What Does the Bible Say About False Accusations?

Apologia Studios

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

When you look at British common law, when you look at the history of law and what we've got in the United States of America, it all traces right back to the

00:07

Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. It goes back to the law of God. Christians in history established civilizations, and they pointed back to the law of God.

00:15

Of course, I've said this many times before, our first Supreme Court justice—hey, Supreme Court justice—John

00:20

Jay was a solid, solid Christian, loved God, was heavily involved in missions work and getting

00:26

Bibles around the world. When John Jay, our first Supreme Court justice, was writing case law in the United States of America and pointing to law, he actually pointed to the law of God in the

00:36

Old Testament. And so in the law of God, God's law does not permit us—ever—does not permit us to receive accusations on the basis of one witness.

00:47

I'll give you that verse again. I said at the beginning of the episode, this is a single witness—sorry, Deuteronomy 19 .1.

00:52

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed, only on the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a charge be established.

01:04

Now, of course, when we look at that, we can take the general equity of that law today.

01:09

Two to three witnesses means two to three independent lines of witness and testimony.

01:15

So you could, of course, add to that. You could add DNA testing. That's a witness.

01:20

You could also add—but we've got to be careful with that. It has to be genuine DNA testing that actually points to that specific person, not—I only say this because we know of examples of DNA testing being used to say, no, it wasn't his, but it is in the spectrum of men who fall into that category and people actually being charged because DNA falls into a spectrum of men.

01:43

So you've got to be careful with that DNA evidence. Even that has to be vetted. So when we say two to three witnesses, the general equity of that would just say two to three independent lines,

01:52

DNA evidence, of course, a supreme example today would be video cameras. Video camera evidence, of course, counts.

01:59

So you can have, you know, not just one person. You can also have other witnesses, but God's law does not permit us.

02:06

Does not permit us. It'd be a sin if you did it. Catch that. It would be a sin in God's law for me to receive an accusation against somebody on the basis of a single witness, one line of evidence.

02:20

God says, you are not permitted to do that, which means it is a sin to receive accusations on the basis of one person's witness.

02:28

I think, of course, we need to look at something very critical here, and that's one of the things said in the video, and that is that there were three people who gave sworn statements under penalty of perjury, and they said they had no knowledge of what

02:42

Dr. Ford is talking about. Dr. Ford didn't know the day it took place. She didn't even know where it took place, and she has no evidence of a person that drove her to or from this event.

02:53

So when you talk about one witness, here's a person that says something took place, what was that, over 30 years ago?

03:00

And she says she doesn't know when, she doesn't know where, and she has no witnesses to corroborate this event.

03:06

It's just upon her own memory and her own testimony, and the accused, who is Dr. Kavanaugh, is denying, forcefully denying the allegations and trying to provide evidence that it could not have been him.

03:17

So here's the point. Only God knows. Only God knows the truth about this accusation, and we have to trust the just judge of all the universe, who will always do right, that ultimately, as Christians, we have complicated situations like this.

03:32

We have to just err on the side of the accused and say there is not enough witness and testimony to actually receive the accusation.

03:40

We must trust God as ultimate judge, that He knows, and that justice will be done.

03:46

But we cannot, as Christians, receive accusations on the basis of one person's testimony and witness.

03:52

There are other questions that need to come into play here in terms of memory. I would encourage you guys to do a study on this.

03:58

It is very, very important. It is possible for people to have memories, false memories, and I'm not saying that,

04:06

Dr. Ford, that this didn't happen. You understand my position here? I'm not saying I know. I'm not saying that we can ultimately know.

04:12

What I'm saying is only God knows, but God's standards, His judicial standards for receiving accusations do not permit us to actually, at this point, receive the allegation.

04:22

In particular, when you have two to three other witnesses who were supposedly there who say,

04:29

I have no knowledge whatsoever of this event. So that's a critical point, I think, to make. You guys want to add anything to that?

04:35

Yeah, just along those lines, I was going to say, this is not us saying, oh,

04:40

Kavanaugh is innocent. Like you said, we don't know for sure what happened, but what this is, is us saying, this is how this process should take place according to God's law, regardless of who is right or wrong in this situation.

04:54

The way it's being handled, I mean, it's a joke. If anybody watched the hearing last week, it was right after we did our radio show, we went and watched the rest of it, and it was a complete circus.

05:07

I mean, I could not believe what I was watching. And I mean, even when the one guy was like, what does boof mean?

05:15

I was like, is this really happening right now? The yearbook stuff? Yeah. I was like, come on.

05:21

So yeah, so that's what this is. This is just us saying, this is how this stuff should take place.

05:26

How we're supposed to filter. Exactly. Right. Exactly. So go ahead. Anything? No? Yeah. Okay. No, no, no.

05:32

I just agree. Okay. Good. So Deuteronomy 19, 15 was the one, but I just want you to know, this is not a matter of proof texting or finding a verse.

05:39

It seems convenient here. This is the whole, the entire spectrum of Scripture testifies to this, both old and new.

05:46

Now here's what's critical. Please hear me on this. I mean this very humbly. Whatever your perspective is today on the law of God, we are, of course, those who are in the

05:55

Puritan tradition, we believe that the law of God has abiding validity today in the New Testament. We believe that you have to assume the continuity of the

06:02

Old Testament law, except where the New Testament inspired authors and writers tell you there's been a change in administration.

06:09

So for example, in the New Testament, you have New Testament authors, inspired apostles saying things like Ephesians two, that the holiness code, the law of commandments and ordinances that that's now gone, dietary restrictions, those sorts of things that those were meant to be a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile, but in Christ now that wall has been broken down and it's gone.

06:27

It has a purpose. It had a purpose. It was pointing to Jesus, to holiness, to sanctification, to separateness from the world.

06:34

And now that is done because we have Christ the substance. You also have other examples in a

06:39

New Testament where we know what say the animal sacrifices are for. Christ is the one and only sacrifice. It's a perfect sacrifice.

06:45

No more animal sacrifices because the substance is here. No more temple, no more high priest, no more of those things because Jesus, the substance is here.

06:53

The shadow's gone. However, you see the New Testament apostles assuming the law of God all throughout the

07:00

New Testament. A couple examples. One, the apostle Paul post cross resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

07:06

So all this is done now, Jesus on his throne. He actually appeals to an animal husbandry law.

07:12

That's just crazy. An animal husbandry law from old Testament law. And that is where he says, don't muzzle the ox while it treads.

07:20

And he doesn't say, Hey, we know the law is defunct and it's all over now. But Hey, why don't we try to keep this one? He just quotes it like you're supposed to know this.

07:29

Don't muzzle the ox while it treads. Guys, that's an animal husbandry law. So how much of the old Testament law is abiding and valid today in a new covenant?

07:37

Well, down to animal husbandry. The general equity of that law is you don't muzzle the ox while it treads.

07:42

Pay the person who is working. That's the point. Another example from the old

07:48

Testament into the New Testament is, of course, you have the example of judicial law. And this gets right here to this point we're on now, two to three witnesses.

07:55

So example would be in Matthew 18, 16, the text about church discipline.

08:02

That's a text where it says, Jesus says, every matter may be established by the testimony of two to three witnesses,

08:08

Jesus, New Testament, Matthew 18, appealing to the old Testament judicial law of receiving accusations, two to three witnesses.

08:17

So you have another example in second Corinthians 13, one, this is the third time

08:23

I'm coming to you every month. Every matter must be established by the testimony of two to three witnesses. First Timothy 5, 19, after the resurrection of Jesus and ascension of Jesus, Paul tells

08:32

Timothy, he says this, do not entertain an accusation against an elder, except on the testimony of two to three witnesses.

08:41

So my point there is, is that this is not something you could say, well, that's old Testament law. It doesn't apply. I'm saying

08:46

Jesus applies it. New Covenant, Paul applies it. New Covenant, that's judicial law in terms of receiving accusations.

08:53

Notice how that translation says that. I like that. Don't entertain an accusation against an elder unless it's on the basis of two to three witnesses.

09:00

So there's God's judicial law in the New Testament. Finally, I'll say this, the Decalogue, the 10 words, the 10 commandments is also assumed in terms of continuity in the

09:10

New Testament by the apostle Paul post resurrection of Jesus. Ephesians chapter six is where Paul says to children, children, obey your parents in the

09:20

Lord. He says, this is the first commandment with promise. That of course is not taking place before the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the outpouring of the spirit of God at Pentecost.

09:30

That's occurring long after Paul just assumes its continuity. So my point there is that as Christians, we have a command from God, do not dare receive an accusation except on the basis of two to three witnesses, which means that we have to say that we take judicial standards seriously in terms of rape.

09:49

What do we believe here about rape accusations? He deserves to die. Yeah. Not, not just not be a

09:56

Supreme court judge. Right. He's guilty. He deserves a death penalty. Right. That's what I meant by like my, the, the separation of the two issues here, because it's not really that it's a completely separate thing.

10:09

Yeah. Exactly. And you have to see, hold them in different categories, right? We have a hard time in this modern time thinking in different categories, but we have to.

10:18

And I think that it's clear that we have to pay attention to scripture in terms of receiving accusations and we have to take seriously judicial standards for the woman who is raped.

10:27

I think that our society today does not value the woman and her dignity the same way

10:34

God does in his law, where he says the person who would go so far as to rape somebody deserves to die.

10:40

They've forfeited their right to live by committing that crime. And so we say today, well, six months, three months, five years, three years probation.

10:50

I just saw a news article about a guy that raped like a six year old, he didn't get the death penalty. He got like a couple of years in jail, raping a six year old, a six year old, he deserves to die.

10:59

So if you guys are listening to this today, maybe you guys, you know, you're atheists or agnostics. You guys are hostile to the message of apology at church.

11:06

I know you guys are out there. Hello. Hello. Welcome. We love you. Um, and you're thinking, well, you're just trying to protect Kavanaugh because you guys are those

11:11

Republican conservatives. A, I don't consider myself a Republican at all. And B, that's not my point with Kavanaugh.

11:18

I think that if it's true, he deserves to die. Um, however, I'm saying you cannot receive this accusation according to God because it's on the basis of one witness who cannot get our story even corroborated with independent witnesses.

11:29

I'm not saying she has no right to say something. I'm saying that if we're going to investigate, we have to say, I'm not accepting it.

11:36

I'm not believing you. Prove it, prove it. And until you prove it,

11:41

I'm not entertaining it. I'm not going to receive the accusation. I'm not going to assume that you're right.

11:47

I'm going to assume his complete innocence until you demonstrate that he's guilty.

11:52

Now we have a system that says when an accusation is made, you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

11:59

It's literally the reverse. We literally have people saying things today like, uh, believe victims, really believe all victims, really?

12:08

How many, how many, uh, news articles do you need me to provide to you when you say, believe all victims showing you women that have, have given false allegations of rape towards men coming out later and saying,