and the judges shall make thorough inquiry; and if the witness be a false witness, and he have testified falsely against his brother,
Deuteronomy 19:18 sits inside Israel's law of evidence: someone has brought a charge, and both sides now stand before the priests and judges. The court must then inquire diligently, asking one question — has the accuser lied against his own brother?
The chapter looks ahead to the land Israel was about to enter, where these courts would sit. One writer explains who the priests and judges stand for.
The priests represent the channels through which God makes His mind known. The judges represent the governing authorities. From verse 15 onward, the subject is what may be called the law of evidence. The law expressly forbids condemning a man on the word of one witness. It forbids accepting any accusation against another unless at least two witnesses back it. The apostle Paul refers to this and confirms the principle (2 Cor. 13). Think how much sorrow and confusion believers everywhere would have escaped if they had accepted this and acted on it.
The rule of two or three witnesses can look excessive when one witness seems completely trustworthy. One commentator answers that instinct.
Moses presses this on Israel again and again. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself insists on the principle of "two or three witnesses" in every case. So does the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul, in two of his letters. One witness, however trustworthy, is not enough to settle a case. If we weighed this plain fact more carefully and gave it proper attention, it would end a huge amount of strife and quarrelling. In our imagined wisdom we might think that one reliable witness ought to settle any question. Let us remember: God is wiser than we are. Holding fast to His unerring word is always our truest wisdom and our greatest moral safety.
Verse 18 does not stand alone. The inquiry leads to a sentence in verse 19, and witnesses are not always what they appear.
Two or three witnesses are needed for a decision in any matter. One witness may be mistaken, or prejudiced, or even dishonest. If two people have a dispute, they must stand before the judges, who then investigate the matter fully. If one has testified falsely, he must suffer the judgment he wanted brought on his opponent (vv. 18-19). Under law there was no mercy — eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
The clearest breach of this law was the trial of Jesus.
The Jewish council condemned the Lord to death on false evidence. They took Him next to Pilate, where the chief priests themselves bore equally lying witness against Jesus before the Roman governor, to secure His crucifixion (Luke 23:2). The law decreed that if a man "is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely," then "you shall do to him as he had planned to do to his brother" (Deut. 19:15-19). If false witness against a neighbour was so serious, how much worse was the guilt of denying the Holy and Just One?
Do these directions still apply when believers handle accusations today? The writer who set out the law of evidence traces the procedure forward.
Matthew 18 teaches this: when a personal wrong cannot be settled privately, the church is the final court of appeal. So standing before the Lord, before the priests and the judges in Deuteronomy matches exactly a church inquiry today. In both cases the duty of examining falls on those who hold the place of rule or government. In the church, that means those who take the lead alongside their fellow believers and hold their trust. And before the fitting discipline can be declared, they must look carefully into the character of the false testimony — whether the witness brought it knowingly or unknowingly.
The eye-for-eye penalty belonged to the law. God's estimate of the sin did not change with it.
Here we may see how God hates false witness. And we must keep in mind that although we are not under law but under grace, false witness is no less hateful to God. Surely the deeper we enter into the grace in which we stand, the more we will hate false witness, slander, and evil speaking in every form.
- Two witnesses first. No one may be condemned on a single voice, however reliable it seems. God's rule is safer than our confidence.
- Then diligent inquiry. A witness can be mistaken, prejudiced, or dishonest. So the judges dig into the dispute before any verdict, weighing whether the lie was deliberate.
- Then matching justice. A proven liar receives what he intended for his brother — under law, without mercy.
- The pattern carries over. Standing before the priests and judges matches a church inquiry today. The duty of examining falls on those trusted to lead.
- The hatred remains. Grace removes the eye-for-eye penalty. It does not soften God's hatred of false witness, slander, and evil speaking — the sin that condemned Christ Himself.
then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother; and thou shalt put evil away from thy midst.
A man lies in court to destroy his neighbour. The judges investigate, and they expose the lie. Now the law turns the sentence around onto the accuser. Why does God treat a lying tongue so severely? And what does purging the evil ask of people who no longer live under Israel's courts?
The law measures the sentence exactly.
Then we find further care taken about witnesses, and the great law of just retribution confirms it. When a witness said what was deliberately false, and therefore of course malicious, the punishment had to fall on the man who raised the evil report. It was the punishment the accused would have suffered if the charge had been true. Every detail is carefully guarded. "Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Two points sit inside that. A deliberate lie counts as malice. And the liar's own plan sets the measure of his sentence.
The verse speaks to a courtroom. Verse 18 has already named the judges, and that changes how we read the whole rule.
The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the legal directions that regulated the daily life of the people. It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual, but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the text names the judges. The direction rests on the principle of absolute fairness in repaying the deed, and it served as a warning and a deterrent to the people (Deut. 19:20).
Scripture elsewhere praises the love that covers offences. This verse marks the point where covering stops and judgment must act.
Yet even Israel, not Christians only, were to be holy. If a false witness rose up and the judges convicted him, both men stood before the LORD. Then, instead of covering the sin, they had to do to him what he intended against his brother, and so put the evil away from among them. Any other course is Satan's work. It sets one Scripture against another instead of obeying them all. To bring human feeling into such a case is as contrary to the gospel as it was to the law. "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?" "Holiness befits your house, O LORD, forevermore." This is as unchangeable as love's privilege to cover all offences personally. When our Lord on the mountain taught His disciples not to resist evil (Matthew 5:38-42), rather than repay by the law of retaliation, He was speaking of the Christian's individual walk. The same Lord insisted on unsparing judgment of evil in the church.
Personal forgiveness and public holiness are not rivals. Each has its own sphere, and the mistake is to use one to cancel the other.
Israel's own high court broke this law at the trial of Jesus.
On this false evidence, the Sanhedrin condemned the Lord to death. He was then taken to Pilate. There the chief priests themselves gave equally false witness against Jesus before the Roman governor, to secure His crucifixion (Luke 23:2). This sin against justice in court still lies on the nation, and God's just retribution will yet come upon them... If false witness against a neighbour was treated so seriously, how much greater was the guilt of denying the Holy and Just One?
Israel's courts and their sentences are long gone. God's view of the sin has not changed.
Here we may see how God hates false witness. We have to bear in mind that, though we are not under law but under grace, false witness is no less hateful to God. The more fully we enter into the grace in which we stand, the more deeply we shall hate false witness, slander, and evil speaking in every shape and form.
One writer applies the same rebound to accusations made inside the church.
Every report should be sifted with impartiality. Then, if some reports were not based on fact, their falsity would come to light, and their weight would fall on the head of the accusers, not the accused... We venture to think that if today there were as much zeal in disciplining those who slander and whisper as those who are immoral, it would be for the spiritual health and well-being of the church of God.
- Malice. A deliberate lie in court counts as malice, so the liar receives the very sentence he aimed at his victim.
- Judges. God gave this rule to Israel's courts, not to private consciences, and it stood as a warning to the whole nation.
- Purge. Love may cover personal offences. Proven evil among God's people must be put out, so holiness and love each keep their own place.
- Grace. We are not under law, but God hates false witness no less. The deeper we know grace, the more we hate slander.
- Rebound. The failed charge falls back on the accuser. In the church too, slander calls for as much discipline as immorality.
And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in thy midst.
Deuteronomy 19 sets up cities of refuge, then turns to the courtroom, where a lie could cost a man his life. Verse 20 gives the reason behind the sentence on a false witness: the rest of the people watch, fear, and stop.
The punishment is not chosen at random. Whatever the liar was trying to get done to his neighbour becomes his own sentence.
Then we find further care taken about witnesses. The great law of just retribution confirms it. Suppose a witness testified what was deliberately false, and therefore of course malicious. The law then ordered the punishment to fall on the man who raised the false report. It was the very punishment that would have been handed down if his testimony had been true.
The "eye for eye" rule that closes this passage is often taken as a licence for personal payback. One writer puts it back in the hands of a court, and points to its aim: the effect on the watching nation.
It is not a principle for the conscience of a particular individual but a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18 where the judges are expressly mentioned. The direction was based on the principle of absolute fairness in repaying the deed and was to be a warning and deterrent to the people (Deut. 19:20).
Before anyone hears and fears, the court must prove the case. One voice is not enough to decide a man's fate, and that safeguard did not end with the Old Testament.
We may judge its importance from this. Moses presses it on Israel's attention again and again. And our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul in two of his letters, insists on the principle of "two or three witnesses" in every case. One witness, however trustworthy he may be, is not enough to decide a case. If we weighed this plain fact more carefully and acted on it, it would end a vast amount of strife and quarrelling. In our imagined wisdom we might think that one completely reliable witness ought to be enough to settle any question. Let us remember that God is wiser than we are.
The weight of the penalty shows how God views the offence. Grace does not soften that view. It sharpens it.
Here we may see how God hates false witness. And remember: though we are not under law but under grace, false witness is no less hateful to God. Surely the more fully we enter into the grace in which we stand, the more we will hate false witness, slander, and evil speaking of every kind.
Christians do not carry out death sentences. Yet verse 20's goal still stands: others look on, fear, and do not repeat the sin. Open rebuke now does what the death sentence did then.
Sadly, many today have a proud, self-assertive attitude that can do great harm among God's people. Though we cannot put them to death, we can and should publicly rebuke them (1 Tim. 5:20), so that others also may fear, as Israel would fear at the death sentence passed on one of them. If the rebuke does not restrain this proud attitude, it may become necessary to refuse the offender all practical fellowship (Matt. 18:17).
The way it is done matters too.
There should be no display of anger or resentment, and no self-righteous, Pharisee-like spirit. Sorrow suits those who realise that it is not they, but their Lord, who has been wounded in the house of His friends.
- Inquiry first. No single voice decides a man's fate. Moses, the Lord Jesus, and Paul all insist on two or three witnesses.
- Measure for measure. The liar's sentence is the one his lie aimed at his neighbour.
- Judges, not vigilantes. "Eye for eye" was a legal direction for Israel's judges, based on fair repayment for the deed. It is not a rule for private grudges.
- Then fear. The public sentence has a stated aim. The rest of the nation watches, fears, and turns from the same evil.
- Still hated under grace. False witness is still hateful to God. The more we grasp grace, the more we hate it. Correction now means open rebuke, given in sorrow, never in anger.