Looking at the scriptures that refer to a need for two or more witnesses:
Deuteronomy 19:16-21
“16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
It must be remembered that in ancient Israel there were no police or courts. The judges acted in these capacities, hence the requirement for two or more witnesses. This situation does not exist today in the modern Christian congregation. The Bible states that God has placed the secular authorities as his "ministers" to act in matters of criminal matters (Romans 13).
In the case of one person’s word against another, did the judges in ancient Israel consider that their hands were tied and they could do nothing? No! If there weren’t enough witnesses then the king became the judge and had to decide the final outcome.
Deuteronomy 25:1 – “When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.”
Notice here that it was the judges, not the priests, who made the “thorough investigation” (19:18). The priests served in a spiritual capacity, not a legal capacity. At this point the priests became observers only and left the investigation to the Judges. In the case of one person’s word against another, the matter moved from being a spiritual, priestly matter, to a criminal, legal matter to be investigated by the judiciary arm of the nation, not the priestly.
The ‘Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament’ brings this out:
“But as it was not always possible to bring forward two or three witnesses, and the statement of one witness could not well be disregarded, in Deuteronomy 19:16-18, Moses refers accusations of this kind to the higher tribunal at the sanctuary for investigation and decision, and appoints the same punishment for a false witness, which would have fallen upon the person accused, if he had been convicted of the crime with which he was charged. סרה בּו לענות, "to testify against his departure”.”
As a part of the judges investigation, non-human ‘witness’ evidence could be taken into account.
Exodus 22:13 (ASJ, KJV, DBT, ERV) makes it clear that non-human evidence can count as a “witness”.
At Numbers 5, a woman's reaction to the bitter waters was used as “witness” evidence against her unfaithfulness to her husband.
Jesus also said that his miracles were a “witness” to the truth of his claims (John 5:36).
This principle was used by Solomon in his well known "baby-splitting" decision. It was a case in which two women both testified that the same child was theirs. Two witnesses did not exist - it was a case of one woman's word against another, analogous to a modern day situation where it's a case of one person's allegation (child or horrified mother) against the word of a lying paedophile. But Solomon used the women's actions as a "witness" to arbitrate the tie and establish a second "witness" to agree with the verbal testimony of one against the other.
This scriptural account shows that the elders must use their common sense and look at the overall words, actions and behaviour of the parties in assessing prima-facie guilt, rather than simply ceasing all further enquiry/investigation immediately the allegation is denied.
In modern day terms, who are the equivalent of the priests and the equivalent of the judges referred to in Deuteronomy 19? The elders are regarded by the Society as today fulfilling a sort of priestly function in the congregation. But the judges of ancient Israel have been replaced by the secular authorities (Romans 13). These authorities are said by Paul to act as God’s minister and executioner to punish the evildoer. As paedophilia and all child abuse is not only a grave moral sin but a serious criminal matter, accusations of child abuse without two or more witnesses moves it into the realm of necessarily engaging the superior authorities (legal system supported by health professionals) to condemn or acquit the accused. Romans 13 is clear that the superior authorities stand placed by Jehovah to deal with criminal evil, not the elders.
This means that when an accusation of a serious crime such as child abuse (or for any other crime such as theft, physical assault, or murder) is made but there are not two eye-witnesses, the elders must notify the superior authorities as a matter of course, since it is God’s arrangement that these authorities deal with evildoers and punish them. If the superior authorities declare guilt, the elders then have their “second witness” and can oust the wicked man from the congregation’s midst. By refusing to do this in all cases, the Watchtower Society stands guilty of taking a stand against God's (secular) arrangement to punish and prevent wickedness.
The elders are not lawyers, psychologists, doctors, or scientists, and it is not appropriate to put them in a position to make “judicial” determinations about crimes under Caesar’s law. Neither is it appropriate or fair for the elders to tell a child that they cannot do anything about the child’s claim because no one else saw it happen. If the child’s parent/s mistakenly decide not to go to the secular authorities, is the child expected to go to the police alone against their own parent’s decision? That is entirely unreasonable and not in accord with the pattern left by Christ, who put the interests and needs of young children ahead of adults preferences (Matthew 19:14).
Recall that the organisation has always stated that “we must obey God’s law rather than men” (Acts 5:29), noting that God’s standards are higher than mans (Isaiah 55:9). Jehovah’s view of what is morally wrong and sinful is higher than the world’s standards. This means that the elders should be taking the moral and spiritual high ground with reporting accusations to the police, rather than just conforming to the lowest common legal requirement. In US States and countries where there are no mandatory reporting laws, the Watchtower Society should be instructing the elders to report the allegation anyway. It is all the more imperative that the elders report all child abuse accusations, whether legally required to or not, since most incidents of child abuse are never witnessed by another person and so it becomes crucial to have the judgment of the superior authorities verdict so it can count as a second “witness” in those cases where no other human witnesses exist.
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.” (Matthew 18:15,16 – New World Translation)
While an argument can be made that Jesus statement that “at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established” is a blanket rule being given by Jesus for verifying the truth of any allegation in the congregation, the context is clear that Jesus is setting out a process for resolving disputes between adults, not children, by his use of the term “brothers.”
This is also clear from the fact that the first step is for the brother sinned against to approach the accused alone. Obviously, Jesus would never intend for a child victim of sexual molestation to have to do such a thing. Jesus is saying that the one sinned against should approach the offending party to reason with them and reach a resolution, and for forgiveness to follow - obviously it would be entirely inappropriate to expect a child to do that.
Thus we discern from the context and using our natural sense of what is morally right and wrong that Matthew 18:15,16 is not meant to be applied to accusations of child abuse.
The Society also applies these verses inconsistently. When applying verse 15, the Society does not expect that a person who has been threatened with violence, or been raped or abused to initially confront the person on their own, so why does it insist that the requirement in verse 16 for two or three witnesses must apply to every situation, including child abuse?
1 Timothy 5:19
“Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear…. The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.” (1 Timothy 5:19,24,25 – New World Translation)
Paul’s injunction clearly confirms the scriptural rule. However, the underlying principle behind Paul’s requirement for two or three witnesses is the need for satisfactory “evidence” for an accusation to be deemed true. This is the underlying principle to the entire requirement for two or more witnesses, ie, for sufficient evidence to be established. It follows that if sufficient evidence can be established through other means, there is no need to dogmatically insist that two or more human eyewitnesses must exist for guilt to be established.
It is reprehensible that in a letter to elders following the Conti verdict, the Watchtower Society quotes verses 24,25 above as if to insinuate that even if there is only one witness and the elders can do nothing at the time, eventually the paedophiles sins will “become manifest” after abusing more victims who then might come forward as additional witnesses. This tends to reduce child victims to being viewed as mere pieces of evidence that must accumulate over time before there is enough evidence for the elders to finally take action. So much for the Watchtower Society’s claim that “one victim of pedophilia is too many.”
We can therefore summarise the scriptural support for the two-witness rule as applied to child abuse allegations follows:
Deuteronomy 19
Pro WTS argument: The ‘two witnesses’ rule is clearly contained here, and is ratified by Jesus and Paul later, so it is applicable to Christians.
Anti WTS argument: The WTS quotes the verse to support their ‘two witnesses’ requirement but ignores the context. If it is one person’s word against another, the matter was escalated to the Israelite judges (not priests) who were to “make a thorough investigation”. Non-human evidence was counted as a “witness”. The equivalent of the Israelite judges today is the superior authorities, who stand placed as God’s minister and executioner to punish evildoers. Since two eyewitnesses to child molestation is rare, all allegations involving only one witness that is denied by the accused should be reported to the superior authorities by the elders (whether domestic law requires reporting all not) to give the accuser every opportunity for non-human and court evidence to come forth as a second witness.
Matthew 18:15,16:
Pro WTS argument: Jesus is affirming that Deut 19 applies to Christians and is making a blanket rule for dealing with all allegations in the congregation.
Anti WTS argument: The rule is only given in relation to a process outlined by Jesus for adult “brothers” in the congregation to resolve disputes between themselves. Other aspects of Jesus’ advice as outlined clearly show it does not apply to crimes against children.
1 Timothy 5:19
Pro WTS argument: The apostle Paul is clearly saying accusations are unfounded without two or three witnesses.
Anti WTS argument: Paul is only requiring two or three witnesses in order that ample evidence is established. As demonstrated earlier, the underlying principle of sufficient evidence is all that must be satisfied, not a strict requirement for literally two or three witnesses.
On the balance, we can see that the scriptural basis for applying this rule to child abuse cases is flimsy. Although the rule is clearly evident in the New testament, when we take into context the higher principles taught by Jesus about legalistic and gnat-squeezing adherence to the letter of the law versus applying the higher principles of love and mercy, there can be no doubt that the Bible writers under inspiration never intended it to be applied in the legalistic and rigid manner shamefully adopted by the Watchtower Society.
When we consider that with the fact that Bible condemns shoving aside the legal case of the fatherless boy and that the form of pure worship is how we treat widows and orphans in their tribulation, and we also note that Jesus set a clear principle that mercy and justice were more important than legalistic insistence on letter of the law, we must conclude that the Society’s treatment and application of the two-witness scriptural rule to child abuse allegations is a monstrous example of gulping down the camel while squeezing the gnat at its worst.
2 Corinthians 3:6 "...for the written code condemns to death, but the spirit makes alive."
