What does the Bible say about restorative justice?

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 Exodus 22:1-15 the thought of restitution is brought to our notice, a very necessary principle since there can be no evading of responsibility on the part of one who has to do with "the righteous Lord that loveth righteousness." In this God has shown not only His concern for the guarding of the life and persons of His people, as already noted, but also a concern for their possessions, demanding restitution from the offender as being accountable to Him in their relations with one another.

This raises a question of deeper import and far-reaching significance, for if God regards the robbing of one's fellow-man in such a grievous light, what of our infinitely greater sin of having robbed God, a sin of which all men are guilty; and what can we bring to God as restitution? It is utterly impossible for bankrupt sinners to make restitution to God, but another has done so, One who was not only the sin offering and the burnt offering, but also the true trespass offering (Lev. 5), and in Leviticus 14 both a sin offering and a trespass offering were necessary. In the case of a Nazarite being defiled, the same two offerings were required. While the trespass offering is in effect a sin offering, it has more to do with the government of God, whereas the actual sin offering has to do with the holiness of God's nature. The Lord Jesus is the true trespass offering in Isaiah 53:10-12 and also in Psalm 69, where, in prophetic language, He says, "then I restored that which I took not away."

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.)

Knowing what fearful damage to the fair name of Christ is wrought amongst God's people in connection with similar episodes we feel as if we could not sufficiently stress this important Epistle. It inculcates: As to the offending party, a return in all humility to the one offended with confession and an acknowledgement of his rights as to restitution. As to the offended party, the reception of the repentant offender in grace with the fullest possible acknowledgement of all that God has wrought in him; whether it be through conversion as in the case of Onesimus, or through restoration as might be the case with many of ourselves. As to the mediating party, an absence of anything approaching a dictatorial spirit, coupled with ardent love for both the offended and the offender, expressing itself in entreaties marked by courtesy and tact.

But the next object in discipline is the recovery of the erring one — his restoration to communion with God and His people. Unjudged sin in the believer leads to death (1 Cor. 11:30). God must intervene if we do not. The flesh must be judged, and thus "destroyed" (1 Cor. 5:5). If no notice is taken of sin it will go on until all are defiled. If the offender is dealt with in faithfulness we may expect to see the results. Our object should not be to get rid of a disagreeable or disgraced person, hoping never to see him again, but rather in the confidence that our firmness will be owned of God in leading him to true repentance. Such is especially the case in the minor forms of discipline which we shall presently consider; but even in the extreme of cutting off we may look for God's blessing on the offender. Negatively, the object of discipline is not retribution. "Vengeance is Mine," and it is a pitiful spectacle to see poor, sinful men pouring out vengeance upon a wrong-doer. We may safely leave all that with God. It often vitiates true discipline when the element of anger or of retaliation is allowed.

The second thing in this purification of the camp is the restitution enjoined for trespass — a restitution which we have already seen is to be in excess of the injury inflicted by the trespass. It does not satisfy God to have the loss made up; there must be an overplus of gain to him who has suffered the loss, wherein God too is glorified. This is the positive side of blessing in the conflict with evil, not as before simply the banishment of it; and for this the work of Christ must come in, as seen in the accompanying sacrifice: it is a triumph of holiness which redemption alone can secure, and has secured, and which those redeemed from sin are called to imitate.

Marks of true recovery are very plain. There will be a sense of sin against God (Ps. 51), a judging of the root of it, a submission to God's governmental dealing, even when undue severity may have been used by the saints; these are some of the proofs of true recovery. If there was trespass against any, the wrong will be righted as far as possible — the dishonest gains refunded, the bitter, false accusations withdrawn: and, we need hardly add, the sin will be forsaken. Until there is restoration to communion with God there can be no true restoration to the assembly. The steps in the reinstatement of the cleansed leper (Lev. 14) to his privileges are interesting and instructive in this connection. It was the priest who was to examine the healed man, and the various rites in his restoration are most suggestive of complete recovery.

It will be noticed that the leper, even after his restoration to the worship of God, "remained abroad out of his tent seven days;" it suggests that even after personal recovery an interval may elapse before the person is restored to his privileges in the assembly. There are many reasons for this: if the offense has been glaring or disgraceful, it is fitting that the world should see the genuineness of the repentance. It will not hurt, but deepen in the individual a sense of his sin. In addition to this, it is well to remember that the tender consciences of the saints have been sorely wounded, and the offender will gladly allow time for the healing of the shock inflicted. Anything like insistance upon his immediate reception after confession, or resentment at delay, would show that the work in his soul lacks completeness.

Now we see from this case at Corinth that in every act of restoration, as we commonly call it, there is the thought of the forgiveness of the sin for which the person has been put away. Restoration, in our ordinary sense, means that the assembly forgives the sin and receives back into its midst the repentant saint. In Scripture the word "restoration" is not used in this sense. We find it in Gal. 6:1. The spiritual saints are told to restore in a spirit of meekness a man who is overtaken in some offence. They are to bring him back into communion with God, and into happy working with the saints. This, I believe, is the force of the word (katartizo) here used. It is a word applied to mending nets. (Matt. 4:21.) The broken ends are joined and restored to their proper place and function in the whole. So with the failing saint as a member of the body of Christ. Excommunication is severance from that which on earth expresses the body of Christ. The one who has been "put out" needs to be brought in again, not merely readjusted, so to speak.

Finally we may notice that the thought of human forgiveness is really familiar to us all, and owned of God in the common relationships of life. "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." (Luke 17:3.) So, on the other hand, if I sin against my brother, I am bound to obtain his forgiveness; it is a point of godliness to do so. (Matt. 5:24.) The case stands, I believe, thus: First, if I have sinned against God only, I have to confess to Him and be forgiven, and He also practically cleanses in grace. Second, if my sin has been also against my brother, I must confess to him, and get his forgiveness, as well as confessing to God. Third, if my sin has been of such a character that it has been open wickedness, and brought what Scripture calls "leaven" into the loaf or assembly, I must get the forgiveness of the assembly as well as God's forgiveness. Discipline and excommunication most commonly precede this forgiveness by the assembly, and are the means used of God to produce that true self-judgment upon which forgiveness both from the Lord and His people depends. This we see strikingly illustrated in the case at Corinth. (Compare 1 Cor. 5 and 2 Cor. 2) But there is no reason why repentance should not precede excommunication, in which case forgiveness might be granted without the putting away of the one who has sinned and repented.*

The work of restoration, like all other works of God, must be complete; it must be as perfect and decisive as the act of judgment. The restored delinquent is not to be tolerated only, but affectionately welcomed back. His absence, if their hearts were right, must needs have been the grief of all, and his return should be their common joy. Respect was to be had also to his state, and the cause which had produced it. He had been plunged into deep affliction through their act, and needed a special consolation at their hands. As one whom God had wounded also, they should heal him by the love of God, and with His words. By doing this they would approve themselves to Him whose chief delight is mercy, and in whose grace alone they stood who had thus judged. But this work of restoration, though prescribed by apostolic counsel, could be effected only by themselves; and if their hearts went not with such a work, it surely would be wrought in vain. Paul's language is accordingly in perfect harmony with the situation; as an asserter of righteousness, he is peremptory and precise; when lie speaks of grace to the offender, he reasons only and persuades. He commands no longer, but entreats. Nor does he doubt that as they had obeyed his summons to deal justly with iniquity, so also would they prove their willing readiness to follow the yearnings of his heart toward this divinely-chastened strayling of the flock (Ps. 119:67).

We should never put away evil-doers in order to get rid of a disgrace or to be done with a troublesome person who may have caused much sorrow and greatly tried the saints. Neither should there be the thought of executing vengeance upon a wrong-doer, but rather there should be deep sorrow that such discipline is necessary. And the one put away should be followed with much prayer, that the discipline might have the effect upon him of causing him to cease his wrong-doing and be restored to the Lord and to the communion of saints.

This blessed result is seen in the man whom the Corinthians had to put away from among themselves as a wicked person. In his second Epistle to them the apostle says that the punishment inflicted upon him was sufficient and that they should forgive him and comfort him and confirm their love to him, lest he be overwhelmed with overmuch sorrow (ch. 2:6-8). The desired purpose of excommunication had been accomplished. He was now broken down, repentant, restored to the Lord, and ready to be forgiven and restored to the fellowship of the Assembly. Blessed result of discipline which we should ever aim and pray for!