Witnesses were not passive observers; in capital cases they bore grave responsibility and could participate first in carrying out the sentence. False testimony was itself punishable.
Customs & Culture
Witnesses and the Requirement of Two or Three
Serious accusations in Israelite law required corroborating testimony rather than conviction on the word of a single witness.
Primary Scripture
Historical and Cultural Background
Biblical Examples
Deuteronomy requires two or three witnesses, Jesus invokes the principle in church discipline, and Paul echoes the formula when addressing the Corinthians.
Biblical Significance
The rule explains why biblical legal controversies often focus on testimony, agreement among witnesses, and the credibility of accusers.
Related Images
Common Misconceptions
The principle does not mean that every historical fact in Scripture must be reported by two human eyewitnesses; it is fundamentally a judicial rule.
Historical Setting and Evidence
Culture: Israelite, Judean/Jewish
Period: Exodus and Wilderness, Conquest and Judges, United Monarchy, Divided Monarchy, Kingdom of Judah, Babylonian Exile, Persian Period, Hellenistic Period, Hasmonean Period, Roman / Second Temple Period, Apostolic / Early Church Period
Evidence: Well Attested
Interpretive Importance: Essential
Directly attested in Torah and reused as a legal and disciplinary principle in the New Testament.
Scripture References
Related Information
Sources
Deuteronomy 17; Deuteronomy 19; Matthew 18; 2 Corinthians 13