QQ76-78. Which is the ninth commandment and what is required and forbidden by it?
A (76). The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
A (77). The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name, especially in witness bearing.
A (78). The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our neighbor’s good name.
The Ninth Commandment has been on the “endangered species” list for a while. Postmodernism taught us that a speaker’s intent is a power play; words an attempt to colonize those with less to say, or not as good at saying it. A somewhat emasculated pragmatism in the church has elevated feelings to the throne of ruling whether something is divisive, and whether some “thing” was either said or not said. And finally, with the advent of “cancel culture” in recent years (which has made Orwell into a prophet and Goebels into an amateur), what was left of our neighbor’s true actions, intentions, and reputation, has been made an enemy of the revolution. What then is left of the ninth commandment? Does anyone even know it’s there anymore? Answer thundering down from Mount Sinai: GOD DOES. God is still watching and listening, and God knows and God cares that our world has trashed our neighbor’s acts, intents, and reputation with words that still have meaning, whether we mean them or not.
Our outline will begin in the positive requirements—(1) False Witness Belongs to Moral Law; (2) False Witness is Violence against the Whole Life of the Person; (3) False Witness is Not Only to Avoid, but to Repair; and then, to the negative prohibition: (4) False Witness in Court and (5) False Witness at Home, Work, or Church.
False Witness Belongs to Moral Law
As with the other violations in the second table of the law, so here: false witness is a violence to the image of God. In this case, the operative terminology is the person’s GOOD NAME: “A good name is better than precious ointment” (Ecc. 7:1). This means one’s reputation, or one’s standing in a society. The Old Testament scholars Keil & Delitzsch give us a sort of mission statement of the whole law: “To secure life and property against false accusations.”1 Concisely stated, false witness murders and steals; or, to say it another way, to break the ninth commandment is to violate the spirit, if not also the letter, of the sixth and eighth commandments as well. The Bible makes this connection between lying and the end cause of other violence, as in the two false witnesses ordered by Jezebel murdered Naboth and stole his vineyard for Ahab (cf. 1 Ki. 21:10-13); and the Psalmist cries out,
“Give me not up to the will of my adversaries; for false witnesses have risen against me, and they breathe out violence” (Ps. 27:12).2
Why is this the case, that violating the Ninth commits violence in the rest? It is because the image of God has a very holistic stewardship from God: a matrix of covenant agreements, involving other people, plans, property, productivity, and even his own speech (which is really just intellectual property). So the law says,
“You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:16).
A false witness sends a shockwave of theft and murder and dishonor through the fabric of that total stewardship. It defaces the image, and cripples a portion of his capacities to glorify God. As just one example, if a worker is lied about, he may expect less pay or less chance of a promotion, though he may be harder working and more qualified than others who will now move ahead.
False witness also violates the sanctity of truth. As much as the image of God is violated whenever the Second Table is violated, we do have to remember what the image is theologically. Every violation of man is what it is because of what it says about God. Here it is the TRUTH of God at stake, as God is truth, and Christ is the truth (Jn. 14:6), and his Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” (Jn. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13).
False witness is so obviously bad, even the pagan knows it. As we will see, the application of the lex talionis (“eye for eye”) to false witness is another example of general equity. If one is lied about, the same “unit” of truth should be restored. This law was universally recognized in all human societies. Keil & Delitzsch report that “the same law existed in Egypt with reference to false accusers.”3 Ridderbos says the same about the Code of Hammurabi.4 In other words, that false witnesses deserved to have come upon them what they intended for their victim (Deut. 19:19): this is something written on the heart of even the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 2:14-15). That false witness belongs to moral law, and thus natural law, is only to say that false witness has an objective nature or shape. This “shape” to false witness abides throughout all human societies. People everywhere have the sense that false witness destroys a society.5
All instances in the law of Moses are magnifications of the moral law. Let’s look especially at the laws concerning witnesses in Deuteronomy 19:15-21. Now there are parallel texts found in Exodus 20:16, 23:1-3, 6-8, Leviticus 5:1, and Deuteronomy 5:20. In these, various elements of our main text are included.
“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” (Deut. 19:15-21).
There are a few noteworthy components of the command. There are (i) the number of witnesses; (ii) the integrity of the witnesses; (iii) the role of the judge, or judges; and (iv) the punishment. Let’s see the significance of each of these for us today, and in this we will see:
False Witness is Violence Against the Whole Life of the Person
A few more observations about the Deuteronomy 19 text may be made:
First, the Number of Witnesses. The Mosaic law addresses this by the principle of at least two witnesses: “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” (19:15; cf. Num. 35:30, Deut. 17:6). And the principle cannot be reduced to the judicial law of the Old Covenant, as it is cited in New Testament texts like John 8:17, 2 Corinthians 13:1-2, and Hebrews 10:28.
Second, the Integrity of the Witnesses. Note that the false witness may be either the malicious witness or even the accuser. It is suggested by one commentator that the construction עֵד־חָמָ֖ס in this passage suggests “a witness of violence, of wrong,” in other words, “a witness who intended to do violence or wrong against the innocent by supporting the guilty party.”6 It is a conspiracy of false witness. The other thing to notice about the integrity of the witness is that the prospects for justice in the case of all of the other commandments depend on the true witness: “A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful” (Prov. 14:25).
No doubt those who commit any of the other crimes will often maintain their innocence; and just as surely the innocent will often be blamed for committing those other crimes. But at this point the true witness is the hinge of the whole justice system. That is why the witnesses are cautioned against forming a faction to sabotage justice. In the Exodus 23 passage it says,
“You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice” (vv. 1-2).7
In these there is a kind of locking arms together in a cause. This may have been a smaller “special interest group,” but may also be the more natural lure of the majority.
Third, the Role of the Judge, or Judges. To appear “before the LORD” shows us how the courtroom of God’s people has a kind of priority over secular courts. We see this in 1 Corinthians 6. For now, we simply note that in Israel there was no divorce between the secular court and the priestly class. So it says to come “before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days” (v. 17). We may remember that the priests were to guard (שָׁמַר) the holy things of God. This refers principally to the sanctuary. However the courts of justice in Israel become another kind of “sanctuary,” so that the priests were also guardians of civil justice. A classic New Testament passage is the example of Pilate —
“he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves” (Mat. 27:24).
Such an action falsely assumes that one can opt out of rendering justice. It can be said of both the witnesses and judges that their chief object is justice. In a negative role they are obstructing justice. In Exodus 23:2, the verse ends with the infinitive להטת, which, in the English, is rendered “to pervert justice.” Neither the witnesses nor the judges are to show favoritism. They are not present to defend their own, but to tell the truth. If they know the truth, or know enough to find it out, then they are complicit in the false witness if they do not come to the aid of the oppressed with that truth.
Fourth, The Punishment Proper. “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape” (Prov. 19:5). Of course this is true of the Last Day, but it is first in the imperative for human courts. Vern Poythress remarks about the Deuteronomy 19 text that no damage was actually done.8 Hence the words “as he had meant to do.” Thus even where there is no material restoration, there is still punishment. What then is prescribed? It says, “Then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother” (v. 19). What can possibly be meant by this? Are God’s people to lie about the person who lied about another person! This would change Gandhi’s maxim a bit: “A lie for a lie makes the whole world x.” Of course this would miss the point. This particular application of the lex talionis only makes sense 1. if there were objective damages sustained to the image of God by the original lie, and 2. if there was a real constructive remedy for those damages.
False Witness is Not Only to Avoid, but to Repair
Heidelberg Q.112 is useful again: What is required in the ninth commandment?
“That I bear false witness against no one; wrest no one’s words; be no backbiter, or slanderer; join in condemning no one unheard and rashly; but that I avoid, on pain of God’s heavy wrath, all lying and deceit, as being the proper works of the devil; in matters of judgment and justice and in all other affairs love, honestly speak and confess the truth; and, so far as I can, defend and promote my neighbor’s good name.
Obedience to the Ninth Commandment is proactive. Notice those last words of the Catechism’s answer: “defend AND PROMOTE (or ADVANCE) my neighbor’s good name.” This means caring about the truth of things again. Upholding all of my neighbors’ good names de-escalates tensions and makes for peace:
“These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments sthat are true and make for peace; do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares the LORD” (Zech. 8:16-17).
This implies discerning attributes of false witnesses in the act. Is loyalty to persons being placed over the facts of the case. Are we speaking only in generalities about sin, or about specfic charges? Of the Exodus 23 passage, Cole suggests that a “malicious witness” is “better translated ‘witness in a charge of violence,’ for the thought is that a verdict will be fatal to the defendant.”9 So the overarching idea is that false witness is deliberate violence against God’s image (cf. Jam. 3:9), always causing measurable damage. There is the good witness implied by all these passages, or in Psalm 15,
“He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart; who does not slander with his tongueand does no evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend … who swears to his own hurt and does not change” (vv. 2-3, 4).
One of the other verses I cited from the law of Moses, but didn’t quote, is worth considering here: “If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity” (Lev. 5:1). If you know the truth where a lie has injured someone’s person or stewardship, it is your duty to restore that with the truth.
The classic New Testament passage that one should begin with in Matthew 18:15-20. Although not specifically about false witness, the ideal of securing witnesses to establish charges is courtroom language. The end goal is not inquisition against anyone, but a restortation of both that which was violated and the relationship itself.
How about a definition first? Brakel gives us one: “To bear false witness is to make a declaration contrary to the truth of the matter and contrary to that of which we are aware—which is even more abominable if it occurs to the detriment of our neighbor.” And he places them under five general heads, along the same lines as the Catechism answers: “1) bearing false witness; 2) the twisting of someone’s words; 3) backbiting; 4) slander; and 5) the deceitful use of words.”
False Witness in the Civil Court
Anytime one conceals the truth, or participates in a lie, about someone else in the civil sphere, that is the most obvious violation. This would include framing someone for a crime, such as the false witnesses who were brought forth by Jezebel against Naboth (1 Kings 21:31), or more notoriously, those against Jesus, where we witness twisting someone’s words:
“At last two came forward and said, ‘This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days’” (Mat. 26:60-61).
Prosecutors can be guilty, such as those accusing Paul in Acts 25:7. And the judge can be guilty, whether he is motivated by a bribe, by false loyalties, or for political advancement (cf. 2 Chr. 19:6-7):
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD” (Prov. 17:15).
There is also the raising of suspicions,
“But the princes of the Ammonites said to Hanun their lord, “Do you think, because David has sent comforters to you, that he is honoring your father? Has not David sent his servants to you to search the city and to spy it out and to overthrow it? (2 Sam. 10:3).
False Witness at Home, Work, or Church
Ordinary gossip fits under this because, even if the report is true, the feigning of regret when one actually enjoys the lowering of people’s esteem for the man, is false:
It was true even in those Mosaic law passages that even charges that wind up being true should not be discussed outside of appropriate circles. Another commentator adds that “The Israelite may not give a ‘witness of falsehood,’” which includes “the whole spectrum of sins of the tongue: gossip, slander, flattery, etc.” Why is this? It is because even if the tendency of the information will cause others to see the person in a light that is “one unit of truth less” than perfect truth, to that extent even true information can be twisted into a false witness.
Eliab’s charge against his brother, which led to David’s moment of triumph over Goliath, is cited by the Westminster divines:
“And Eliab’s anger was kindled against David, and he said, ‘Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle’” (1 Sam. 17:28).
The three counselors of Job were blamed in the end by God of being in the wrong for their case against Job (42:7-9).
APPLICATION
Use 1. EVANGELICAL USE. How comprehensive is this commandment? Well, 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. But if the guilty are so guilty, well, then why would we need to make anything up about them? The plain evidence is enough to convict. This ought to make us stop to check our sources or else confess ignorance in the present just as much as about the historical case.
Use 2. CIVIL USE. This deals with the false witness in the public, or civil, sphere. This is what I will call “civil lying” (e.g. fraud, perjury, treaty-breaking, etc.). 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. But now even that is under violent attack.
Use 3. DIRECTIVE USE. There is a higher standard in the courts of Christ’s church. 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, in the form of church discipline. What about the criteria for restoration in this lifetime? If “double payment is the appropriate penalty for theft,” then what shall we say about the slandering of a Christian? Poythress distinguishes between punishment and restoration. Payment for sin implies both. It may be objected that since Christ bore the punishment, there is nothing left to pay. But this is an equivocation of term pay. The resources of repayment are a positive good. In the case of 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.
_______________________
1. Keil & Delitzsch, 938.
2. Childs suggests that a passage from Hosea evidences a broader interpretation of such commands by the time of the prophets: “there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed” (Hos. 4:2) [425].
3. Keil & Delitzsch, 938.
4. Ridderbos, 213.
5. cf. Psalm 27:12 and Proverbs 6:19, 12:17, 19, 14:5, 19:5, 9, and 25:18.
6. Gispen, 227.
7. Childs suggests the same Hebrew connotation of “set your hand with” תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙, in the conspiracy of kings (cf. 2 Ki. 15:19), in the good alliance of Ahikam the son of Shaphan to save the prophet (cf. Jer. 26:24), and in a plea of Job (cf. 30:2) [481].
8. Vern Poythress, Shadows of Christ in the Law of Moses,
9. Cole, 184.
