ECONOMY 12 – Restitution & Compensation

ECONOMY 12 – RESTITUTION & COMPENSATION

Many sermons are preached about forgiveness, but there is virtually no preaching on the need for restitution.
We rightly say that me must forgive the one who wronged us (fraud, deception, stealing, etc.), but we have nothing to say about the responsibility of the one asking forgiveness to also make restitution.
Yet the Bible has about two chapters dedicated to this subject! Maybe we need to learn something here.
The law concerning restitution is laid down in a case by case style with examples from a rural society. But principles can be drawn for modern day application:

RESTITUTION

Ex 23:4-5

protect other's property, even an enemy's

When you come upon your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back. 5 When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free.

Affirmation of the responsibility to protect property – mine, that of others, even that of enemies
Affirmation of the value of property. Maintain what is valuable, even if it’s not yours.
By implication also: Maintain public property!
As in the 4th command there are animal rights described: the obligation to help a working animal in need.

Ex 22:1-4

Theft > 4 to 5 fold restitution

When someone steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, the thief shall pay five oxen for and ox, and four sheep for a sheep. The thief shall make restitution, but if unable to do so, shall be sold for the theft. 4 When an animal, whether ox or donkey or sheep, is found alive in the thief’s possession, the thief shall pay double.

A detriment to stealing is given: I will incur a 4 to 5 fold loss if my theft is caught.
This is discouraging stealing by making it high risk.
If there was only a 1 or 2 fold payback, then even if half of my thefts are caught, it wound still be paying off financially to steal.

2 Sa 12:5-6

Nathan convicting David

As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; 6 he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

David knows to law (!), he knows it’s fourfold and not five fold for a sheep. Clearly David is meditating on the law as a king is instructed in De 17:18-19. He also ‘loves the law (Psa 119).
David metes out a death penalty on stealing, though. Is this according to the law? I don’t think so. Maybe he wants to give it for destroying a poor man’s basis of living.

Luke 19:8

Zaccheus making restitution

Half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.

Zaccheus also knows to law. Upon receiving Jesus unconditional love, he responds in kind by generous giving and restitution (4 fold).

Ex 22:5

grazing > restitution from the best

5 When someone causes a field of vineyard to be grazed over, or lets livestock loose to graze in someone else’s filed, restitution shall be made from the best in the owner’s field or vineyard.

Discouragement of ‘being smart’, of ‘cheating’, of hiding behind ‘accidents’ when really it is intentional, of ‘taking advantage’, of ‘provoking your neighbor’.
Restitution is instructed to be from the best, no cheap tricks are allowed.

Ex 22:6

careless fire > full restitution

When fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, the one who started the fire shall make full restitution.

even with ‘accidents’ cause and effect is to be considered:
if it was preventable, due to carelessness or due to negligence – though unintentional – I must make full restitution.
I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, even though depending on the case (if no intentionality) that might mean lesser punishment, as in the case of killing (Deu 19:1-13).

Ex 21:33-34

creating risk for accidents of animals

f someone leaves a pit open, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it. 34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution, giving money to its owner, but keeping the dead animal.

I am responsible to prevent accidents or to not create dangerous conditions so as to value an other’s safety and an other’s property’s safety
The dead animal is mine: this is not punishment, but making restitution.
Restitution means to restore the original state for my neighbor: he has got an ox again. This is not an intentional, additional infliction of harm on the one causing the accident, unlike modern ‘suing’.
Modern suing? There the amounts are not restitution of the damage done, but set to hurt the offending company.

Ex 21:35-36

animals goring each other

35 If someone’s ox hurts the ox of another, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the price of it, and the dead animal they shall also divide. 36 But if it was known that the ox was accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not restrained it, the owner shall restore ox for ox, but keep the dead animal.

unintentional, unpredictable damage by animals > divide the loss.
if it was unintentional, but predictable, due to carelessness or due to negligence, then the negligent one has to make restitution
But again there is no punishment aspect, the person can then keep the dead animal.

Ex 22:7-8

goods in safekeeping stolen > intention?

7 When someone delivers to a neighbor money or goods for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the neighbor’s house, then the thief, if caught, shall pay double. 8 If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall be brought before God, to determine whether or not the owner had laid hands on the neighbor’s goods.

Why double? double of four or five fold (see Exo 23:4-5) or just twofold? What is done with the double payback, one for the owner and one for the keeper?
Safekeeping others’ property or money is a service rendered, and people shouldn’t be punished for rendering services to their neighbors.
Yet it needs to be ascertained that the theft wasn’t agreed on by keeper and thief > lot by priest (?) decides on motivation.
This would discourage shams with other peoples’ properties or abuse of trust
This protects the keeper who renders a service to his neighbor, otherwise taking care of others’ things is high risk:
If a theft happens, I have double loss > my things were stolen and I have to make restitution to the owner for his things.
This would discourage framing a well-meaning neighbor by giving him goods to store and then faking a theft.

Ex 22:10-13

loss or destruction of things in safekeeping

When someone delivers to another a donkey, ox, sheep, or any other animal for safekeeping, and it dies or is injured or is carried off, without anyone seeing it, 11 an oath before the LORD shall decide between the two of them that the one has not laid hands on the property of the other; the owner shall accept the oath, and no restitution shall be made. 12 But if it was stolen, restitution shall be made to its owner. 13 If it was mangled by beasts, let it be brought as evidence; restitution shall not be made for the mangled remains.

As before, the one storing an other’s goods (rendering the other person a service) is protected.
But it is also demanded of him that he will do for the other person’s property what he would do for his own (saving it from a thief, keeping it in such a way that is isn’t destroyed). If he neglect’s the other person’s property, then he is liable to make restitution.
22:12 assumes it being stolen under safe keeper’s eyes without him preventing it. Otherwise it would not be in contrast with 22:10-11 and in contradiction to 22:7-8
This system presupposes fear of the Lord and sanctity of oath (22:11).

Ex 22:9 disputed ownership > double restitution

9 In any case of disputed ownership involving ox, donkey, sheep, clothing, or any other loss, of which one party says, “This is mine,” the case of both parties shall come before God; the one whom God condemns shall pay double to the other.

Discouragement of ‘taking advantage’, ‘being smart’, ‘cheating’ a neighbor by having to restore double, thus incurring loss.
Again: this system presupposes fear of the LORD and sanctity of oath (22:11)

Ex 22:14

injury or loss of hired animals

When someone borrows and animal from another and it is injured or dies, the owner not being present, full restitution shall be made. 15 If the owner was present, there shall be no restitution; if it was hired, only the hiring fee is due.

Borrower’s obligation to the Giver to keep his property safe, if I borrow things, I must bring them back in good condition > protection of others’ property
If the owner was present when a thing got borrowed and used and did not prevent or object to a use, then responsibility is with the owner, not the borrower.
Hiring fees are assumed for lending out animals (for labor or transport).
Animals do not have to be lent without charge. An animal is valuable, its time and labor is also valuable, its upkeep requires continued feeding and care, so hiring fees are appropriate.
Is this also true of land? yes. Of tools? yes by implication. Of money? yes by implication, yet clause put on lending to the very poor.

Le 24:18, 21

Killing others' animals

18 Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. … 21 One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

Full restitution in the case of killing an other’s animals. There is no addition of a fifth
or a four or five fold restitution, why? How is this different from theft?
Is it that the animal was left dead? (therefore not stolen)
Is it that the animal was killed unintentionally?
Is it that the animal was killed in error?
is it that the animal was killed in presumed self defense? If it was real self defense, the case would be different, I think.

Nu 5:6-8

Restitution after wronging someone

Speak to the Israelites: When a man or a woman wrongs another, breaking faith with the LORD, that person incurs guilt 7 and shall confess the sin that has been committed. The person shall make full restitution for the wrong, adding one fifth to it, and giving it to the one who was wronged. 8 If the injured party had no next of kin to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for wrong shall go to the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement, with which atonement is made for the guilty party.

Exactly same case as above
Adding this: if the person to whom restitution must be made is dead, it must be paid to next of kin. If no next of kin, then is must be paid to the priest.
Again: it must be paid back … priest here is ‘substituting’, allowing for the person to do the procedure as required.
Modern issue of ‘guilt money’: Governments having a fund for people to be able to pay ‘guilt money’ into if they are condemned by their consciences but can’t access the person any more whom they defrauded or did wrong to.

Le 5:15-16

Offerings with restitution for unintentional sin

15 When any of you commit a trespass and sin unintentionally in any of the holy things of the LORD, you shall bring, as your guilt offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into silver by the sanctuary shekel; it is a guilt offering. 16 And you shall make restitution for the holy thing in which you were remiss, and shall add one fifth to it and give it to the priest. The priest shall make atonement on your behalf with the ram of the guilt offering, and you shall be forgiven.

Le 5:17-19

Offerings with restitution for unknown sin

17 If any of your sin without knowing it, doing any of the things that by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, you have incurred guilt, and are subject to punishment. 18 You shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent, as a guilt offering; and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for the error that your committed unintentionally, and you shall be forgiven. 19 It is a guilt offering; you have incurred guilt before the LORD.

What is the difference between 5:15-16 and 5:17-19? The unintentional sin about holy things
has no 20% added, the unknown unintentional sin does … why?
Adding a fifth (20%) seems to stress that this is not just restitution, but also punishment

Le 5:15-16

Offerings with restitution for unintentional sin

What is the difference between 5:15-16 and 5:17-19? The unintentional sin about holy things
has no 20% added, the unknown unintentional sin does … why?
Adding a fifth (20%) seems to stress that this is not just restitution, but also punishment

Le 6:1-7

Offerings with restitution for fraud / lying

2 When any of you sin and commit a trespass against the LORD by deceiving a neighbor in a matter of a deposit or a pledge, or by robbery, or if you have defrauded a neighbor 3 or have found something lost and lied about it – if you swear falsely about any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby – 4 when you have sinned and realize your guilt and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, 5 or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your fault. 6 And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. 7 The priest shall make atonement of your behalf before the LORD, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that he may one may do and incur guilt thereby.

If one is deceiving about a deposit or pledge, stealing, defrauding, lying about found item, false swearing about it:
Command to pay back or give back principal amount plus 20%, probably because of the worry, headache and running around the person had to do.

Philemon 18-19

Paul offering Philemon restitution

If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, chare that to my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it.

Paul does not presume on his long-term friend and co-worker but recognizes his rights as the owner of the slave Onesimus and his right to restitution.

Word study

“Restitution” H7999 'shalam', 116x in 107 verses

Different translations include: to make restitution, make good, give back, give again, complete, finish, make peace, be at peace with, make a treaty, reward, requite, repay, recompense, punish (give back), consequences of actions, pay a vow, perform a vow, pay a debt, perform, render unto, prosper, render, render recompense, make and end (also kill), render vengeance.

Summary

All these cases are very realistic, these are normal daily happenings in a village setting. This shows the need for justice in small daily matters in order to keep peace and good neighborly relationships.
Economic matters are important.
Great detail is given! Why? Probably to stress the need for careful inquiry, allow for different cases, motivation?
These laws are very even, always addressing both sides, never assuming the guilt is on one side. Sin can be with either side in any given case.

COMPENSATION

Ex 21:18-19

injury due to quarrel

18 When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, 19 but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery.

This being a ‘quarrel’ presumes a spontaneous, unintentional, both-sided, escalating into hitting type violence. Meaning this is not premeditated, intentional or one sided.
If death ensues, then this is presumably treated as ‘unintentional killing’, probably like killing due to negligence.
If injury results, but no death, then this is a case of not punishment but restitution: The demand is to pay for the other person’s recovery and loss of work, but no punishment (eye for and eye).
This is trying to make things even: one has the injury, the other has the expenses.
Distinguish between intentional and unintentional happenings, for there will be different measure of consequences according to this distinction.
If it was intentional, it requires punishment. If unintentional, it requires restitution (?)

Ex 21:20-21

Compensation after injury or death of a slave

20 When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

Ex 21:26-27

Compensation after injury of slaves

26 When the slave owner strikes the eye of a male of female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. 27 If the owner knocks our a tooth of a male of female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth.

Lesser degree of punishment for killing a slave than another person, murdering another person means death penalty, murdering a slave means punishment. What punishment was given?
Lesser degree of compensation for a slave than another person:
- injuring another person intentionally means ‘eye for eye’ retribution
- injuring another person unintentionally means ‘paying for recovery and loss’
- injuring a slave permanently (this is presumably intentional) means having to free him
- injuring (presumably intentionally) a slave temporarily has no consequences.
Slaves have rights: sanctity of life > killing a slave required punishment
Slaves have rights: physical state > permanently injuring a slave requires him being freed

Ex 21:22-25

Compensation after accidental induction of abortion

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

protection of surrounding people in the case of a quarrel which is not theirs, especially the vulnerable (here: pregnant) > paying fine (for dead child) and if woman dies / has permanent damage > ‘life for life’, ‘eye for eye’ …
Value of unborn life, value of women

Ex 21:28-32

animal – human goring

28 When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on the owner, then the owner shall pay whatever is imposed for the redemption of the victim’s life. 31 If it gores a boy or a girl, the owner shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slave owner thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

This is assuming an ox goring that didn’t do so before, otherwise higher punishment is commanded (death due to negligence, death penalty I think)
The animal needs to be killed to prevent further possible killings
The animal needs to be stoned (like humans?) for punishment (?) not be be eaten
Why? Has it become unclean? Is it guilty? Should its meat not turn into an issue of comfort or feasting? … How far is an animal responsible?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be put to death. It would be upsetting to have an ox around that is the killer of your relative. Somewhat parallel to an animal used for sodomy.
The animal needs to be stoned, whether it kills a man, woman, child or slave
Children and adults are treated alike, sanctity of life applies to adults and children alike.
It seems that the owner of a killed slave has to be paid a ransom to, though for a normal person it is not required (‘if’), though expected.
If a ransom is imposed, for normal people (adult or child) it is ‘as imposed’, for slaves it is ’30 shekels of silver’, following the rate for women in Lev 27:4. Slaves are not mentioned there (but elsewhere I think).