top of page
Reformed Classicalist

False Witness in the Law of Moses: Part 3

RTS Papers / Genesis to Joshua / Fall 2017

An Exegetical Paper on the General Equity Principle


How does this law relate to Jesus Christ?


Is it possible to find the gospel in the laws for a true witness? Jesus came to bear witness to the truth (cf. Jn. 18:37); the testifying part of his passion is referred to as “the good confession” (1 Tim. 6:13); and we even find the accusers of Jesus bearing false witness against him (cf. Mat. 26:60). Such things may be interesting, but how is the truth-telling dimension of Jesus’ time on earth good news? How does it contribute to our redemption? If Jesus merely bore witness to the truth, all things being equal, we would all be condemned in court. Christ is called our “advocate with the Father” (1 Jn. 2:1).


Now he can only plead for us on the basis of a real righteousness; but since his is perfect, and since it is ours through faith (Phi. 3:9), it follows that his witness as our Great High Priest is true. Because of the work of Christ, the greatest false witness now comes from the accusations of the devil, to which God responds: “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us” (Rom. 8:33-34).


In what way is this law applicable as civil law today?

Poythress appears to give a criterion of “the public interest” in saying that, “the state deals with injuries against other human beings, not injuries against God” [159; cf. 135]. Behind this is the assumption that the very nature of repayment is that the injured party mediates, whether in receiving restitution or in exacting punishment. Mere humans cannot do this for God. Thus only commandments five through nine are matters of civil justice.


We will use the phrase ‘civil lying’ here to refer to that false witness that concerns the public. At this point libertarians will fear some encroachment of thought police. As a matter of fact, there is nothing terribly controversial here. Are not fraud, perjury, tax evasion, and treaty-breaking species of lying? Many will grant the point, but then they may still say, “But the government is not in the business of discerning our thoughts and declaring them true or false. In these matters they are only enforcing contracts.” Very well.

Any breach in these contracts: are these true statements or false statements? How can he who bears the sword from God (cf. Rom. 13:4) properly “punish those who do evil and praise those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:14) if he cannot tell the difference between the two? And this in the “civil species” of lying.

The fact of the matter is that every secular society already applies the ninth commandment to all sorts of public matters. Nor could they do otherwise.


What is the meaning of this law for God’s people today?


It was said by Dr. Belcher in lecture that “The analogue to Israel is not the modern state. The analogue to Israel is the church” [Lesson 16, “Different Approaches to the Law”]. Consequently the next question has to be how to handle false witness in that society that is much closer to God’s people of old than secular society.


This higher standard is also supported by the way that Jesus strengthens the meaning of the law in the Sermon on the Mount. At first glance it may seem that Jesus is abrogating the “eye for an eye” principle (cf. Mat. 5:38, 39). Fernando replies to this that, “we must remember that Jesus is talking about personal revenge, not about legal systems” [481]. The same is echoed in Thompson: “Jesus’ criticism of this law … arose from its use to regulate conduct between individuals. He did not reject it as a principle of justice which should operate in the courts of the land” [218].


Our question is this: Is there still a “legal system” or “court” in the church that has jurisdiction over false witness? Our answer will be Yes. Without agreeing with the theonomists concerning the abiding comprehensiveness of the judicial law of Israel, it will still be my assumption that the third use of the law informs the courts of the church. The City of God presently has jurisdiction over false witness in our midst.


What about the criteria for restoration in this lifetime? If “double payment is the appropriate penalty for theft” [128], then what shall we say about the slandering of a Christian? Poythress distinguishes between punishment and restoration. Payment for sin implies both. But what of a just court in the church?

It may be objected that since Christ bore the punishment, there is nothing left to pay. This is an equivocation of term pay. The resources of repayment are a positive good. In the case the victims of false witness, the chief resource is one’s reputation. Whatever else may have been affected by slander, at least the perpetrator can work to restore the victim’s good name.

The New Testament cites the principle of two or three witnesses: cf. John 8:17 and Hebrews 10:28. The first is applied to discerning the truth about Jesus’ identity, and the second speaks of the law of Moses, but the author of Hebrews only does so to make a lesser to greater argument, moving from Old Covenant curses to those of the New. In other words, the “two or three witnesses” principles cannot be reduced to the judicial law of the Old Covenant.


But 2 Corinthians 13:1-2 is most interesting in this respect. Some think Paul is defending himself against the charge of embezzlement as indicated by the close of chapter 12. Against many commentators, including Calvin, it is countered that Paul is not speaking metaphorically as if his third visit will serve as a “third witness,” but that he is literally instructing the Corinthians to take the law of Moses seriously on this matter [Wellborn, 208]. This would be an odd thing to do if the law had no abiding application for the Christian.


If Poythress is correct in seeing God give the responsibility for repayment to individuals to resolve in private first, and only then the state gets involved [161], then Matthew 18:15-18 is really only the sanctified version of the same for the church. Likewise, crossing over the boundaries of church and state, Paul’s appeal to believers in 1 Corinthians 6 suggests that the higher court of the church suffers a major defeat in failing to resolve a conflict. As a consequence, the parties are now experiencing a kind of legal devolution.


Many seem to think there is some statute of limitations on the ninth commandment, such as when a person is either sufficiently removed in time (they are a historical figure), in space (they have moved far enough away), in prestige (their fame makes them fair game), or in wickedness (they serve the cause we oppose). Much as an unborn child is sufficiently “out of sight and out of mind” to consider a person, so the object of false witness is kept at a comfortable distance for the arrows of our slander. In such cases no high standard of evidence is required because, we reason, the individual has passed into “public domain” rights.


The Heidelberg Catechism Q.112 is profound in applying the ninth commandment to us today: “I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name.” It is not enough for Christians to avoid false witness. This higher standard in the kingdom of Christ calls us to proactively be the true witness, to work toward that specific justice that promotes others’ good name.




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Daube, David. Witnesses in Bible and Talmud. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1986

Childs, Brevard. The Book of Exodus. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973

Fernando, Ajith. Deuteronomy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012

Grispen, W. H. Exodus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer & Bruce Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer & Bruce Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980

Keil, C. F. & F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume I: The Pentateuch. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006

Motyer, J. A. The Message of Exodus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005

Poythress, Vern. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Nashville, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991

Ridderbos, J. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974

Van Pelt, Miles. ed. A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016

Welborn, Laurence L. “By the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses: Paul’s Invocation of a Deuteronomic Statute” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 207-220

Woods, Edward J. Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011

9 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page