The Two Witness Rule in Israel
“No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. 16 If a malicious witness testifies against a man and charges him with some transgression, 17 the two men who have the dispute will stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges who will be serving in those days. (Deuteronomy 19:15-17)
According to this scripture it is preferable to have two witnesses in order to establish a matter. But what was to happen if there was only one witness? Would the hands of the judges be tied leaving them no recourse but to leave the matter in Jehovah’s hands? It is clear from verses 16 and 17 that difficult cases where only one witness was available still proceeded. They were remanded to a higher court at the Tabernacle or later the temple for determination. The matter was not just left in Jehovah’s hands.
The NICOT comments on this verse:
Malicious (or “violent”) witness (Deu_19:16)—in spite of the requirement for more than one witness (Deu_19:15), cases would inevitably arise in particular circumstances when there was only one witness. [Thus Deu_19:15 states the general requirement of the law; Deu_19:16-21 attempt to provide a means of dealing with cases where circumstances might not allow the normal requirement to be met, and more particularly they attempt to cover any “loophole” that might arise in the exceptional (rather than normal) process of law, when only one witness was available. In legal process, the absence of witnesses or the existence of a single witness did not mean that no crime had been committed, but it made it exceptionally difficult to secure a conviction.] The single witness could not ignore that a crime had been committed simply because there was not a second witness to confirm his story. [In a genuine case, the single witness might not know at the time he brought the criminal charge that he was the only witness.] On the other hand, a case in which there was only one witness would be particularly difficult to determine and it would probably be referred to the central tribunal (see Deu_17:8-13).
Charging him with defection (sārāh)—the word means literally “turning aside” (from the prescriptions of the law) and could perhaps be translated by “crime.” [A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, p. 143.]
Thus the situation envisaged is one in which a false witness brought a criminal charge against his fellow Israelite; at the time when the charge was brought, it might have been imagined by the authorities that further witnesses would be forthcoming. In the absence of further witnesses, the legal problem was that of determining which of the two parties in the dispute was telling the truth.
The procedure to be followed was to send the two parties in the dispute to the central tribunal, located at the sanctuary of the Lord; there they would stand before the Lord (Deu_19:17), a symbolic manner of referring to the sanctuary (see Deu_17:8), and their case would be heard by the priests and judges who were currently holding office in the central tribunal. The judges would make a diligent investigation of the case (Deu_19:18) and pass judgment on the basis of their findings. If it turned out that the witness bringing the charge was giving false testimony, then his punishment would be determined on the basis of the intention of the crime; the lex talionis would become operative (Deu_19:19) (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament)
So if Christians were to follow that pattern today, not having a judicial system like the nation of Israel, crimes committed where only one witness is available, should be handed over to the police to investigate. (Romans 13:1-4)
Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. (Romans 13:1-4)
The Watchtower society comments on this verse but continues to stress Deuteronomy 19:15 and the need of having two witnesses, completely missing the point of the next two verses:
“In the interests of justice and mercy, a witness in a legal case was required to testify to whatever he knew about the case. If he did not do so he would be subject to a curse publicly uttered by the judges. Such a curse, God would enforce. (Leviticus 5:1; Proverbs 29:24) He was not to commit perjury, for this was lying “before Jehovah.” If accusations made against another were found to be deliberately false, the accuser would suffer the same penalty that would have been meted out to the one falsely accused.
30 Accordingly, we read in Deuteronomy 19:16-19: “In case a witness scheming violence should rise up against a man to bring a charge of revolt against him, the two men who have the dispute must also stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges who will be acting in those days. And the judges must search thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and has brought a false charge against his brother, you must also do to him just as he had schemed to do to his brother, and you must clear away what is bad from your midst.”
31 No one could be put to death on circumstantial evidence alone. There had to be at least two eyewitnesses to establish the truth. (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15) (Life Does Have a Purpose pgs. 152-153 pars. 29-31)
Yet the entire point of this section of the law was not to instruct the Jews that in order to secure a conviction their judicial cases needed two witnesses, for this had already been stated. (Deut. 17:6) The intent was to provide instruction for how to handle a case when there was only one witness.