The Evidence Required Before Conviction For A Crime: The Punishment of False Witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
The section on justice and the governing of the land which began at Deuteronomy 16:18 now ends with the principles on which justice must be decided laid out, and with a warning to false witnesses. The first principle is that no one should be condemned simply on the testimony of one witness. The second that a man proved to be a false witness must be punished in accordance with the severity of the charge.
What follows is a case where a man brings a charge against another, and explains what is to be done where that ‘witness' is proved to have brought a false charge and to be a false witness. It thus also underlines the demand in all cases that one witness is not sufficient. Two or three witnesses are required if a case is to be made satisfactorily.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
a One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established (Deuteronomy 19:15).
b If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days (Deuteronomy 19:16-17).
b And the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother, then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother (Deuteronomy 19:18).
a So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you, and those who remain will hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you, and your eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Deuteronomy 19:19-21).
Note that in ‘a' the system of accepting testimony must be fair and reasonable, and not be dependent on only one witness, for that would be suspicious, and in the parallel any judgment will thus put away evil from among them. Note the abundance of charges in ‘a', ‘for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins' and the abundance of comparisons in the parallel, ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot'. In ‘b' if the charge is brought that a man is a false witness it must be brought before the judges, and in the parallel if after examination he be found to be a false witness he shall be punished accordingly.
‘ One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.'
No man must ever be condemned on the basis of one witness. Indeed cases where there was only one witness could only be looked on with suspicion. At least two witnesses, and preferably three, were to be required before a matter could be seen as established (compare Deuteronomy 17:6). This applied to all cases and was to be the basis of all justice so that men may not be falsely accused by one person out of spite or hatred. The danger that would arise from that is now exemplified by dealing with a case of false witness.
“For any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins.” The coverage is wide. It covers all offences, as does the final judgment in Deuteronomy 9:21.
‘ If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days, and the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother, then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.'
The section began with a warning that justices must behave justly and rightly (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). It ends with the requirement for witnesses that they behave in the same way. If a man accuses another of a serious offence, serious enough to be brought before the supreme court consisting of priests and judges in the presence of Yahweh at the Tabernacle, compare Deuteronomy 17:9 where judge is singular (here the local judges may have been called in), and on full and careful examination his accusation is seen to be false, then he himself will be punished with the punishment that would have fallen on the other if he had been found guilty. Thus will the evil of false witness be put away from among them.
The fact that a number of judges were called on confirms the seriousness with which this case was being viewed. It may well have been referred to the supreme court because it was a serious charge, and there was only one witness. But the plural may indicate that the judges local to where the men lived had also been called in.
‘ And those who remain will hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you.'
And the result will be that all other members of Israel will hear, and fear, and will no longer behave in such an evil way. False witness was, and is, always a problem for justice. Even two or three witnesses might be in collusion, although hopefully an astute judge could question them to demonstrate whether they were reliable. It was such a problem to the courts that this rather drastic treatment was meted out in respect of it. The accuser had desired to bring this punishment on an innocent party, instead it would come on themselves. And the fact that there could be such a false witness evidenced why at least two witnesses must always be required.
‘ And your eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.'
No pity was to be shown to such a false witness. The punishment should be exactly according to what he was trying to bring on the other, whether life for life (for accusations which could cause the death penalty), eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. It should be noted that this law of retribution was actually a merciful one. It limited the punishment that could be given to a fair basis. Nothing worse must be done to a person than they had done to another. It did not always mean that it had to be literally applied. Agreement could be reached on a lesser penalty or on compensation. But in the final analysis it was the limit past which punishment could not go. The law was common throughout the Ancient Near East. Jesus stressed that the Christian should not use it in personal dealings (Matthew 5:38-39). Christians were to respond in love, even to their enemies and those who offended against them.