Original Meaning

THESE GUIDELINES REGARDING WITNESSES in judicial proceedings flesh out the eighth command of the Decalogue (cf. 5:20; cf. 17:6). The text divides into two uneven parts: (1) a call for more than one witness in all cases (v. 15), and (2) instructions on how to deal with malicious witnesses (vv. 16–21). Both are driven by a concern for righteousness in judicial procedures.

Verse 15 is cast as a straightforward appeal for more than one witness in judicial proceedings involving accusations against a person. With three expressions Moses extends the scope of the principle beyond idolatry (17:6), to “any [case involving] crime,” “any [case involving] offense,” or “any [case involving] offense he may have committed.” In all cases, the “testimony” (lit., “mouth”) of two or three witnesses is required to establish a case.

The space given to the case of a malicious witness shows that the issue here is not simply justice but righteousness (vv. 16–21). The instructions consist of a clause introducing the problem, followed by the prescribed response. Here the expression ḥāmās (NIV, “malicious”) refers to judicial violence, verbal action intended to harm another person. In verse 18 this same person is characterized as a “liar.” As in 17:6, the problem involves deflecting the legal process from the truth through “false [empty] testimony.” The demand for a plurality of witnesses is both reasonable and necessary.1 It is reasonable because it reduces the chance of mistaken verdicts, especially where verbal testimony is the only means by which to adjudicate a case. It is necessary because without it the judge is left to decide between two opinions—the voice of the accused or the voice of the witness—which raises the specter of prejudice and favoritism.

Verses 17–18 describe the appropriate response to this miscarriage of justice. (1) Accuser and accused must appear before the priests who are serving as judges at that time (cf. 1:17; 17:8–9). Moses speaks explicitly of the litigants standing “in the presence of the LORD,”2 but then he adds, “before the priests,3 that is, the judges” (pers. trans.).4 In keeping with the use of the expression “in the presence of the LORD” elsewhere in the book, we should envision the case being presented at the central sanctuary, where participants would be conscious of Yahweh’s supervision of the legal process, heightening the implications of malicious testimony.5

(2) The adjudicators are to investigate the case thoroughly (v. 18a). As in 17:4, Moses draws attention to the announcement of the verdict with “and behold” (hinnēh, not trans. in NIV). The malicious witness has indeed testified falsely against his brother. Identifying the aggrieved party as “his brother” heightens the seriousness of the crime and calls for proportional justice: “as he had plotted6 against his brother, so you must do to him” (v. 19a, pers. trans.). Repeating the purgation formula (v. 13), in verses 19b–20 Moses presents the rationale for this response: It purges the community of the evil and deters from trumping up charges against their countrymen.

Verse 21 may be interpreted as the conclusion to either this subunit or the entire chapter. As in the case involving the murderer (v. 13a), Moses declares that personal interest and sentimentality are not to jeopardize the administration of justice. He reinforces the need for commitment to proportional justice with a fivefold recitation of equivalencies, generally known as lex talionis (“the law of retaliation”). Laws of this type are well attested in ancient Near Eastern documents7 and the Old Testament (Ex. 21:23–25; Lev 24:17–21).

For modern readers this principle appears not only to condone but even mandate a “tit for tat,” “get even” approach to ethics, and in so doing promotes a culture of escalating violence; but they actually intend the opposite.8 The laws of talion demand that punishment for crimes against another person be proportional to the crimes committed rather than be more severe. Rather than promoting vengeance, the principle of lex talionis limited the penalties that adjudicators could impose on offenders.9 While this approach may explain Exodus 21:23–25 and Leviticus 24:17–21, the issue in Deuteronomy 19:21 is not punishment for crimes involving bodily injuries, but penalties appropriate for those who maliciously seek to have the court authorize harm against fellows Israelites. Verse 21 fleshes out verse 19. Since false accusations damage personal relations and the very fabric of the community, this principle provides a means of nipping such social cancers in the bud.

Bridging Contexts

RIGHTEOUSNESS IN CASE OF false accusation. The Old Testament recounts several cases of malicious testimony coming back to haunt the accuser.10 According to 1 Kings 21:1–16, driven by greed Ahab demanded Naboth’s patrimonial property. When Naboth refused to sell it to the king, Queen Jezebel arranged for a mock trial in which two worthless fellows falsely accused Naboth of cursing God and the king, for which the innocent man was executed. When Ahab claimed his land, Elijah declared the divine sentence on the king: “Have you not murdered a man and seized his property? . . . This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!’ ” (21:19). In fulfillment of this oracle, Ahab was killed in battle at Ramoth Gilead, and when the chariot bearing his body returned to Samaria, the dogs did indeed lick up his blood (22:34–38). As for Jezebel, the cursed woman who had trumped up charges against Naboth for cursing God, she would die the most ignominious death, being tossed out the window of her house and having her blood licked up and her flesh eaten by dogs (2 Kings 9:30–37).

Two texts from later times illustrate graphically how some who falsely accused innocent people were punished with the sentence they had wished on the innocent. In Daniel 6 Persian satraps and commissioners fabricated charges of treason against Daniel, for which he was thrown into a pit of lions, as outlined in the policy signed by Darius (6:7[8]). When this “trial by ordeal” proved Daniel innocent, his accusers and their families were tossed into the same pit. The narrator observes that before they landed, the lions had torn them apart (v. 24[25]). Equally dramatic is the case of Haman in the book of Esther. Having trumped up false charges against Mordecai and constructed the gallows in anticipation of his sentence, Haman himself was hanged from those gallows (Est. 7:9–10).

The ethic of talion. But what about the ethic of talion? Following the lead of the rabbis, who called for compensating all personal injuries (except death) monetarily,11 many have questioned whether the lex talionis was ever intended to be taken literally. Exodus 21:23–25 raises the question of what an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth may have to do with causing a woman to miscarry.12 The categorical prohibition of compensation for cases involving intentional homicide in Numbers 35:29–34 suggests this may have been acceptable in nonfatal cases involving bodily injury. But Leviticus 24:17–21 seems unambiguous in its call for equivalent retribution.13 Recognizing how Yahweh’s commands concerning blasphemy are integrated with the laws of talion in Leviticus 24:13–23, Milgrom notes perceptively that this statement communicates a profound theological message: Whoever injures a person disfigures the image of God (Gen. 1:27; 9:6b). The law of talion assumes that a crime against a person is a crime against God.14

Although not a court case, Samson provides the most obvious illustration of the vengeful and retributive interpretation of the principle. He declared his “Philistine ethic” with “I merely did to them what they did to me” (Judg. 15:11; cf. v. 7), which led to a dramatic escalation of violence, culminating in the death of more than a thousand persons, including Samson’s wife and father-in-law. The narrator is aware of the hand of God in these events (14:4), but Samson acts at the level of his senses, without any hint of sensitivity to a greater divine agenda.

Based on Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5:38–42, the supposed “tit for tat” ethic of the Old Testament is commonly contrasted with the ethic of the New Testament, which purportedly replaces it with an ethic based on love and forgiveness. Even if the slap on the cheek has no precedent in the Old Testament and involves an insult and only temporary physical discomfort rather than permanent injury, this interpretation misses the point of Jesus’ words and misreads the principle of talion, which neither condones nor promotes a culture of escalating violence.

Contemporary Significance

GOD IS IN CHARGE. In “The Present Crisis,” a poem written in 1844 to inspire leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, James Russell Lowell penned these immortal words:

Careless seems the great Avenger; history’s pages but record

One death-grapple in the darkness ’twixt old systems and the Word;

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,—

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.15

Like this verse, our text calls out to a culture where truth is often sacrificed on the altar of self-interest. The casualties of dishonesty extend far beyond specific targets to the community and the nation. Believers are to be known for their truth-telling, not only in everyday life, but especially in a court of law. For us it should make no difference whether we are speaking under oath (James 5:12). If this is true in cases involving our relationships with outsiders, how much more in our representation of our “brothers and sisters.” When called upon to testify in private or public, commitment to righteousness demands that Christians speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is no place for responses that misrepresent or deflect from the discovery of truth,16 or pleading the Fifth Amendment to protect oneself and hide the truth. Decisive action against those who would hurt others through their lies is needed in order to punish the criminal, deliver the victim, and purge the nation of this cancer.

When Jesus calls New Testament believers to turn the other cheek toward those who abuse them rather than to retaliate with “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” vengeance (Matt. 5:34–42), he does not establish a new ethic. Rather, he reminds his followers that those who bear the name of God live by a distinctive ethic. We do indeed insist that society and the courts uphold the rights of all citizens and protect all from social predators. However, with respect to our own personal relationships, instead of retaliating when our own rights are violated (which may be our legal right), righteous Christians will turn the other cheek and forgive their enemies. They count it a privilege to be persecuted for the sake of righteousness, knowing that this is the mark of a citizen of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:10; 1 Peter 4:12–19).

Indeed, as stated later in the song of Deuteronomy 32 (v. 35) and in Paul’s words in Romans 12:19, Yahweh reserves the right to vengeance for himself. Believers’ response to abuse is to be characterized by forgiveness, leaving the revenge factor in the hands of God.