God's
Law on Restitution
By Dr. Stephen
E. Jones
Table of Contents
History of Modern Prisons
The Bible's Solution
The Law of Hammurabi
Destruction of Property:
Exodus 22:5 and 6
Stolen Property Held in Trust
Unsolved Loss of Property
Borrowed Property Damaged
Kidnapping
Lost and Found - and Retained
The Advantage of Repentance
It's About Forgiveness
Conclusion
Published by:
God's Kingdom
Ministries
6201 University Avenue, NE
Fridley, MN 55432
USA
Permission is granted for
non-commercial purposes to copy and freely quote from the contents of this book.
©
Copyright
1983
1st Revision 1989
2nd Revision 2002
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.
Download a PDF Copy
of God's Law on Restitution
It is a well-known principle of
natural law that labor is our most basic property right and is the source of all
lawful wealth. We are born with a certain amount of inherited wealth (which
represents the labor of our forebears) and a capacity to labor, representing
potential property, or wealth.
Theft is taking property that
belongs to another, or using it without the consent of the rightful owner. Theft
is the opposite of labor, and thus, in Scripture, labor is the antidote to
theft.
It occurs to few people that
there might be an alternative to the modern practice of handing out prison
sentences for property crimes. And yet, strange as it may seem, this practice is
only about 200 years old. Our modern penal system is the most expensive and
perhaps the least effective method of handling crime in the history of the
world. It is also far from humane by biblical standards, though we admit that it
was certainly more humane than the way it was usually handled in Europe prior to
this time. Putting a man in prison for stealing a loaf of bread in America was
far better than hanging him in Europe. Even so, the Bible has a far better
solution.
Prisons have existed for
thousands of years, but rather than using them to warehouse criminals as we do
today, they were used almost exclusively to detain political prisoners.
In 1776 Massachusetts had a law
that thieves be whipped or fined for their first offenses. On second offenses
the thieves had to pay three times the value of the stolen property to their
victims as restitution and forced to sit on the gallows for an hour with the
rope around their necks. On their third offenses they were hanged.
William Penn,
the founder of the state of Pennsylvania, is the father of the modern penal
system, although Queen Anne prevented him from implementing his ideas in
Pennsylvania. A century later, however, after the Revolutionary War, there was a
reaction against the excessive and cruel penalties being meted out in the name
of “justice.” (This was also a reaction against what was considered to be
“British thinking.”) Unfortunately, the most influential reformers were more
schooled in the philosophy of the Humanist Enlightenment than in Bible Law.
Thus, they began to advocate prison sentences as punishment for most crimes,
rather than restitution to the victims, as the Bible demands.
In 1796 Philadelphia established
the first “penitentiary” in history, its purpose being to give criminals
opportunity to be penitent. The criminal was put into solitary confinement with
nothing to do but read the Bible and pray. After he had been given ample time
for soul searching, he was given small work projects, under the theory that the
prisoner (now bored to death) would appreciate anything to do. Thus, he was in a
position to learn industriousness before being returned to society.
The lawmakers in New York had
some different ideas. They allowed the inmates to work and eat together, though
they were not allowed to converse or even to glance at each other. In their
utopian desire to create a perfect environment to rehabilitate the criminal,
they felt that Pennsylvania’s system of solitary confinement was too damaging
psychologically to the offenders.
And so the great debate raged
over the proper method of producing a crimeless society. At the time there were
few who questioned the value of prisons themselves. But within a century the
utopian dreams of a crimeless society had long been forgotten. Few prisoners had
become penitent or rehabilitated when released, and the problem seemed only to
have been aggravated.
But in spite of the failure of
the Great American Prison Experiment, the system goes on for lack of a better
idea (or for ignoring the better idea set forth in Scripture). So long as the
majority of the people manage to stay out of prison, they care little for those
who are sent there. In our self-righteousness we curl our lips and point our
fingers at the “criminals,” having little sympathy for them. The only ones who
seem to care at all are the liberals—the philosophical children of the
Enlightenment that had launched the experiment in the first place. The
conservative Christians generally advocate locking them up and throwing the keys
to the crocodiles.
Meanwhile, God judges us with an
ever-increasing crime rate that costs more and more money to build more and more
prisons. Taxes can only go higher, which in turn spawns a tax revolt among the
people who must pay for a system that does not work. The system is destined to
fail eventually, and Christians had better have a good system to replace it. The
purpose of this book is to give Christians the solution that God set forth in
His Word many years ago. Hopefully, this will inspire many to work with
government officials and representatives to make the necessary changes that will
stop victimizing the taxpayers and inmates alike.
Suppose a thief steals $100
worth of merchandise from a department store, but that he is caught some time
after he has “fenced” the goods. He has by this time spent the money and is flat
broke when brought to justice. The owner of the store knows that he will never
be repaid for his losses, but the only way to discourage such thieves is to
press charges and put him in prison. So the store must pay an attorney to handle
the case, which may cost him more than the stolen goods were worth in the first
place.
The thief is then assigned a
court-appointed attorney, since he cannot afford to hire one himself. Thus, the
taxpayers (including the department store owner) are made liable for the crime,
as though somehow “society” is at fault for providing a poor environment,
forcing the thief to steal for a living.
The thief is finally convicted
and sentenced to a year in prison, where the innocent taxpayers (or “society”)
must house him, feed him, clothe him, and guard him at the cost of about $60,000
per year. During this time spent in the cage, he is given a number, dehumanized,
and treated like the scum of the earth in order to ensure “law and order.”
Instead of praying penitently, he is embittered and taught to hate those
responsible for putting him there. But all is not lost, for he has also been
given an unprecedented opportunity to learn how not to get caught next time.
Prisons are well known as Crime Colleges.
Meanwhile, the family of the
thief has lost its means of support and must go on welfare and food stamps,
provided to them by the innocent taxpayers, who have been made liable once again
for someone else’s crime. Is that family grateful? How could it be grateful to a
society who has taken a husband from his wife and a father from his children?
The divorce rate among inmates is horrendous. Family units are a huge casualty
of the prison system.
Let us suppose, however, that
the thief manages to overcome the bitterness of prison life and come to know
Jesus Christ. Let us suppose he becomes truly “reformed” and sincerely desires
to follow Christ and the laws of God. When he is released from prison, he must
then find work in a lawful occupation. Now he finds that no one wants to hire
him because of his past “criminal record.” He must now go through the rest of
his life handicapped. The prison sentence continues for the rest of his life,
and society continues to punish him long after he has supposedly “paid his debt
to society.”
He finds that the people seldom
forgive the thief, because they have all been victimized without receiving
restitution. The taxpayers have had to pay huge sums of money to imprison him,
and they also know that few inmates are able to overcome the huge odds against
them and emerge from prison truly reformed. Most emerge full of bitterness and
anger and must also adjust to the freedom itself. It is difficult, after being
told to do nearly everything for so long, to make even basic personal decisions.
They are largely unprepared for normal life in society.
Little wonder, then, that the
odds of an inmate being rehabilitated and turned into a productive citizen are
so slim. According to Judge Albert Kramer of Quincy, Massachusetts, “the
failure-rate of jails is about 90%.” He was not talking about a failure to
house them without their escaping. He was talking about the failure of jails to
rehabilitate them. It is often said, even on television, that the system is
flawed, but it is the only system we have. While this is true, this does not
mean we cannot change the system. In fact, we must do so as quickly as possible,
not only for the sake of the general public, but also for the sake of the
inmates.
Legislators appear to have no
answers. The conservatives in America—many of whom claim to be
Christians—usually advocate stiffer sentences and want to make prisons as close
to sheer hell as possible as a deterrent to crime. The liberals, knowing that
criminals are not rehabilitated by harsher sentences, can only advocate spending
more money on prison programs and educational opportunities. This is
quite unpopular to the taxpayers who must fund everything.
Both sides have lost their early
idealistic vision of a crimeless society. The problem seems insurmountable. No
matter how we build the prison cells, we have not solved the most crucial
problem—Justice. Instead of a single victim of the crime, we now have
three: the original victim, the taxpayer, and the criminal himself. Is there any
answer to this horrible situation?
William Penn did not have the
answer, because (as a Quaker) he relied only on “inner light” and put away the
divine Law. Thus, in his zeal to follow the voice of the Holy Spirit, he
mistakenly ignored the words which the Holy Spirit had written in the past to
guide our way. In so doing he preached Christianity, but then often practiced
the principles of Humanism in real life. And we are paying the price for that
error today.
It may be hard to believe, but
the Bible has the answer. God’s justice restores all losses to the victim of the
crime without making the taxpayers liable, and the thief is restored to a
productive position of full citizenship with justice and forgiveness to all.
In a nutshell, it is a principle
of Bible Law that justice has not been done until full restitution has been
made to all the victims of injustice. In other words, the original lawful
order must be restored, rather than creating new injustices to try to balance or
patch up the old ones. Whenever the nature of the crime is such that restitution
is impossible, or when the thief refuses to make restitution to restore the
lawful order, the penalty is death. And finally, the thief must take full
responsibility for his actions and is the only one liable for his crime.
The basic guideline for handling
property crime is defined in Exodus 22:1-4.
1 If a
man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five
oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
2 If the thief is caught while breaking in,
and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood-guiltiness on his account.
3 But if the sun has
risen on him, there will be blood-guiltiness on his account. He shall surely
make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
4 If what he stole is
actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he
shall pay double.
The Scripture mandates double
restitution be paid to the victim, provided the thief is able to restore the
original item that he stole. If he has already damaged the item or sold it, and
it is not possible to recover the stolen item, then the thief must repay four or
five times the value of the stolen item. Normally, this would be four times the
value of the stolen item, such as a sheep or a car. However, if has stolen the
tools of a man’s trade—such as an ox in ancient times—the thief must repay five
times the value of such tools.
Thus, the Bible did not sentence
thieves to prison, but mandated that they repay their victims a precise amount
calculated upon the value of the merchandize that was stolen. The judge had no
right to increase or decrease that amount. To decrease that amount would defraud
the victim; to increase that amount would defraud the thief. Only the victim had
the right to forgive the debt in whole or in part, even as the repentant thief
would have the right to give the victim more than what the law required.
Let us compare God’s Law with the
law
code of Hammurabi—the common law of Canaan during the days of Moses.
Paragraph 8 reads:
“If a man
has stolen ox or sheep or ass or pig or ship, whether from the temple or the
palace, he shall pay 30-fold. If from a poor man, he shall render 10-fold. If
the thief has not wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.”
It appears from this paragraph
that the average common thief who stole from a neighbor had to pay ten-fold
restitution. However, since the majority of thieves could not repay such an
amount, it is probable that many of them were executed, rather than
rehabilitated through labor. Thus, the Bible shows much more mercy toward the
thief than does the law of Hammurabi.
The Code of Hammurabi also
discriminates between the rich and the poor in a great many of its laws. It
demands thirty-fold restitution for theft of a rich man’s property, an amount so
unreasonable that it surely amounted to a death sentence in almost all cases.
The death penalty was mandated in cases of theft of property from a temple or
palace, as we read in Paragraph 6:
“If a man has stolen the goods of temple
or palace, that man shall be put to death. Further, he who has received the
stolen thing from his hand shall be put to death.”
Perhaps the most prominent
feature of the Code of Hammurabi is its class distinctions. In these two
paragraphs we see at least four classes of people: the poor, the rich, the
temple priests, and the political rulers of the palaces. This is in sharp
contrast with the divine Law, where all men are guaranteed equal justice before
the Law. There are tribal distinctions, of course, along with the distinctions
between Israelites and non-Israelites (citizens and aliens), but in the matter
of justice, all are equal.
In Exodus 22:2 and 3 we read
that if a man is killed while burglarizing a home at night, it is considered
justifiable homicide (self-defense). This is because at night it is difficult to
see if the burglar is armed or not. Thus, burglars enter at their own risk.
On the other hand, if the
burglary occurs during daylight hours, when he can be recognized and more easily
apprehended, he is not to be killed unless it is clear that he is threatening
someone’s life. God rules that burglary is not to be penalized by death, nor can
a man shoot the burglar in order to prevent him from escaping.
This was quite different from
the law of Hammurabi, where the burglar was to be executed on the spot and
buried next to the place where he committed the crime (Par. 21). No distinction
was made between night or day burglaries.
The Bible also makes a merciful
provision for rehabilitating a thief who cannot repay his victim. Whereas the
Code of Hammurabi prescribes the death penalty, God’s Law demands that he be “sold
for his theft” (Ex. 22:3). In other words, the court would determine the
total debt owed, and then his labor would be sold to the highest bidder. Whoever
would be willing to pay him the highest wages for his labor hired him until his
debt was paid.
For example, if the thief owed
$5,000 in restitution, the price of his sale would be fixed at $5,000. The bid
may begin at six months’ labor, then five, until the least amount of labor time
had been bid. The winner of the auction would then take the debt note from the
judge and pay the victim the $5,000 owed. The thief would then have to work for
his new master (employer) for the amount of time that he had bidden. The thief’s
family would go with him, live with him, and be supported by the one who had
bought his labor, so the bidder would have to take those expenses into
consideration while bidding for the man’s labor. Thus, the thief labors to
redeem himself without wasting time in prison like a caged animal.
This was not slavery in the
sense that we think of it today, because those working off a debt fell under the
protection of the labor laws in the Bible, which protect servants (employees)
from being mistreated. The only real inconvenience was that the thief who had
been “sold” could not change jobs or escape that job until his time had been
completed. If he should try to escape, or if for any other reason he should
refuse to restore the lawful order by paying restitution, the penalty was death
(Deut. 17:12). This penalty was not imposed for the theft itself, but for
contempt of court, which is the refusal to repent and be obedient to God.
Society has the right to be protected from those who refuse to restore the
lawful order (i.e., hardened criminals).
On the other hand, the thief
likewise has the right to be treated like a human being, rather than as an
animal. Many have maligned God’s Law as being cruel and merciless, when, in
fact, it is man’s laws that are cruel. God is very merciful and has revealed His
loving character in His Law. Anyone who has spent time in a modern prison for
theft will see this immediately. Given a choice, most of them would be happy to
work off a debt, rather than sit in a cage. Prison sentences are a sin.
The benefits of God’s judicial
system are obvious. The victims of crime are recompensed quickly and cheaply;
the innocent are not made liable for the sins of the guilty; the thief is
treated as a debtor working to repay a debt, rather than being caged like an
animal and fed at the expense of the taxpayers.
Under this system, all the
victims are recompensed at least double as soon as the auction is concluded. The
convicted thieves are taught to work in the real world, as opposed to being
given work projects at eleven cents an hour behind bars like true slaves. His
family does not need to go on welfare, which makes the taxpayers happy. So
justice is done without creating more victims and without creating an
embittered, hardened criminal. Is it any wonder that King David wrote in
amazement in Psalm 119:97 and 98,
97 O how I love
Thy Law! It is my meditation all the day.
98 Thy commandments make me wiser than my
enemies; for they are ever mine.
Is it any wonder that the
Apostle Paul, lost for words, wrote in Romans 11:33,
33 O the depth
of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His
JUDGMENTS, and unfathomable His ways!
There are a number of other
situations in which restitution must be paid to victims. Not all can be
classified as theft, but in each case there is a question of liability for
destruction of property, whether accidental or deliberate.
Before we go to our first
example in Exodus 22:5, we must take note that this verse is incomplete in the
King James Version. The KJV was based upon a Hebrew text which had a copyist’s
error of omission. However, thanks to the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts, we
may now reinstate the lost words of the Law. These lost words are in italics
below.
5 If a man lets
a field or vineyard be grazed bare, and lets his animal loose so that it grazes
in another man’s field, he shall surely make restitution out of his whole
field according to its yield; and if the whole field is eaten, he shall make
restitution from the best of his own field, and the best of his own vineyard.
This is simply another way of
saying, Thou shalt not harvest another man’s crop for your own purposes.
The judge was to assess the damage and assign an equal portion of the offender’s
field or vineyard to the victim as restitution.
This law is similar to that of
Hammurabi, where the offender had to harvest and purchase at a set rate per acre
the entire crop which his cattle had partially eaten. Many stores today have
adopted the basic principle of this law by demanding that “if you break it,
consider it sold.”
It is a basic Law of God that
all restitution be paid in kind to replace (as closely as possible) the property
that had been destroyed or damaged. The two parties could, of course, agree upon
a monetary sum on their own, but if not, the question would be settled by
payment in kind. For instance, if a man broke your wrench, he would be required
to buy you another one of equal value, or reimburse you with money. Continuing
in Exodus 22:6 we read:
6 If a fire
breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing
grain or the field itself is consumed; he who started the fire shall surely make
restitution.
The one who lights the fire is
considered to be the owner of the fire (by the law of creation). He is therefore
responsible for it and liable for it if he allows it to get out of control.
Thus, the same law which gives us the right to own that which we create, build,
or grow with our labor is also the law which makes us responsible to oversee our
possessions and govern them properly. Rights and responsibilities always go
together in equal amounts.
In ancient times when a man had
to make a trip and could not take all of his household goods with him, he would
leave them in the care of the chief steward or a trusted neighbor. The neighbor
usually did not mind doing this favor, because the day might come when the favor
would be returned. Thus, laws were needed to define or limit liability in case
some goods were stolen while the neighbor held them in trust. No doubt cases
came up occasionally when a neighbor might not be as trustworthy as previously
thought and had secretly stolen and sold the property he was guarding. The basic
law on this matter is found in Exodus 22:7-13, which we will quote and comment
upon as we proceed.
7 If a man
gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him, and it is stolen from the
man’s house, if the thief is caught, he shall pay double.
8 If the thief is not
caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [elohim]
to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. 9 For every breach
of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any
lost thing, about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall
come before the judges [elohim]; he whom the judges [elohim]
condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.
God’s Law, of course, simply
follows the principle of restitution that was established in verses 1-4, quoted
earlier. It is evident that if the goods were damaged before recovery, the thief
would have to pay four or five times the value, rather than merely double.
If the thief is not found
immediately after the goods are missed, the owner and the neighbor are to go
before the judges in court, and the neighbor is to take an oath that he has not
stolen the goods. This procedure is simply the Biblical manner of appealing to
the Supreme Court of God. One may do this in any judicial case and allow God to
adjudicate the matter directly in His own way and time. If the neighbor truly
were guilty but denied it under oath, God requites the guilty party after giving
him a certain amount of time to repent and confess his sin.
Note also that the judges are
called elohim (usually translated God or gods). This is because they
represent the Creator and His government in the administration of His Law.
Elohim literally means a subjector, or one who is in a position of power
or authority over others. The Creator has this title, but it is also applied to
those under Him in positions of government.
In the
law of Hammurabi (Par.
122 and 123), whenever someone deposited money or goods with another, he had to
have a receipt of deposits and witnesses, without which he could not claim his
property. This law seems to be in the context of a commercial bank or storage
business done for profit. Under Bible Law, if a person were to utilize such a
bank or storage business, he must be sure to be able to prove in some manner
that the goods are his, to guard against possible theft by the businessman.
However, if identification could be made positively, a person would not need a
receipt of deposit and witnesses. It would appear from the law of Hammurabi that
if a man should lose his receipt of deposit, he would lose his goods no matter
how many witnesses could confirm that the goods were his.
The
law of Hammurabi (Par. 124
and 125) also says that the one holding property in trust is totally liable if
it is stolen while in his possession. It is his responsibility to track down the
thief, and if he cannot find him or the property, he must pay the owner in full,
providing the owner has his receipt. This is different from God’s Law, of
course, in that if there is no evidence that the trustee stole the goods, he is
only required to swear in court that he did not steal it or help the thief to
steal it.
Exodus 22:10 and 11 legislates
on the question of unsolved loss of property that has been held in trust.
10
If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for
him; and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking,
11
an oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them, that he has not laid
hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and he [the
trustee] shall not make restitution.
So if the property is damaged or
lost while in the care of a trustee, and no witness can testify in the matter,
an oath of innocence is all that shall be required of the trustee. The matter is
placed in the hands of the Supreme Court for God’s direct adjudication.
The Law here does not specify
what to do if the loss were caused by the carelessness of the trustee. It only
rules on accidental loss, where the trustee is not liable. This is a gap in the
Biblical legislation that may yet be resolved by the Holy Spirit through prayer,
appealing to God for such a ruling.
However, in other situations,
when carelessness results in injury or loss, the careless person is fully
liable. (See also Exodus 21:33 and 34.) Applying the principle of liability to
the apparent gap in Exodus 22:10 and 11, we could reasonably assume that loss of
property through the trustee’s carelessness is his responsibility, and that he
must replace the lost or damaged goods.
Perhaps the reason the Bible
does not clearly specify the problem here is because the custom already dictated
correctly what to do. That is, the
law of Hammurabi needed no altering on this
point. It says in Par. 263 and 267:
263. If he has
caused an ox or sheep which was given him to be lost, ox for ox, sheep for
sheep, he shall render to their owner.
267 If a shepherd has been careless and
in a sheepfold caused a loss to take place, the shepherd shall make good….
We may conclude, then, that the
principle of law regarding carelessness in the divine legislation was the same
as was found in the Hammurabi Code. This principle of liability was already a
well-established custom in the minds of the people, and so God felt it
unnecessary to repeat it in the Mosaic Code.
Exodus 22:13 simply establishes
that a trustee does not have to make good an animal that has been killed by a
wild beast. Again, this is assuming that the trustee was not negligent. We read
then in verses 14 and 15:
14
And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while
the owner is not with it, he shall make full restitution.
15
If its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution; if it is hired, it came
for his hire.
In other words, when a man
borrows something from his neighbor, and he damages it while using it, or—in the
case of an animal such as an ox—it dies, he is only liable if the owner was not
present to supervise its use. The Bible uses examples of such things as oxen,
but today we would think more in terms of a tractor to pull a plow. If a man
borrows a tractor and breaks it while using it, he must fix it or pay to have it
fixed. But if he hires his neighbor to come with his plow and work the field,
and the tractor breaks, then the owner of the tractor is liable to fix his own
machine.
The
law of Hammurabi does not
specify clearly whether the owner was hired with the animal or not, but the
terminology implies the same as the Biblical law. The Bible makes the point
clear, whereas the law of Hammurabi is unclear.
In Par. 244-249 of Hammurabi’s
Code, it is clear that the borrower is liable for any injury to the animal,
except where a lion kills it in the open field (Par. 244), or where the beast
dies by itself (i.e., “God has struck it, and it has died”—Par. 249). This would
fall under the category of accidental destruction of property, which did not
involve carelessness. God’s Law does not word it like this, but it would
certainly agree with Hammurabi in this case.
It is interesting that the two
law systems treat different aspects of the same question without any real
overlap. This may be taken as further evidence that God’s Law was not intended
to be an exhaustive Law Code, but rather was often intended to correct certain
injustices or to clarify certain portions of the Hammurabi Code.
The
law of Hammurabi called for
the death penalty if a man kidnapped the son of a freeman (Par. 14). God’s Law
makes no distinction between classes of people, saying in Exodus 21:16,
16
And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession,
shall surely be put to death.
Kidnapping calls for the death
penalty, because there is no way one can pay double restitution without making
some innocent party pay for the crime of the guilty party.
Our final example of theft that we
shall examine in our study of property laws is finding lost property without
returning it to its rightful owner. This sin is mentioned in Deut. 22:1-3.
1
You shall not see your countryman’s ox or his sheep
straying away, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly bring them back
to your countryman.
2 And if your
countryman is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it
home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your countryman looks for
it; then you shall restore it to him.
3 And thus you shall do with . . . anything lost by
your countryman . . . .
Almost every child in America
has been exposed at one time or another to the Humanist principle of “finders,
keepers; losers, weepers.” God disagrees absolutely. All lost property is to
be restored to its owner. If not, it is theft.
No penalty is mentioned in this
passage, but we may assume that the penalty is the same as any other theft. If
the property is returned intact, double restitution is due; if the property is
damaged or sold, the restitution is four or five times the value of the retained
property.
The
law of Hammurabi
prescribed
the death penalty for those who laid claim to someone else’s lost property. It
also mandated death to anyone who should purchase lost or stolen property, if he
could not produce a written receipt and witnesses to the transaction. Thus,
buyers and sellers without a receipt and witnesses ran the risk of being
executed (Par. 9 and 10). Once again, the divine law is shown to be far more
merciful than the Babylonian law of Hammurabi. How could anyone despise God’s
Law or claim that it is cruel and unreasonable?
God’s Law was not given to make
punishment an end in itself. The law is rehabilitative and corrective in nature.
Yet at the same time there are many crimes committed where there are no
witnesses and no conviction before a judge. The question arises, what shall a
man do if he gets away with a crime, but later repents? The answer is found in
Leviticus 6:2-5.
2 When a person
sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and deceives his companion in
regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he
has extorted from his companion, 3
or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins
in regard to any one of the things a man may do;
4 then it shall be, when he sins and becomes
guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by
extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he
found, 5 or anything
about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full
[i.e., return all stolen property], and add to it one-fifth more. He
shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt
offering.
This law, along with its
penalty, presumes that the guilty party had no witnesses who could testify
against him in court, for if there were, he would have to restore at least
double to the victim. It is the judgment of God that sinners should be rewarded
for repentance and confession of sin without having to be dragged into court
with witnesses to force the issue to a judicial resolution.
The Scripture says that if a man
were given property in trust and lied about its whereabouts (in order to steal
it), and if he later repents of it when he seemingly could have gotten away with
it, he is required to pay only one-fifth restitution while restoring the item
that was stolen.
The same is true if a man finds
a lost item and decides to lie about it and keep it instead of returning it to
the owner. If he later repents and confesses his sin, he is required to pay only
one-fifth restitution while restoring the property to the rightful owner.
In Numbers 5 we are told of this
principle in very clear terms.
6 Speak
unto the sons of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins of
mankind, acting unfaithfully against the Lord, and that person is guilty;
7 then he shall
confess his sins which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full
for his wrong, and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to him whom he has
wronged.
Verse 6 tells us that this is
applicable to ANY SIN that men do as a trespass against the Lord. Some may think
this refers only to sins against God and not against our fellow men. However,
the seventh verse tells the sinner to give the fifth part “to him whom he has
wronged.” Further, the next verses tell us that if the person is deceased
already, he is to give the one-fifth restitution to his nearest of kin, and if
he has none, he is to give it to the temple. It is plain that this is referring
to sins against one’s neighbor.
Normally, such sins would be
judged with at least double restitution. It is plain, however, that if the thief
confesses his sin before being charged with it, he is to pay one-fifth of the
value of the item stolen in addition to returning the item itself. This
encourages sinners to repent and shows us the mind of God in that the purpose of
God’s Law is to correct and restore the lawful order, rather than merely to
punish.
Another case where a mere
one-fifth restitution is required is found in Leviticus 5:16. If a man commits a
sin through ignorance in regard to the holy things of the Lord, he was to bring
a sacrifice for sin, return the stolen property “and add to it one-fifth of
it.” This is a case where a man mistakenly took for his own use that which
had been given to God in the temple. It is also implied that no one caught him
taking it, and that the man repented when he discovered his error. Leviticus
22:14 bears witness to this:
14
But if a man eats a holy gift unintentionally, then he shall add to it a fifth
of it and shall give the holy gift to the priest.
It is clear that this cannot be
a simple matter of theft, where restitution would be at least double the value
of the item stolen.
One-fifth is also the number of
redemption, because it is twenty percent. According to Vallowe’s Biblical
Mathematics and Don Kistler’s The Arithmetic of God, twenty is the
number of Redemption. For example, in Leviticus 27:13 we read,
13
But if he should ever wish to redeem it, then he shall add one-fifth of it to
your valuation.
This was in terms of redeeming
an unclean animal that was normally to be given to God. But God also required a
one-fifth redemption price on the tithes. Leviticus 27:31 reads:
31
If, therefore, a man wishes to redeem part of his tithe, he shall add to it
one-fifth of it.
One-fifth, therefore, appears to
be the price of redemption. Applied to the thief, it gives him opportunity to
redeem himself and to obtain forgiveness without being discouraged by the
greater cost of double restitution.
The ultimate purpose of God’s
system of restitution for theft is to obtain forgiveness for the criminal.
There is no forgiveness for the thief in our modern system of “justice.” Why
should the victim forgive the thief, when he has lost so much stolen property
and then had to spend more money on attorney fees to prosecute him? Why should
society forgive the thief, when they have been made liable to defend him, pay
for his prison sentence, and support his family while he is in prison? Why
should either of them forgive the thief, when they live in fear of the day he is
released, often embittered and unrehabilitated, free now to take vengeance upon
them?
And for that matter, why
should the thief forgive the victim and society in general after they have
caged him up like an animal and subjected him to dehumanizing treatment by the
modern prison system? Why should the thief forgive society for sinning against
God’s judgments, instead of giving him meaningful work by which he may redeem
himself? Sending anyone to prison is simply a legalized form of kidnapping done
by an entire society. It is a crime worse than mere theft. Thus, the thief has
been victimized more than all of us. And then, when he is finally released, his
ability to find lawful work is seriously hampered by the label: ex-convict.
Americans
often look with disdain at other countries, where they chop off a thief’s hand
for stealing. In fact, many people mistakenly believe that the law of God
advocates chopping off a hand for theft, and this is one of their reasons for
despising God’s Law. Because they have been grossly misinformed about both God
and His Law, they have allowed the modern prison system to continue victimizing
everyone and rehabilitating no one. Then when the thief is released, we create
for him the “ex-con” label and severely handicap him from finding work for the
rest of his life. We have little right to criticize the Saudis for giving
thieves a physical handicap (chopping off a hand), when we ourselves handicap
them in a different way.
Under God’s Law, forgiveness is
mandatory (Matt. 18:21 and 22), because there is every reason to forgive the
offender once he has paid full restitution to the victims. The victim has been
repaid at least doubly for his losses, and society has not been made liable in
any way for the sins of others. The thief has had to redeem himself from the
bondage of sin, and once the debt has been paid, he is restored to full
citizenship, and his past sins are no longer remembered (Isaiah 43:25). Psalm
130:4 confirms this, saying,
4 But there
is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared [respected].
Obtaining forgiveness is the key
to rehabilitation. In any system of justice, whether at home or in society,
there must be forgiveness if we hope to restore sinners. Without forgiveness,
there is only punishment, and such systems encourage rebellion and anger. Only
God’s judicial system knows the true value of forgiveness in its treatment of
crime. Because there is forgiveness with God, we have respect for Him as a
Divine Parent.
The Great American Experiment
has long been a Great American Failure. There will never be enough money to
build enough prisons to house all the inmates that the unjust prison system
perpetuates. The only alternative seems to be to give them shorter sentences, or
to put them on parole to make room for others. The public does not like this,
but they know of no alternative to the problem. They need to read the Bible, or
at least to read this short booklet.
Thus, we are caught on the horns
of the proverbial bull. We can choose overcrowded, wretched conditions for the
inmates, which even the court system knows is cruel and unusual punishment—or we
can reduce their prison sentences and put unrehabilitated thieves back on the
streets, where they have great difficulty finding work and often end up stealing
again.
There is only one true solution.
As a nation we must repent of our own way and turn to God’s perfect Law. We must
stop teaching that God’s Law is somehow authored by a cruel or unjust God (or
Satan). We must search the Scriptures to see what God really has to say about
property crime and how to resolve it as a nation. As Bible believers, let us
work toward that end.
|
