Do Charges Of Sin Require Proof?

Perhaps the sentinel Old Testament text on whether or not charges of sin require proof is Deut 19:15 which reads “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” With every accusation of sin (even for non death penalty offenses you will note), proof was required.

And II Cor 13:1b (“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established”) teaches the same thing in the New Testament (the law we are under today). So does Matt 18:16b (“in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established”) and I Tim 5:19 (“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses”).

So the Old Testament required proof for charges of sin (Heb 10:28, John 8:17, Exod 23:7), and so does the New Testament (I John 4:1a). God’s word is consistent on this point.

Now don’t think having witnesses is the only form of valid proof that can be used. Consider Deut 22:13-21. If fornication was suspected before marriage, the bride’s parents were to show their daughter’s "tokens of virginity" as proof of her innocence. If they could not produce such, she was to be stoned. Failing God’s test was enough proof for death, even with no eye witnesses to the loss of her virginity before marriage. Consider also Numbers 5:12-27. If fornication was suspected after marriage (no witnesses, verse 13), the husband was to take her to the priest, and God demonstrated her guilt or innocence with the "bitter water" test. If guilty, she "shall be a curse among her people." (Isa 65:15). Consider why Joseph had the “just” option of divorcing Mary (Matt 1:19). Obviously, there were no eye witnesses of Mary’s fornication; she was a virgin. But Joseph had sure proof of her fornication – she was pregnant and he knew he was not the father. Of course, we know Joseph was dissuaded of his thinking (verse 20), because in this one exceptional case, pregnancy was not proof of relations.

In our day and time, a recording or video could serve as conclusive proof in absence of actual eye witnesses (John 8:10). But just one man’s word against another (no witnesses) is not sufficient. Consider Prov 18:17 along those lines – “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” Always listen to both sides of every dispute before passing judgment – Prov 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” Otherwise we are likely to “justify the wicked” or “condemn the just” (Prov 17:15). For example, if one Christian is accusing another of lying (and the accused denies it), how do we know the one making the accusation is not lying, mistaken, or just plain remembering it wrong (Exod 20:16) – unless there is corroboration? The fact is – we don’t. It is impossible to determine. Such charges should be rejected and retracted.

Wouldn’t a person who makes an unproven charge of sin against another be guilty of railing (I Tim 6:4, I Pet 3:9, II Pet 2:11, Jude 9) or slander (I Tim 3:11)?; you tell me. Notice this example use of “slander” at dictionary.com – “The accusations are based on hearsay, rumor, or intentional slander, and remain undocumented and unproved” and this definition for “railing” at https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/rail.html – “Clamoring with insulting language.”

“Prove all things” (I Thess 5:21a) should be the watchword for those that love their brothers in Christ. Isn’t that how you would want to be treated (Matt 7:12)?

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 59 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com