The purpose of this Law is to show the truth behind a doctrine in a “proving manner”.
Here is the verse from which this explanation of the â€œLaw of Two Witnessesâ€ is based.
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1
There must be at least two verses to affirm a doctrine (a teaching). Two which affirm the above verse would be Deuteronomy 17:6 or 19:15.
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
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.
The purpose is to show the two witnesses are necessary to prove something to be true or false. In this case a teaching from the Bible.
A separate example would be the following:
Bible Thumper says:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This is why we can’t add to or take away from the Bible.
Objector says: “Well how do you know he isn’t just talking about the book of Revelation?”
**This is where the second witness would need to come in to prove the teaching, “Do not add to or take away from the Bible”.**
The second witness would be this:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
These two sets of verses show we should not â€œtake away or add to the Bibleâ€, because it is in their twice, it affirms its truth.
The Objector is unable to make the same argument. They can say “Well then it’s only those two books you can’t change. :P” but then that is something called “moving the goal post”.
Anyone can misuse a Law
With that said, you can get nit picky and say things like, “Well all I need is two verses to prove Arminianism or Calvinism” when in actuality this would be a misuse of the Law. Just like some Jewish teachers misused the laws provided by God, see examples in the New Testament.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Just to tie something up, Calvinism is a teaching by John Calvin and Arminianism is a teaching by Jacobus Arminius, not the Bible.
Now keep in mind, this isnâ€™t necessarily necessary for every teaching. An example of this would be â€œFaithâ€.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
This is straight forward. As are other verses, but if someone wants argue about itâ€¦ theyâ€™re probably not going to care how many verses you show them. :)
Use it wisely
So, when it comes to applying this Law, use wisdom. Because of things like Deuteronomy 4:2 & Revelation 22:18-19. If you don’t have wisdom, then ask Jesus for wisdom.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
And with that wisdom, get understanding.
Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
Additionally, this Law isn’t limited to just scriptures in the Bible, this is demonstrated by Paul with 2 Corinthians 13:1.
From my own experience, my Teacher and two separate preachers all affirmed the same word from God. Their teaching was based from the “ancient landmarks” verse and they all affirmed the same thing within four days of each other. None of them knew each other.
With all this, Let God be magnified. :)
If you have any examples besides the ones I provided, then leave them in the comments below!
One response to “The Law of Two Witnesses”
This Law is on shaky ground I feel.
I don’t know what Paul’s intent was in 2 Corinthians 13. But normal logic would dictate the same person saying something multiple times is not more then one witness.
And verses from Deuteronomy about how to conduct a criminal trial are not useful for how to interpret Scripture.
That Revelation verse is specifically about Revelation and Deuteronomy is specifically about The Torah and gets cited by Torah only cults against regarding even the rest of the Old Testament a God’s Word. And That’s not moving the goal post, the objection was always that no book talking about itself can be interpreted to refer to the 1611 King James Bible.