive
conviction; he is also the man of scrupulous reserve. "Thou shalt
not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" (Leviticus
19:16).[5]
If the requirement for two or three witnesses still stands today,
we should carefully consider the meaning and purpose and nature of
witness and testimony.
What Is a True Witness?
At the most fundamental level of analysis there are only two
kinds of testimony or witness - true and false. What constitutes a
true witness? The purpose of calling a witness is to arrive at the
truth of the historic reality of a particular event or circumstance.
History is comprised of the actions of God and men in time and
space. Truthful witness is at the very heart of Biblical due
process. While God is omniscient, men are not. Therefore, men call
witnesses to report what they may have seen and heard in order to
establish an agreed upon record of relevant events.
To testify against a man is a serious matter, entailing
responsibilities of truthfulness and penalties for falsehood.
Bearing false witness against a neighbor is such a fundamental evil
that it is prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments. Rushdoony
comments:
A fundamental aspect of Biblical law appears in
the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Basic to this
law is its reference to the courts and perjury. The courts represent
God’s vengeance as ordered and channeled through human but
God-ordained agencies. Within the courts, for justice to prevail,
honest and faithful testimony is a necessity. However, because man
is a sinner, and the agencies of human society reflect man’s sin,
checks and balances are necessary. The testimony of a witness must
be subject to cross-examination and to corroboration. The law is
clear at this point:[6]
There are a variety of types of witness distinguished in
scripture, both explicitly and by example.
- Testimony from direct observation
- The testimony of the injured party
- Self-testimony
- Documentary evidence
- Physical evidence
- The testimony of Scripture applied to actions
- Conscience
- Indirect evidence
Direct observation by a living person is the most basic, and
when corroborated, the most reliable indicator of historic reality.
In John 8 a woman was accused of adultery. There were multiple
witnesses who had "caught her in the very act". That this was a
set-up is likely, and so the witnesses probably walked in at a
pre-determined time and observed the adultery in progress.
Direct observation may be by any reasonable path to the senses;
sight, hearing, even touch. Samuel, for example, confronted Saul
with evidence from his (Samuel’s) sense of hearing.
And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the
sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I
hear? 1 Samuel 15:14 (EMPHASIS ADDED)
Saul could hardly contest the evidence that was "evident".
The apostle John lived and wrote with his mind and thoughts never
far from the importance of authentic testimony. He begins his first
epistle by presenting the testimony of a strong claim of direct
observation:
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what
we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our
hands handled, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was
manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and
proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was
manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we
proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and
indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus
Christ. I John 1:1-3 (EMPHASIS ADDED)
Notice the repeated references to the direct observation by the
apostles. The testimony of direct observation goes right to the
heart of the historical veracity of the gospel.
Self-testimony is a particular kind of witness by direct
observation. The man blind from birth (John 9) had this to say of
himself:
"… one thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."
John 9:25
A person’s own conscience may act as testimony to that person;
however, it is not always reliable; it must be supported or
contradicted by other, more reliable evidence.
I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby
acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. I Corinthians 4:4
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and
knoweth all things. I John 3:20
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
It is possible for a man to be self-condemned by speaking or
acting in violation of the law in the presence of a lawful number of
witnesses. For example, at the trial of Jesus, after the rulers were
unable to find consistent testimony even among perjurers, the high
priest put Jesus under obligation to answer truthfully under oath
(per Leviticus 5:1) whether or not He was Christ, Son of God.
And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by
the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the
Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say
unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high
priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what
further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of
death. Matthew 26:63-66
Of course, had this answer been given by any other human being,
the conclusion of the high priest would have been valid.
Testimony against oneself may not legitimately be compelled.
Rushdoony says this:
As noted previously we are not under any moral
obligation to tell the truth to an enemy seeking to harm or destroy
us. The duty to tell the truth is reserved for normal relationships
which are within the framework of law, and to the proceedings of
courts of law in church, state, and other institutions.
Even here, however, there are limitations on the
power of the court or the demands of other persons. The Biblical law
of testimony does not permit torture or coerced confessions.
Voluntary confession is possible, but two or more witnesses are
required for conviction. More strictly, confession is never cited in
the law; its place in a court was apparently only in connection with
corroborating evidence. Thus Achan’s confession required confirming
evidence before he was sentenced and executed (Josh. 7:19-26). The
voluntary aspect of Achan’s confession must be noted. Biblical law
preserves the integrity of the individual against forced confession;
the right of citizens to be protected from the power of the state to
compel their self-incrimination does not appear outside of Biblical
legal tradition.[7]
The testimony of an injured party is a special case of
self-testimony witness.
For example, Jesus spoke in Matthew 18 – "If your brother sins
against you …" In this situation, the injured party is a witness
to his own injury. He has standing to bring an accusation against
the one who injured him because he has direct personal knowledge of
the injury.
Another example is found in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, where we see a
new husband accusing his bride of pre-marital infidelity. Assuming
that he is being truthful, the husband has direct personal knowledge
of his bride’s condition on their wedding night.
Documentary evidence is a form of witness. It is the usual
and customary form of recording a covenant or contract.
Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal
them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin, and in the places
about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of
the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of
the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the
LORD. Jeremiah 32:44
Note that in this example, the document is witnessed so that the
parties cannot later claim that the document is fraudulent. Should a
dispute arise, those who witnessed the signing and sealing of the
document may be called to testify in the matter.
Verbal covenants are usually witnessed as well. A wedding is
perhaps the most common example; many guests witness the exchange of
vows between bride and groom.
Physical evidence may be a form of witness. Here are a few
scriptural examples.
When a man was keeping an animal for his neighbor, to protect the
owner of the beast from fraud, the carcass of the beast had to be
produced as physical evidence in the event that the beast was killed
by wild animals. Note especially verse 13:
If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep,
or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no
man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both,
that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods; and the
owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. And
if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner
thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness,
and he shall not make good that which was torn. Exodus 22:11-13
There was a certain man lame from birth. (Acts 3) He used to sit
at the temple gate daily, begging, and so was seen and recognized by
virtually everyone who went in and out of the temple.
One day, Peter took his hand and the man was healed. Not everyone
who knew him was there at the moment of his healing. Nevertheless,
everyone who saw him after the healing could easily see the physical
evidence that a miracle had occurred.
"What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy
miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in
Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it." Acts 4:16
In James 5:3 we see rust acting as a witness. In John 19:34, the
blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side bore witness that he
had actually died. In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, the parents of a virgin
daughter brought some kind of physical evidence of her virginity. A
recording can be a witness.
"this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard
all the words of the Lord…" Judges 24:27
The testimony of Scripture (law) applied to actions
(facts) may be a witness. This can be a positive thing, as when
Jesus by his life showed Himself to be the Son of God.
You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you
have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; John 5:39
This can be a negative thing, as when the fruit of a person’s
life shows them to be living in unbelief.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles? Matthew 7:16
The first example of law ("Thou shalt not eat") being applied to
action ("I did eat... I did eat") is seen in Genesis chapter 3. Note
that there were two witnesses to the facts, Adam and Eve.
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten
of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave
me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman,
What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent
beguiled me, and I did eat. Genesis 3:11-13
The testimony of Conscience may be a witness (within
certain limits). A man’s conscience is a powerful force for
directing his actions.
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing
me witness in the Holy Ghost. Romans 9:1
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts,
while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting
thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them Romans 2:15
Conscience by itself does not constitute conclusive evidence.
I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this
acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. I Corinthians
4:4
Much more could be said of various kinds of witness and
testimony. The common thread is that they all act to bring to light
and establish the truth of an historical event. The importance of
understanding the nature of witnesses in the context of Biblical due
process is the fact that at least two or three valid witnesses are
absolutely required in order to convict a man of any crime.
What Is a False Witness?
Now let us consider examples of false, or invalid, witness.
What constitutes a false witness?
- Uncorroborated testimony
- Inconsistent testimony
- A malicious lie
- Hearsay, speculation, and opinion
- Inaccurate testimony, however well-meaning
- Tampering with evidence
Uncorroborated testimony. The testimony of only one witness
can never be valid by itself. No matter how reliable, how
unimpeachable the witness, under Biblical principles, corroborating
testimony must be sought and found before a case can move forward to
sentencing.
Even in your law it has been written, that the testimony of two
men is true. John 8:17
If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at
the mouth of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the
testimony of one witness. Numbers 35:30
I include this here because, although the testimony of a single
witness may be true, it must be judicially rejected. Even our Lord,
who is The Truth, acknowledged this rule of due process:
If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. John
5:31
Jesus here has acknowledged the absolute necessity of at least
two witnesses.
Inconsistent testimony. To be valid, the testimony of the two
or three witnesses being relied upon must be consistent.
Mark’s account of the false witnesses against Jesus brings out
the recognized requirement for witness agreement:
And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness
against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare
false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with
hands, and within three days I will build another made without
hands. But neither so did their witness agree together. Mark
14:55-59
Two harlots came before King Solomon for judgment (I Kings 3).
Their testimony agreed only up to a point; they both lived together,
they both had sons; but the testimony diverged at the significant
point of contention; namely, whose son was living.
Malicious testimony. A malicious (i.e. deliberate) lie is
perhaps the worst form of false witness. David complained of this in
Psalm 35:
Malicious witnesses rise up: They ask me of things that I do not
know. Psalm 35:11
Two worthless men testified "Naboth cursed God and the king" (I
Kings 21).
False witnesses were recruited to testify against Stephen:
Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak
blasphemous words against Moses and against God." And they stirred
up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him
and dragged him away, and brought him before the Council. And they
put forward false witnesses who said, "This man incessantly speaks
against this holy place, and the Law; for we have heard him say that
this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs
which Moses handed down to us." Acts 6:11-14
False witnesses were sought to testify against Jesus.
Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought
false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none:
yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the
last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able
to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the
high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what
is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace.
Matthew 26:59-63
Joseph’s cloak, left in the hand of Potiphar’s wife, was used as
a false witness against him.
And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he
left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out. And it came
to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and
was fled forth, That she called unto the men of her house, and spake
unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock
us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud
voice: Genesis 39:12-14
Hearsay, speculation, and opinion. Everyone is entitled to
hold their own opinion; however, testimony based upon opinion is
invalid because it is not based on direct observation or experience.
One of the clearest scriptural examples of unjust condemnation
based on hearsay and speculation is the testimony of Job’s friends.
They concluded that Job must have sinned in some grievous fashion.
However, they had no direct observation of Job sinning – their
conclusion was based entirely upon inferences from the disaster that
had befallen Job.
And his anger burned against his three friends because they had
found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. Job 32:3
Job himself is reproved for a similar error. God points out that
Job was not personally present to witness most of God’s creation
activity, and therefore does not have the direct personal knowledge
required to testify. In the end of the book, Job admits that in his
statements he had gone beyond his competence to be a witness.
Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? …
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me,
if you have understanding. Job 38:2
Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I
have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful
for me, which I did not know. Job 42:3
Hearsay has never been acceptable as evidence.
The idea of testimony or of a witness derived from unverifiable
subjective convictions is not known in the OT, and also has no place
in Judaism.[8]
Any testimony presuming knowledge of the internal intention or
motivation of another person is, at its core, a false witness. While
it is normal to form opinions of what makes someone else "tick", it
is not possible to know with certainty what is in the heart or mind
of another.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the
Spirit of God. I Corinthians 2:11
Apart from the man himself, only God has direct knowledge of
man’s heart.
Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do,
and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou
knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the
children of men;) I Kings 8:39
"I am He who knows, and am a witness," declares the Lord.
Jeremiah 29:23
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who
both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will
make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man
have praise of God. I Corinthians 4:5
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all
men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what
was in man. John 2:24,25
To pass judgment based upon a presumed understanding of what is
in the heart of an accused party is a violation of scripture.
I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this
acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not
go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord
comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness
and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise
will come to him from God. I Corinthians 4:4,5
To pass judgment based upon hearsay alone is unacceptable. While
hearsay may be the cause of initiating an inquiry, it must be
followed by a thorough investigation.
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy
God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the
children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn
the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other
gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and
make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it
be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is
wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite ... Deuteronomy 13:12-15
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
Notice how the necessity for certainty in validating the claim of
wrongdoing is reiterated repeatedly. This validation must be subject
to and governed by the requirement, clearly delineated elsewhere, of
a minimum of two or three witnesses.
Inaccurate testimony, however well meaning, is false witness.
In I Corinthians 15:15, Paul argues for the resurrection by showing
the logical consequences that would result if there were no
resurrection:
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have
testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if
so be that the dead rise not. I Corinthians 15:15
Evidence tampering is a form of false witness. Joseph’s
brothers tampered with evidence when they dipped his coat in animal
blood in order to deceive their father.
And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and
dipped the coat in the blood; And they sent the coat of many colors,
and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found:
know now whether it be thy son's coat or no. And he knew it, and
said, It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph
is without doubt rent in pieces. Genesis 37:31-33
These are all examples of the false kinds of witness that God
despises. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".
We must take exceeding care to eliminate any witness of this nature
from all of our judicial proceedings.
Conclusion
The Scriptures make it clear that God considers earthly justice a
matter of paramount importance. He requires those who administer
justice to do so in rigorous adherence to His specifications. The
bible presents for our instruction many clear examples of justice
carried out by means of the due process of law as well as examples
of the miscarriage of justice.
The requirement for at least two or three legitimate witnesses is
the central element of due process. All of God’s ministers, whether
civil magistrates or overseers in the congregation, are bound to
abide by God’s requirements for due process in the administration of
justice. Those ministers who substitute their own subjective
judgment for God’s specified due process are acting outside of the
domain of God’s delegated authority and, according to Psalm 82, will
consequently come under the judgment of God.
1) A Commentary on 1&2 Corinthians, p. 676, Charles Hodge, The
Banner of Truth Trust
2) The Interpretation of Paul's First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians, pp. 1325-1326, by R.C.H. Lenski - Augsburg Publishing
House, Minneapolis, Minnesota
3) Ibid., p. 675
4) Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians - The English Text
with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, p. 475, by Philip Edgcumbe
Hughes, Th.D., D. Litt. - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, Michigan
5) Principles of Conduct, pp. 134-135, by John Murray - WM. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan
6) The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 565-566, by Rousas John
Rushdoony, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company
7) The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 565-566, by Rousas John
Rushdoony, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company
8) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p.
1042 - Edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans Bietenhard
- The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan
PLEASE CALL MESSAGE CENTER
FOR A FREE, CONFIDENTIAL INTERVIEW
Voice Message 208-246-4635
Email :
sales@him-2.org
