Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause.
The nature and extent of false witness
There is nothing more dear and valuable to men than their reputation or good name. It is a mark of an abandoned spirit to have no regard to it. Men have always been very tender in preserving it in themselves, and they ought to make great conscience of taking it wrongfully from others. So much reputation is so much power, and according to men’s esteem and credit in the world, so much proportionably is their influence and the weight they have in it. For the same reasons that we are obliged not to injure our neighbour in his person or property, we ought to be very tender of his good name and reputation. Then always have a just regard to truth and charity, and the benefit and advantage of the public. Our neighbour is whomsoever it happens at any time to be in our power either to injure or do kindness to; whosoever can, in any respect, become the better or the worse, or receive any hurt or any benefit, by our behaviour towards them. The word which we render “deceive” signifies in the original, any damage or inconvenience brought upon a man in the way of slander, calumny, backbiting, or any other injurious manner of presenting him.
I. The nature and extent of the sin here forbidden. The highest form of the sin is deliberately giving false evidence in judicial matters. Another degree of the vice is when men bear false testimony against their brethren, after a secret manner, in private conversation. Whether revenge, or anything else, be the temptation to the practice, the nature of the sin itself is of the deepest dye. There are still lower degrees of the fault. The careless and rash custom of spreading censorious reports to the disadvantage of our neighbour, without caring to inquire into the truth of the accusation. Under this head come innumerable sorts of calumny, detraction, slander, evil-speaking, backbiting, tale-bearing, rash judgment, etc.. Men in such matters are often faulty through negligence and want of care and attention. That person is a very perfect man indeed who can be continually upon his guard against this error. The lowest degree of this fault is when men are censorious towards their brethren, spreading abroad things that are true needlessly, and contrary to the laws of charity. It is a breach of Christian charity to take delight in spreading even true reports needlessly, to the damage, or disadvantage, of our neighbour.
II. Reasons or motives which ought to influence our practice in this matter. From the nature and constitution of human society there arises a strong argument why men ought to govern their words as well as actions. By injurious speech, mutual trust and good-will are destroyed, on which depends the welfare and happiness of mankind. Mischief comes to the man himself. The natural punishment of a licentious and unbridled tongue is the inconveniences it is very apt to bring, in the course of things, upon the person himself. But worse is the secret damage done to others. Slander and uncharitable defamation is “a pestilence that walketh in darkness.” Another motive obliging men to restrain licentious speech is the consideration of the inconsistency of it with a due sense of religion. A principal part of pure religion is that men approve themselves by a good conversation, with meekness of wisdom. Another argument against calumny is the consideration that we are ourselves subject to error. He that is infallibly secured against all errors himself, let him be as censorious as he pleases upon the mistakes of others. Our Saviour forbids this censoriousness towards others, under the penalty of being more strictly judged ourselves. (S. Clarke, D.D.)
Wrong testimony against neighbours
The verses suggest three kinds of wrong testimony.
I. A causeless one. “Be not s witness against thy neighbour without cause.” There are those who are, for no service, either to themselves or to society, testifying of the defects and infirmities of their neighbours.
II. A false one. “And deceive not with thy lips.”
III. A revengeful one. “Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.” (Homilist.)
Revenging injuries
These words are a direct prohibition of revenging injuries and recompensing evil for evil, and give us a rule of duty in ease of wrong done to us.
I. Was revenge allowed to the jews? In Leviticus 19:18 it is said, “Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy people.” This has been taken to imply that a Jew might kill a stranger, and consequently take any inferior degree of revenge on him. But compare the injunctions respecting the treatment of the stranger in Exodus 22:1-31; Exodus 23:1-33; Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 10:1-22, etc. As to the retaliation granted (Exodus 21:24), this allowance was not made to the party injured, so that he might satisfy and distribute justice to himself; but to the judge, so that he might allot compensation for the wrong done.
II. Enforce the great duty of forgiveness.
1. From the reasonableness of this duty in itself. Reasonable men must allow its force and truth. By corrupt and undisciplined natures only is revenge counted as a mark of a noble and brave spirit. But it is a sign of superiority of mind to forgive the trespass. We ought to make our forgiveness as useful to the trespasser as possibly we can. Prudence should arrest the forwardness of charity in granting pardons.
2. The great weight our Saviour lays upon our forgiving others, in order to our title to our own forgiveness. There is no proportion in number betwixt our offences against God and those of the most offensive of our brethren against us.
3. We have great reason to forgive them, because of the good use and advantage we may make of our enemies. Charity is the greatest manager in the world.
III. Mistakes which mislead men in their judgments concerning their own forgiveness.
1. The mistake of those who think they have paid a fair obedience to the law of charity, when they strike the offender only with the impartial hand of that of the law.
2. The mistake of those who think they may consign the trespasser to the judgment of God.
3. The mistake of judging the truth of our forgiveness on a principle of sloth. Some men are too ready to move themselves to resentment.
4. The mistake of thinking we have forgiven, when the fact is that the impressions have only worn off our minds. This is forgetting, not forgiving, since forgiveness is properly our own work, and not one of time. (George Wallis, D.D.)
Retaliation repudiated
An incident well worth relating is told of General Robert Lee, the Confederate officer during the American Civil War. Jefferson Davis once asked him what he thought of a certain officer in the army, as he had an important place he wanted filled by a trustworthy man. Lee gave the officer an excellent recommendation, and he was immediately promoted to the position. Some of Lee’s friends told him that the officer had said some very bitter things against him, and were surprised at the General’s recommendation. “I was not asked,” said Lee, “for the officer’s opinion of me, but my opinion of him.” Only a noble heart could prompt such action. In praying, we are told to love our enemies, but in our every-day life we too often love only those who love us.