At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death he shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.
Deuteronomy 17 deals with the worst crime Israel could commit. A man or woman among God's own people turns to worship other gods, and the penalty is death by stoning. Yet before anyone picks up a stone, God sets a limit on His own court. One voice, however honest, can never send a person to die.
The offence behind this verse is not a private failing. It is open rebellion against the God who ruled the nation. One writer shows how tightly religion and public law were tied together here, and warns against carrying the penalty into our own day.
In such cases there was to be no tolerance at all, but a swift cutting off by the sword of justice. God was governing them openly, and the worship of other gods was open rebellion. Church and state were really one here, and religious penalties were civil ones too. This, of course, is no justification for such a course in the completely different conditions of another age. The kingdom of God is now "not of this world"; Christ's people do not reign, but suffer patiently.
Even with a crime this serious, the sentence waits on proof. The rule set here reaches far beyond Israel's courts.
Further, the subject goes on to show the place of testimony. By the mouth of two witnesses, or three, the one who deserved death was to be put to death. This was of great value in practice, and the New Testament uses it a great deal — a principle no one can ever neglect without loss.
The next verse puts the first stone in the witness's own hand. That makes an accusation costly to the one who makes it.
However, the testimony of one witness would not be enough to pass a death sentence: there must be two or three witnesses (v.6). The witness also had to be the first to put the offender to death (v.7). This would make people slow to testify unless they were fully convinced that the accused was guilty.
The same standard shapes how Christians handle charges against each other. Mackintosh asks what to do when only one person knows of a wrong.
Suppose there is moral evil or false teaching in an assembly of Christians, and only one person knows of it. That person is completely certain and fully convinced of the fact. What should be done? Wait on God for another witness. To act without that is to break a divine principle, laid down as clearly as possible, again and again, in the word of God. Should the one witness feel wronged or insulted because no one acts on his testimony? Certainly not. He should not even come forward as a witness until one or two others can back up what he says.
The rule reaches beyond formal cases. It touches ordinary conversation about people who are not in the room.
Whenever anyone brings a charge against another behind his back, we should insist that he either prove his statement or take it back. If we followed this plan, we would be free of a huge amount of evil speaking, which is not only useless but truly wicked, and must not be tolerated.
Men have kept the letter of this law and still committed murder. Scripture records the cases.
Two witnesses accused Naboth of blaspheming God and the king. That faithful Israelite lost his inheritance and his life on the word of two liars, hired at the direction of a godless, cruel woman. Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit, was stoned to death for blasphemy on the word of false witnesses. The great religious leaders of the day accepted that testimony and acted on it, and they could no doubt quote Deuteronomy 17 as their authority.
Both men died with Scripture quoted as cover. Mackintosh names a third case above all: "the only perfect Man that ever walked this earth."
Jesus applied this same rule to Himself. He pointed to two witnesses for His words: His own and His Father's.
It was an accepted principle that every word should be settled by the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Lord appeals to this here: "And in your law too it is written that the witness of two men is true" (verse 17). How much more, then, the testimony of the Father and the Son! "I am He who bears witness concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness concerning Me" (verse 18).
- Charge — the crime here is open rebellion against the God who ruled the nation, where church and state were one. That penalty does not carry over into a kingdom "not of this world."
- Proof — one voice never takes a life. Two or three witnesses is the standing rule, and the New Testament keeps it.
- Cost — the witness throws the first stone. That makes a person slow to accuse unless he is sure of the guilt.
- Patience — when only one person knows of an evil, wait on God for another witness. The lone witness must not take offence.
- Christ — the Lord answered from their own law, placing the Father's witness beside His own.
The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people; and thou shalt put evil away from thy midst.
The law does not let an accuser stay at a safe distance. The one whose word condemned a man had to be the one whose hand fell on him first, and that requirement worked backwards into the courtroom.
However, the testimony of one witness would not be enough to pass a death sentence: there must be two or three witnesses (v.6). Also the witness had to be first in putting the offender to death (v.7). This would make people slow to witness if they were not fully persuaded of the guilt of the accused.
Verse 7 rests on verse 6, which requires two or three witnesses. One writer applies that rule to how Christians handle reports of wrong today.
For instance, suppose there is moral evil or doctrinal error in an assembly of Christians, and only one person knows of it. That one is perfectly certain, and thoroughly convinced of the fact. What is to be done? Wait on God for further witness. To act without this is to break a divine principle laid down as clearly as possible, again and again, in the word of God. Is the one witness to feel wronged or insulted because his testimony is not acted upon? Certainly not.
After the witnesses came everyone else. The whole nation, not its officials alone, cleared God's name. One writer sees the same duty resting on Christians gathered together today.
The assembly, not just its officials, was to act, and clear the Lord's name. Long ago the Lord had said, "Israel has sinned," and all Israel stoned the offender with stones so that he died (Joshua 7). The same is true here. They were to judge those "within" and leave those "without" to God, so they had to purge the evil person from among themselves. And this is always binding on the gathered saints. An assembly denies its own character when it becomes indifferent to holiness.
Centuries later, men still kept this rule to the letter. Those who stoned Stephen took care to follow it.
Stephen was stoned, the witnesses laying down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. By the law the witnesses were to cast the first stone at the criminal (Deut. 17:7). This was not overlooked at that moment.
Mackintosh weighs what kind of religion can do that.
Religion, without conscience or the fear of God, is the most degrading, demoralising, hardening thing under heaven. One of its most terrible features is this. Men under its influence are not ashamed or afraid to use the letter of holy Scripture as a cloak to cover the most horrible wickedness.
Men once brought a woman to Jesus to be stoned under this law. He took the rule that the witnesses must throw first and turned it back on them.
"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." The effect was immediate and complete. His words reached the heart. Why did none of the witnesses stand up and do the work? What, not one? "Those who heard it were convicted by their own conscience. They went out one by one, beginning with the oldest, down to the last; and Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing there." The law had never done this. They had studied the law and trifled with it up to this time; they had freely used it, as men still do, to convict other people.
Kelly quotes an older translation of John 8:9. The ESV says only that they went away one by one, without the words about conscience.
The offence judged in this chapter is idolatry. One writer explains why God's view of it has not changed, even though the stoning is not carried out now.
In the present day idolatry is no less hateful to God, but in grace He is delaying His judgment until the future. Yet if a person who claims to be a Christian is guilty of it, we must firmly refuse him any fellowship (2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Tim. 2:16-21).
- Evidence first. No sentence rests on one voice; where proof is missing, the answer is to wait on God, not to act on private certainty.
- Then cost. The accuser's hand had to fall first. To testify was to carry out the sentence yourself.
- Then everyone. The people's hands followed. Clearing out evil was the whole community's work, not a job for a few officials.
- Then the warning. Stephen's death shows men keeping the form of this law while doing the worst wickedness under it.
- Then grace. Christ turned the first-stone rule back on the accusers. Today God holds back judgment, but He hates the evil as much as ever.