Eighth Commandment

Restitution & Forgiveness

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Restitution & Forgiveness

Lesson: Theft

Genre: Speech

Track: 76

Dictation Name: RR130AP76

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Our scripture is Exodus 22:1-17. Restitution and Forgiveness. “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. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

One of the unhappy facts of our age and of the previous era has been the tendency towards loose generalizations, precise and accurate language has given way to terminology that is loose and places a premium on feeling rather than accuracy. This is a common and a major error among Christians and non-Christians.

One area where we find a great deal of the vagueness is with regard to the doctrine of forgiveness of sin. We are very commonly told that sins are forgiven in Jesus Christ and that sin can be dealt with by forgiveness. The point here, of course, is that we must distinguish between sin and sins. Sin can never be forgiven. Sin is the principle of sins. Sin, we encounter in its classic statement in Genesis 3:5, where Satan declares, “Ye shall be as God, knowing, determining for yourself that which is good and evil.” Sin is man’s defiance of God and his insistence on being his own god. Sin is the principle of independence from God and autonomy. It can never be forgiven. Dr. Arthur C. Custance{?} has said, “Because it is hereditary like a disease infecting the whole man, sin is not dealt with by forgiveness. It needs eradication somehow, or at least to be bypassed in the constitution of the new man. The fruits which are expressions of it, that is, of sin, need forgiveness, but the basic root must be dealt with by some other method. This root is the locust of infection. A particular sin, or sins, can be forgiven. Sin, as a principle, original sin, cannot be forgiven. It must be eradicated. This is the saving work of Jesus Christ, to make us a new creature or a new creation. If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation according to St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus Christ, as our federal head, has made us a new creation, has effected restitution, established the pattern of the perfect keeping of the law as our federal head, and effects forgiveness of particular sins on the part his people, after they are his, after they have been regenerated. Jesus Christ, never in scripture, forgave the sin of the Pharisees, or of the Sadducees, or any unregenerate man. After they are converted, after their sin in principle is crucified, destroyed, and they are risen again in Christ as a new creation, then their particular sins are forgiven.

Forgiveness and restitution, are moreover, in separable. When our Lord, in Luke 17:4 spoke of sevenfold restitution, the presupposition was, of course, of repentance, restitution, and forgiveness. There are two aspects of forgiveness. There is the religious, or the God-ward aspect. Every sin is an offense against God. As David said, “Against thee, thee only have I sinned and done that which is evil in thy sight,” but there is also the secondary, or the man-ward, we would say the criminal aspect of sin, how it affects our neighbor. Thus, where sin is forgiven, the reference is to a particular act, not the principle of sin. The reference to forgiveness of sins in scripture is always to particular sins, whether we find the plural or the singular of the word “sin.” This is true of Leviticus 4 and 5, Numbers 15:28 and elsewhere in the law, where our Lord pronounced forgiveness of sins to those in the covenant of faith, it was for particular acts of sin, and it was forgiveness to those who had become regenerated.

Sin, in itself, as a principle must die. This is the meaning of the cross. It must die, it must be crucified in Christ rather than forgiven. We die in Christ as sinners, and then we arise in him as a new creation, always the penalty against sin as a principle is death. For sin is a particular act, forgiveness is possible with repentence and restitution.

With this in mind, it is easy for us to understand why the death penalty is mandatory in scripture for incorrigible delinquents and criminals. Crime has become their principle. Since sin is, in principle, their life and their way of conduct, and sin, in principle must be condemned, the man whose every day activity is sin in principle, as it is with an incorrigible criminal, must therefore, die.

We can understand further what is involved in forgiveness with respect to restitution very specifically by a series of case laws that our text gives us in Exodus 22:1-17. The first verse, “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.” This is the principle of justice. If man steals, he has to restore precisely what he stole, plus an amount equivalent to the value of what he stole. This would be say, for $100, the restoration of the $100 stolen, plus another hundred. Not imprisonment. Restitution. This is the biblical criminal law. Now, a sheep has to be restored plus four more sheep by the thief. Why? The sheep had value, not only for meat but for the world, and a reproductive ability, so that a lost sheep means not only that ewe is lost, or that lamb, but all that it would reproduce.

An oxen was five-fold, the maximum restitution. Why? Well, ox was good for meat. An ox was also good because its hide was valuable, and then on top of that, oxen were trained as beasts of burden. Oxen training was quite a skilled art in early America. They gave way finally to the horse which was faster, but in Colonial and early America, the oxen was preferred on the Eastern or Atlantic Seaboard, and into the middle West because it was capable of pulling far greater weight than any horse or team of horses ever could. The oxen, in ancient times, and until just a century ago, was one of the most valuable animals that any man could have. Therefore, because it was valuable in terms of its hide and in terms of its meat, and as a well-trained beast of burden, the restitution was five-fold.

Then, in verses 2 and 3, “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.” In this law, provision was made for the householder or the property owner to defend himself against the thief. If a thief broke in at night, and by breaking in it didn’t mean just into the house as the modern law specifies it, but into the property, to steal, you had the right if he was breaking into your barn, or into your shed, or into your coral, to kill him. During the daytime, you could not kill him unless self-defense required it. Then, you were to capture him because then you could see that he perhaps could not make a resistance. At night, you had no way, in the dark, of knowing whether he was going to kill you or not, and so you killed first, but restitution then was required of the thief who was caught. “If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” This takes us to an aspect of the law which survived until almost a century ago, even in this country. A thief was to make restitution and if he could not, then he became a bond servant, and he worked out the restitution. If he stole $100, then he worked out $200 if he had spent that $100, or if he had just stolen $100 and didn’t have anything, the $100 was restored to the man and he worked out $100, and then he was free.

Then, in verse 4, “If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.” If he is caught in the act, the restitution is limited to just double, but he still makes restitution if he’s caught on the property or before he gets very far, he still makes two-fold restitution as the minimum.

In verses 5 and 6, we have the law of liability, which declares that if a man permits his livestock to break into his neighbor’s field, either by intention or accidentally, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field or the best of his own vineyard.

Similarly, if he starts a fire burning sagebrush on a corner of his field, and it spreads to a neighbor’s field, he must make restitution, whether it be arson or accident. He has caused the damage, and the important point therefore, is not his intention, but the damage done to the neighbor, and therefore, restitution must be made. Our law today makes a distinction between the intention, as though how the criminal feels is more important than the damages done to the victim.

Then, in verses 7 thorugh 13, we have the laws of responsibility for goods held in custody, and here, in particular, the law is very precise and specific. This rather involved law can be best summed by in the language of a scholar of the last century, Rollinson, who wrote, “Property deposited in the hands of another for safekeeping, might be so easily embezzled by the trustee, or lost through his negligence, that some special laws were needed for its protection. Conversely, the trustee required to be safeguarded against incurring loss if the property entrusted to his care suffered damage or disappeared without {?}. The mosaic legislation provided for both cases. On the one hand, it required the trustee to exercise proper care, and made him answerable for the loss of the thing entrusted to him, if it was stolen and the thief was not found. Embezzlement is punished by requiring the trustee guilty of it to pay double. On the other hand, in doubtful cases, it allowed the trustee to clear himself by an oath, and in clear cases, the give proof that the loss had happened through unavoidable accident.”

Then, in verses 14 and 15, we have laws of liability in case of rental, loan, or assistance. “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.” In other words, if you borrow your neighbor’s animal or his tool, or his car, anything that happens, you are responsible for fully, but if your neighbor comes onto your property to help you and his equipment becomes damaged while he is operating it, or he becomes hurt while he is helping you, then he is liable. He came of his own will. He cannot impose on you for his charity. The liabilities of his charity are his own. This is according to biblical law, not modern law.

Even more so, according to the biblical law, if he comes to work for hire, then he is fully responsible for any damages because his hire, that is, the money he makes, must be sufficient to cover all liability.

Then finally, the last two verses, verses 16 and 17, we considered in connection with the seventh commandment: seduction. It is important here, in terms of the law of restitution and is classified with it, because anyone seducing a maid is then required to make restitution by paying money according to the dowry of virgins. So that when the girl subsequently was married she went into her marriage with a double dowry to compensate for the damages done to her by the seduction. It is interesting, and if you do have marginal notes in your Bible, you will see that the marginal reading for the word “pay“ indicates that the Hebrew is literally “shaway{?}” money, according to the dowry of virgins. It was {?} so much gold and silver by weight that was specified, not funny money.

Restitution, in scripture, is cited as an aspect of atonement. We meet with this in its classic example, in the case of the Exodus, when God instituted the Passover and saved Israel from Egypt. His law requiring restitution exacted it of the Egyptians. The King James here has one of the worst translations of all, partly because the language has changed, and so it speaks to spoiling the Egyptians by asking loans of this, but very literally, it reads, Exodus 12:35, and in agreement with the instructions of Moses, they asked the Egyptians for silver and gold, and article, also for clothing. This was by way of restitution at God’s requirement. Israel had to be enriched by restitution, and God repeatedly has such provisions. For example, Abraham, when he went to Egypt and Pharoah took his wife, was enriched. Abimalech also, and God makes it clear that he required it, and there is no judgment in these incidents by God against Abraham, but only against those who offended him. The restitution was required.

It is only the heresies which limit salvation to eternity and say you are saved for heaven, and seeing no possible implications in terms of this world, which fails to see the practical consequences of God’s salvation. When God saves man, he saves him in terms of time and eternity, and since forgiveness is now that under which man lives and restitution is a part of forgiveness.

Then man has a duty to restore the earth, to make restitution for the sin committed by his forefather, Adam. So that man’s calling is to exercise dominion under God to the end of the earth be restore, and scripture after scripture speaks of the glory of this task and what it shall accomplish. It is interesting here to read what Calvin has to say with regard to Isaiah 2:4, “Since therefore men are naturally lead away by their evil passions to disturb society, Isaiah here promises a correction of this evil, for as the gospel is the doctrine of reconciliation which removes the enmity between us and God, so it brings men into peace and harmony with each other.” The meaning amounts to this, that Christ’s people will be meek in laying aside {?} will be devoted to the pursuit of peace. The passage is about world peace, ploughshares, swords giving way to ploughshares, and so on. This has been improperly limited by some commentators to the time when Christ was born, because at that time after the battle of Actium{?}, the Temple of Janis is closed, as appears from the histories. I readily admit that the universal peace which existed throughout the Roman Empire at the birth of Christ was a token of that universal peace which we enjoy in Christ, but the proper meaning was a comfortable state of peace exists, was different. He meant that Christ makes such a reconciliation between God and man, that a comfortable state of peace exists among themselves by putting an end to destructive war, for if Christ be taken away, not only are we estranged from God, but we incessantly carry on open war with him, which is justly thrown back upon our own heads, and the consequence is that everything in this world is in disorder.

So that, because we have been reconciled with God, atonement has been made, restitution is now our way of life, and we are to restore the earth and to exercise dominion over it, and to live in peace, one with another. There will thus be a reign of peace on earth to the measure that God’s word reigns among men. The kingdom of God is the prevalence of God’s order. Restoration, forgiveness, and peace. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we thank thee that in Jesus Christ, the principle sin in us has been condemned and crucified, that we have been regenerated in him and our sins are forgiven. Give us grace day by day to move in terms of restitution, both with respect to our trespasses, and the trespasses of our forefathers, that we may restore this earth under Christ, and make it thy kingdom. In Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all, with respect to our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] I didn’t hear that.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Between a ?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Oh, yes. Is there an age limit in the Mosaic law between a juvenile and the adult criminal. The answer is no. The assumption is that responsibility is always there.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] With a child, the parents were responsible but with a very small child. If it were a teenager, then the child repays, as a bondservant. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, presumptuous sins here have reference to sins that will take God for granted which involve arrogance, and pride, and heedlessness of the law of God, and the implication is that it leads finally to a radical contempt of everything that God is, and to sin as a principle.

[Audience] That, in other words, is the great transgression?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Right. The great transgression, the original sin is autonomy from God, to be your own god. Yes?

[Audience] {?} regarding {?} man {?}

[Rushdoony] Oh yes. Yes, the modern dowry in modern times, you still have it in France and elsewhere, is that the father gives the girl dowry, and the young man say, in France and elsewhere in Europe where the dowry system prevails, shops around for a girl who has the best dowry. This used to be the custom in England, too, and it was very difficult for a girl, for example, who was an orphan and who was left with a sizeable dowry by her parents, because there are actually cases in England where girls of this sort were kidnapped, and forced at the point of a gun, into a marriage, because so many poor lords were shopping around for a rich girl, and once they forced a marriage, they seized her dowry. Now, the biblical dowry was not a dowry provided by the father to the girl so that the boy shopped around for the richest dowry that a girl had. It was something that the boy accumulated, or sometimes his father provided, but the point was normally, he accumulated it to prove his responsibility, his ability to provide a home. It was turned over to the bride. It was her capital through the marriage. If he wronged her, she got the dowry and left. So in case of a divorce where the wife was innocent, the dowry was her security for the future. Otherwise, the man, if he used the dowry for business or to buy cattle or sheep, he had to borrow it from his wife and pay interest.

Now, she could not alienate it from her children, however. It was an inheritance to be passed on to them. Well, in this case, the dowry was provided by the young man. It was usually equivalent to three years’ income, to the girl that he had seduced. So that when she went into marriage with some other man, he also brought a dowry, but he now had a wife who, although she had been seduced previously and was no longer a virgin, had a double dowry. It was to compensate for the loss of her virginity.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, no. He could use it, but it was always hers. It was hers as her marital right, and there was a written contract. If this written contract were lost, we are told from Hebrew law, and not in the Bible, but they were not to sleep together until it was rewritten, because that was the basic, that was the marriage contract. So, loss of it immediately meant that all marital relations stopped until they got all the witnesses together, and the judge, and wrote out the contract. You have a survival of this type of thing, or you did have, for a long, long time, because marriage were by such contracts in our culture, in that marriage certificate used to be framed, and hung in the bedroom. Now, that was the survival of the old contract term of marriage, and I can remember as a small boy, you’d find in some farmhouses this old fashioned custom. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, it would. Some would have very sizeable dowries, and others would not, but there was a minimum dowry, and very often, you see, the girl would have a larger dowry if the father added a gift to it, because he would be thinking of his grandchildren, so apart from anything he might later give them, in advance, he would endow his daughter to make sure that his grandchildren, if something should happen to him, were well taken care of apart from the estate. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, that is Scofieldianism. It isn’t the Bible. So that’s a heresy that’s crept in in recent years. Yes?

[Audience] You made reference to the judge {?} decision {?} or the civil judge?

[Rushdoony] It was a civil judge. Very often they were Levites, not always, but it was a civil judge. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] The laws of restitution in our present legal system have virtually disappeared in the last century, except in limited areas. You do have, with respect to automobile accident, which is a curious thing, restitution required by our insurance laws. Then, in offenses against the federal government, you do make restitution. If you steal from the federal government, you repay. So, the federal government, it changed there, too, so it’s just the sum plus interest, but the federal government is one of the few areas where restitution laws have any standing yet. Yes?

[Audience] {?} interpretation of the biblical {?} reasonable to assume that most people would {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, there’s a great deal of difference with regard to interpretation. These differences rest on presupposition. In other words, take the word “predestination.” Now, it’s there in the Bible, it’s very plainly taught, but some people, in principle, do not believe in predestination, so no matter what the Bible says, they explain it away. Similarly, the word “Hell” is in the Bible, and it’s very clear what it means, but you can find people who will tell you that there is no such thing as Hell according to scripture. I might add, I read recently of a New England clergyman of the Colonial period who remarked in his journal after witnessing some of the evils among men. He said, “My heart leaps up with joy every time I hear the good news of damnation.” Now, that’s a line to remember, but any rate, you get the point. When people come with certain ideas in their mind, they insist on reading them into the Bible. There’s nothing you can do to counteract that, but if you come to the Bible and make the Bible its own interpreter, it’s very clear. Yes?

[Audience] How did the debtor’s prison {?}

[Rushdoony] The debtor’s prison was a humanistic improvement on bond service. You just stayed until some friend or relative, or your family paid off, made restitution. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. What would be the incentive for the bondservant to stay rather than to leave? A very good question. Now, if he left he was doubly a thief, was he not? Then, he might be classifiable as an incorrigible, in which case he could be executed. So, it was a good thing to stay. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] 621, who wrote him 621.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] From what?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] This is an English hymn. I don’t know precisely what it has reference to. The date is 1838, but it is an interesting question, what he had reference to when he said, “Correct us with thy judgments, Lord. Then let thy mercy spare.”

Our time is just about up. There are a couple things I’d like to share with you. One of the things about the Puritans in Early America that is so endearing is their prayer life, because when they prayed, you knew they were talking to God. They were very homespun, direct and honest in their prayers, and sometimes very moving as a result and other times very amusing. This is one of the prayers of Minister Miles Forain{?}.

“Oh Lord, thou knowest, we do not want thee to send a rain which shall pour down in fury and swell our streams, and sweep away our haycocks and fences, and bridges. But, Lord, we want it to come drizzle, drozzle, drizzle, drozzle for about a week. Amen.”

Then this one, I have made reference to before, and I think it’s especially choice. It was before the battle of Monmouth in the War of Independence. The Reverend Israel Evan{?}, chaplain to General Enoch Poors{?} brigade. “Oh, Lord of Hosts, lead forth thy servants of the American army to battle and give them the victory, or if this be not according to thy sovereign will, then we pray thee, stand neutral and let flesh and blood decide the issue.”

Then, from the period in the days just before the election of Lincoln, when some brigades were being established, and troops in various states. I like this from the bylaws of the Bungtown{?} Ohio Riflemen. “Article 1. This company shall be known as the Bungtown{?} Riflemen. Article 2. In case of war, this company shall immediately disband.”

One final note. An interesting sidelight on the Civil War is that, at that time, it’s very interesting. The privates complained continually about the food situation, because the choicest meat, the poultry, the generals got. The next best, pork and lamb, the officers got, and all the privates got was beef. Now, it’s interesting how standards and tastes have reversed. Beef is now the choicest meat in people’s mind, and poultry is the least. It’s the poor man’s food. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Well, the soldiers during the Civil War would sing songs, showing their resentment. All they got was steaks and the poultry the generals got. They weren’t happy about it. Well, with that, we are adjourned.

End of tape