Truth Or Dare

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Introduction

Moses in the book of Deuteronomy is repeating the law in preparation of the people of God entering into the promised land. These people will be a mere generation from slaves in Egypt. God is therefore preparing them to live as his people. It is easy to see that God places a great emphasis on the truth. This nation will rise or fall on its truthfulness towards God and toward one another. In these particular verses Moses is laying out the method by which one would handle accusations.

I. Requirements for Establishing a Witness (v. 15)

Turning to the matter of witnesses, Moses repeated an injunction already articulated in Num 35:30 and Deut 17:6, both of which passages deal with capital offenses. It is obvious that in life-and-death issues one would want to rest his case on sound evidence and reliable testimony. In the nature of the case one witness would be insufficient, for it would then become a matter of one word against another. Even Jezebel knew that she had to hire more than one witness to testify against Naboth if her case were to have any merit (1 Kgs 21:10, 13). Nor was such a stipulation required, for only serious allegations such as murder for the law here speaks of “any crime or offense” (v. 15).

II. Ramifications for Offering a False Witness (vs. 16-21)

In the event there were only one witness, however, and he wished to prosecute the case, he could do so; but he himself would undergo as close a scrutiny as the person he had accused. Such a witness might be reliable, a contingency not addressed here, but more often than not he would be motivated by malice (Heb. ḥāmās), that is, with intent to do violent harm to an innocent party. In any case, where a single witness was involved, both he and the one against whom he was pressing charges must appear “in the presence of” the Lord (v. 17). What this means (as in 17:8–12) becomes apparent in the appositional phrase “in the presence of the priests and the judges.” These representatives of the Lord (cf. 16:18–20; 17:8–9) acted judicially on his behalf in investigating (lit., “seek thoroughly”) and prosecuting the case brought before them. If the result showed the witness to be a liar, he was to suffer the punishment that would have been dealt to the one whom he had implicated (v. 19a). Only in this way could the evil (rāʿ) be purged (bîʿar) from the community (v. 19b; cf. 13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:13; 21:21; 22:21–22, 24; 24:7 for other occurrences of this technical phrase in Deuteronomy). Such severe measures would also instill so great a fear among the people that they would be unlikely ever again to perjure themselves or tolerate those who did.19:20–21 To guard against a tendency to recoil from carrying out the prescribed penalty, Moses issued an oft-repeated warning—“Show no pity” (cf. Deut 7:16; 13:9; Isa 13:18; Ezek 7:4; 20:17). Heinous crimes called for equally stern response, one elaborated here and elsewhere (cf. Exod 21:23–25; Lev 24:19–20) as a measure for measure of lex talionis application of justice. Whether this was to be administered literally or could be addressed by the payment of fines or other compensation is not clear in all cases. Numbers 35:31 seems to suggest that ransom (kōper, i.e., “the price of a life”) could sometimes be paid as a substitute for one’s life but never in a case of murder. On the other hand, Exod 22:21 prescribes a fine (ʿōneš) in certain kinds of physical assault, thus opening up the possibility that they could otherwise be levied in lieu of corporal punishment.

III. The Righteous Judge Reigns

2 Timothy 4:8–14 ESV

Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. Do your best to come to me soon. For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.

The victory Paul received as a consequence of his accomplishments in the good fight is described as a “crown of righteousness.” The crown was a reward given to a victorious athlete for prowess in a contest (see 1 Cor 9:25). It was usually a perishable wreath woven from ivy, leaves, or flowers.The phrase “of righteousness” may refer to the crown either as a reward for righteous behavior or as a gift consisting of righteousness awarded by the Judge when he returns. Jesus Christ is the Judge who will bestow the award in connection with his return, both to Paul and to all those whose righteous actions demonstrate their longing for Christ’s return. The perfect tense for the Greek participle “have longed” suggests that those in mind had loved Jesus’ appearing in the past and continued to do so up until the moment of reward. To long for Christ’s “appearing” is not a demand for constant discussions of eschatology but a requirement that believers would perform the life-style of Titus 2:12–13. The behavior Paul sought in Timothy formed a distinct contrast with the behavior exhibited by Demas in 4:10. Paul also wanted to avoid any appearance of special claim for himself while offering encouragement to Timothy. The knowledge that God rewards and recognizes faithful Christian service is an incentive to godly living. A confidence in God’s bestowal of rewards is encouraged by a knowledge of his faithfulness. God is faithful to believers; he will not ignore their works; he will justly evaluate all of them. This knowledge is a prod to devoted obedience to God. An expectation of reward is also a recognition of God’s grace. Those who anticipate reward will not be able to boast, “Look at my accomplishments.” They should be able to offer praise to God by saying, “Thank you, Lord, for what you have produced in me.” The very expectation of reward is an acknowledgment of God’s grace.

The reference to Alexander in vv. 14–15 leaves us uncertain both of his identity and his action but thoroughly convinced of his deliberate malice. The name Alexander was linked with Hymenaeus in 1 Tim 1:20. Alexander was also the name of a little-known Ephesian Jew in Acts 19:33–34. Fee presents an imaginative reconstruction that the excommunicated Alexander left Ephesus (1 Tim 1:20), perhaps went to Troas, and there informed on Paul so as to cause his arrest. Paul reminded Timothy of his identity by designating him as “the metalworker” and urged him to be “on … guard against him.” This could suggest supplying information to the authorities as an informer. If we identify Alexander with the excommunicated leader of 1 Tim 1:20, it is plausible to follow Paul’s train of thought. Alexander had vigorously resisted Paul in deed (v. 14) and in word (v. 15). Paul expressed confidence in God’s justice in dealing with Alexander. The use of the future tense (“The Lord will repay him”) is more a prediction of what God would do than a curse invoked by an angry, vindictive Paul. There should be no objection to a Christian’s approval of God’s right to punish the guilty, for “if God is a moral governor, if sin is a reality, those who know themselves to be on God’s side cannot help a feeling of joy in knowing that evil will not always triumph over good.” Paul did not appear to be uttering the words due to his own personal pique but in response to Alexander’s resistance to the gospel.