What does the Bible say about restitution?

A second source of defilement meets us in verses 5-10. Trespass against the Lord and one's neighbour is contemplated. This was to be met by confession and by restitution with a fifth part added. This regulation has a very definite voice for us today. Confession was the first thing, but by itself it was not enough. There is, we fear, today much defilement, even among the true saints of God, springing from trespass, in speech as well as in act, all of which is grieving to the Holy Spirit and a great hindrance to spiritual blessing. Not infrequently has a time of awakening and conversion amongst sinners been preceded by a time of revival amongst saints, when conviction of trespasses against their Lord and their fellow-Christians has seized them, followed by confession and restitution, as far as lay in their power.

The doctrine of the trespass offering has been considered in our "Notes on Leviticus," chapter 5; and to that we must refer our reader, as we do not mean to occupy his time or our own in going into any points which have been already considered. We shall merely notice here the very important questions of confession and restitution. Not only is it true that both God and man are gainers by the Great Trespass Offering presented on the cross at Calvary; but we also learn, from the foregoing quotation, that God looked for confession and restitution, when any trespass had been committed. The sincerity of the former would be evidenced by the latter. It was not sufficient for a Jew, who had trespassed against his brother, to go and say, "I am sorry," He had to restore the thing wherein he had trespassed and add a fifth thereto. Now, although we are not under the law, yet may we gather much instruction from its institutions; although we are not under the schoolmaster, we may learn some good lessons from him. If, then, we have trespassed against any one, it is not enough that we confess our sin to God and to our brother, we must make restitution; we are called upon to give practical proof of the fact that we have judged ourselves on account of that thing in which we have trespassed.

Another thing marked these trespass offerings, where the rights of men had been infringed. The trespasser had not only to bring his offering to God but he had to make amends to the one whom he had trespassed against. If the evil had brought loss in the holy things of God, he had to make amends, as we see in Leviticus 5:16. And so also if a man had suffered loss, as we see in Leviticus 6:3. Reparation had to be made on the same basis in both cases. What had been lost originally had to be repaid and a fifth part added to it. Nothing more just than this can be found. Many a robber would not mind doing a bit of imprisonment if he be allowed to retain the gain he has made. But to lose all he made plus a fifth part beyond takes all the glamour from the wrong-doing.

In the light of this we see how very exceptional was the statement of Zacchaeus, recorded in Luke 19:8. He could say, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." This was going far beyond that which the law demanded, and by the man of the world it would have been considered over-scrupulous honesty; so much so that if anyone merited salvation Zacchaeus must have done so. All such thoughts were brushed aside by the Lord when He said, "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Was it a trespass in the holy things? In that case the money payment went to the priest. Had any individual been injured? The money due was paid to that person, or if dead to his representative; and if he left no representative, then it was handed to the priest. (Num. 5:5-8.) What justice was here displayed! No one was to take advantage of another, even though he were his brother; and if he did defraud or wrong him, he committed a trespass against the Lord. (Lev. 6:2.) The injured party's rights the offender had to acknowledge, and to make amends for the harm done to him. But he had to do with the Lord about that wrong, and his presence at the altar with a ram was a confession of it. Death then could never be pleaded by the guilty one as barring any claim for restitution or the need of confession. Jehovah did not pass away, nor did the priesthood die out; so the Lord's claims had to be acknowledged, and restitution had to be made. Had it been left to man to draw up regulations in cases of trespass, some might have carefully provided for the recognition of the claims of the injured party, and have passed over all consideration of that which was due to God. Others might have stipulated for a sacrifice, and where death had intervened, have released the offender from all claim on him for compensation. With God's law how different. Time would not diminish the gravity of the offence; for it was a trespass against the Eternal One. Circumstances could not lessen the sinner's obligation to make restitution, so He who sat upon the throne, the Righteous One, insisted on that being done, ere atonement could be made for a trespass against a neighbour. The claims then of divine holiness were maintained, and also met in the ram when sacrificed. The demand, too, for a just recompense to be made by the offender was not suffered to remain unsatisfied; yet the guilty one was also cared for in the provision made for his forgiveness. How correct was David in his judgment when he said to the prophet Gad, "Let me now fall into the hands of the Lord; for very great are His mercies." (1 Chron. 21:13.)

If in Exodus 21 we get judgments which give an extension to "Thou shalt not kill," we find in Exodus 22 judgments giving an extension to "Thou shalt not steal." Men may defraud each other in a variety of ways, and this theme continues to the end of verse 17; for a maid may be defrauded of her virtue, and a penalty lies against this as against all the rest. The first demand is for "restitution," and, if that be not possible then damages to be paid. No fairer form of penalty than this can be devised.

This chapter continues the subject begun in Exodus 21:33. Verse 1 is plain, though we are not told why the stealing of an ox would require five oxen in return, while for a sheep only four sheep were required.

If a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, this would not be considered murder if it took place in the darkness of night. If in daylight, the one who killed him was guilty of bloodshed (vv. 2-3) If one had stolen an animal and had it in his possession, he must restore double, — a much lesser penalty than verse 1. Verse 5 shows that an owner's animal was to be kept on his own property or the owner suffered the consequences. If one kindled a fire and it spread to the property of others, then the one who had kindled the fire was responsible to make full restoration.

If one was entrusted with his neighbor's goods and they were stolen from him, he would not be held responsible unless on investigation it was found that he himself had stolen them. Judges would decide such matters. In all such cases, the guilty party would have to pay double (vv. 7-9).

In the next place (Ex. 22), we have the law of restitution in cases of theft.

"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall restore double. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn. And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire." (vv. 1-15.)

Zachaeus refers, without doubt, to this provision of the law (v. 1) when he said to the Lord, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." (Luke 19:8.) As in the previous chapter we saw how God guarded the life and the persons of His people, we perceive in this how He protected their property, and made all who disregarded His law answerable to Himself. But the question for our souls is, If robbing a fellow-man is thus condemned, how can the sin be met of robbing God? How can those who are already sinners make restitution to Him? It is impossible; and if left to ourselves we must for ever have remained under the consequences of our trespasses. But we read in the Psalms of One who said, "Then I restored that which I took not away." (Psalm 69:4.) He was the trespass-offering as well as the sin and burnt-offerings. He has therefore made full and adequate restitution (we can say, if we believe) for all our trespasses. There is not a single breach which could be laid to our charge Which He, in His wondrous grace and mercy, has not repaired. This brings before us a very blessed aspect of His death. In the chapter the offender had himself to make restitution. We could not do this, and had there been no substitute for us — no one to restore to God that which He had not, but which we had, taken away, we must have for ever been answerable to His claims — for ever answerable, but having nothing to pay. The more therefore we remember this, the more shall we magnify the grace of Him who of His own will answered to God for us, so that He can righteously acquit us from every claim, yea, and as righteously bring us into the unclouded light and joy of His own presence. Blessed be for ever His most holy name!

Human laws merely punish, brutalise, perpetuate offenders; they make no reparations. A man cheats people out of their life-savings; he is jailed, the victims get nothing back. But by God’s law — a thief was not only punished, but compelled to work for wages to pay back the theft to his victims, Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:4. He was not jailed and kept at the expense of the taxpayers, nor did his victims suffer and starve.

In the first place it shows us how the converted sinner has his feet turned into paths of practical righteousness. When Onesimus wronged his master, Philemon, he was an unconverted man. Now he has become a brother beloved, but this does not relieve him of obligations incurred by his former sin. As regards God that sin was forgiven amongst all his other sins, for he stood "justified from all things" (Acts 13:39); but as regards Philemon confession and some kind of restitution was needful. How restitution was made in this case the Epistle shows. Here at once there meets us an important lesson. If we have done some palpable wrong to another, no more effectual proof of our repentance can be given than that of confession and restitution, as far as that may be within our power. It is ever a trying process, but it is practical righteousness, most effective as a testimony and most glorifying to God.

Amongst other signs of true repentance we shall observe a willingness to make restitution to anyone who has been wronged.

We see this in the case of Onesimus. He had wronged his master, Philemon, by running away. After his conversion he seeks to make compensation, as far as he can, by going straight back to his master. In Zaccheus we have another instance of this. When the Lord Jesus responded so graciously to his desire to see Him, and brought salvation to his house, Zaccheus said, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8). That is a case of bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance.

Is there anyone that you have wronged? Anyone whom you defrauded long years ago by a bit of sharp practice that has never been discovered from that day to this? Anyone you have wronged with your tongue, whose character you have damaged by slander and gossip? Is there such a person? Don't tell me that you are repentant, then, unless you are willing to do what you can to make amends.