What is the context?
A single witness cannot establish an offense. The law requires two or three, and when a witness is accused of lying, both parties must appear before the priests and judges for thorough investigation.
If the accusation is proved false, the witness faces the punishment intended for the accused. The life-for-life and injury-for-injury language occurs here within this legal protection against false testimony. It is not permission for a private person to retaliate on suspicion or punish someone without a hearing.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley reads the closing measure as the false accuser bearing the penalty he sought for another. In Matthew 5:38–48, Jesus takes up the eye-for-eye saying and directs His disciples toward generosity, love for enemies, and prayer for persecutors. The legal standard and Jesus’ instruction must both be heard rather than using a court’s penalty as a personal revenge rule.
Where does this fit in God's plan?
Matthew 18:15–20 directly cites the two-or-three-witness requirement in the process for addressing a fellow believer’s sin. The concern is a matter responsibly established within a process aiming at restoration, not an accusation made true merely by repeating it. The New Testament carries the witness principle into the church without reproducing every civil penalty.
What is our position?
Our Prayer and Faith study directly identifies Deuteronomy 19:15 as the witness standard Jesus applies in Matthew 18:15–20. We therefore read the two-or-three language there in its setting of responsible church discipline and restoration, rather than as a formula by which two people can guarantee any requested outcome through prayer.