By Brian R. Kenyon
Several years ago (before the internet), a local preacher jokingly said from the pulpit that he was “having an affair” with the church secretary. Of course, all the members knew his wife was the church secretary. However, a few months later, he answered the office phone. The man calling was another preacher looking for a congregation with whom to work. He said, “I heard the local preacher there was let go because of adultery. I would like to send in my resume.” Initially, the local preacher was in shock. He later investigated how that rumor began, discovering its origin was from visitors who attended the day he jokingly made that statement. While there definitely is a lesson here about things preachers should not say, the focus of this article is the need to verify accusations against brethren.
In the Old Testament, at least two witnesses were required. Moses reminded that generation about to enter the promised land, “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Duet. 19:15). This was especially true of one being accused of murder (Num. 35:30 cf. Deut. 17:6). Even the Hebrews writer acknowledged, “Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28). Bearing false witness was a serious matter, so much so that the false witness was to receive the same punishment as the person he accused would have suffered had he been guilty. Note Moses’ instruction:
If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges … And the judges shall make careful inquiry … if the witness is a false witness … then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. (Deut. 19:16-19)
This same principle is carried over in the New Testament. Jesus Himself appealed to this power of witnesses to prove Himself. He told the suspicious Jews, “I can do nothing on my own … If I alone bear
witness about myself, my testimony is not true” (Jn. 5:30-31, ESV). Then, He went on to show that John the Baptizer bore witness (Jn. 5:32-35), His works bore witness (Jn. 5:36 cf. Jn. 3:2), the “Father Him-
self” bore witness (Jn. 5:37-38), and the Scriptures bore witness of who He was (Jn. 5:39). Later, Jesus conversed with the scribes and Pharisees and acknowledged, “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me” (Jn. 8:17-18).
Jesus also used the “witness principle” when instructing His disciples on how to react when their brethren sinned against them. They were to go to the brother and tell him “his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’” (Mt. 18:15-16).
Even Paul twice repeated the principle. He told the Corinthians, after adequate warning about their behavior, “This will be the third time I am coming to you. ‘By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established’” (2 Cor. 13:1). Then, the apostle instructed the young evangelist, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:19).
From both the Old and New Testaments, God is clear that we must have evidence in order to consid-
er someone guilty of sin. When someone obviously “walks disorderly,” not according to the biblical
standard (2 Thes. 3:6), then that is all the testimony needed (cf. Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 5:1; Jude 23). However, sometimes members of the church accept as true sins of which other brethren have been accused, without confirming by “the mouth of two or three witnesses.” Sometimes, these accusations of sin are leveled because the accused violated tradition that is being equated with doctrine (cf. Jn. 5:18). Sometimes, it is because the accused did something optional (like eating meat, 1 Cor. 8:1-13) that the accuser’s conscience would not allow him to do (cf. Rom. 14:1-23), as if his conscience were the standard for another’s conscience. Rather than jumping to false conclusions, let us practice love, which “bears … believes … hopes … endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7).
