Restitution
RESTITUTION
Job 20:10,18 . The repairing of wrongs done, and the restoring of what one has wrongfully taken from another, are strictly enjoined in Scripture, and are a necessary evidence of true repentance, Exo 22:1-15 ; Neh 5:1-13 ; Luk 19:8 . Restoration should be perfect and just; replacing, so far as possible, all that has been taken, with interest, Lev 6:1-6 ; 24:21. In Mal 3:21, the time of the “restitution of all things,” is the time when Christ shall appear in his glory, and establish his kingdom as foretold in the Scriptures.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Restitution
1. The term.-The word restitution is the Authorized Version rendering (Revised Version restoration) of the Gr. , which is found in the NT only in Act 3:21, though the verb , restore, occurs several times (see especially Mat 17:11, Act 1:6). In the exegesis of Act 3:21 two views have been taken of the relation of the phrase (until the times of restitution of all things) to the relative clause which follows, and these two views are reflected in the renderings of the Authorized Version and Revised Version respectively. According to the Authorized Version rendering the relative pronoun has for its antecedent, so that the restitution is a restitution only of those things of which the prophets had spoken. According to the Revised Version and the great majority of modern commentators the antecedent is , so that it was the times of restoration of which the prophets spoke, and the restoration is a restoration of all things in some sense not defined in the context. The sense, however, is suggested by the passages to which the present one evidently refers. The prophet Malachi had foretold that Elijah should be sent as the Messiahs forerunner (Mal 4:5) and that he should effect a work of moral restoration (Mal 4:6); and in the Septuagint this restoring work (Heb. , English Version turn) of Elijah is expressed by the word . On the ground of this saying the expectation of Elijahs reappearance to herald the advent of the Messiah had become general among the Jews (Sir 48:10-11; cf. Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] II. ii. [1885] 156), and when Jesus, after His transfiguration, forbade His disciples to tell any one of their vision of Moses and Elijah on the mount, they asked Him, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? (Mat 17:10; cf. Mar 9:11). Elijah indeed cometh, was His reply, and shall restore all things ( , Mat 17:11; cf. Mar 9:12); but He immediately made them understand that Elijah had come already in the person of John the Baptist (Mat 17:12 f.).
The restoration of all things of which St. Peter spoke was thus not a restoration in the large sense of a Universalist doctrine, but a moral and spiritual recovery of Israel such as Malachi had foretold and St. John proclaimed in preaching the baptism of repentance. That St. Peter at this stage of his career could not have entertained any idea of a universal restoration is proved by his later experiences at Caesarea (Acts 10). And if it is suggested that the phraseology of the verse is due to St. Luke, the writer of Acts, with his much wider outlook, it has to be considered that a close fidelity of the historian to his sources is suggested by St. Peters whole speech, embodying as it does a purely Jewish form of Christian expectation quite different from the later perspective of the Church after the door had been opened to the Gentiles and the national life of Judaism had been destroyed.
2. The idea.-A discussion of the NT doctrine of restitution or restoration, however, cannot be limited to an examination of the particular term. The idea of restoration of all things is raised not only by this speech of Peters but by one or two of our Lords utterances, and above all by certain striking statements and declarations in the Pauline Epistles.
(1) The saying of Jesus in Mat 17:10 (Mar 9:11) has been already referred to. But in Mat 19:28 we find Him speaking of the regeneration (), when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory. The word in this passage is practically synonymous with the of Act 3:21 (cf. Jos. Ant. XI. iii. 8, 9, where the words are used interchangeably of the national restoration under Zerubbabel). Jesus is referring to that hope of a renovation of heaven and earth which formed part of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Enoch xlv. 4, 5; cf. 2Pe 3:13, Rev 21:1) and was based on Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22. No more here than in Revelation 21, where we have the Apocalyptists conception of the or , is there any suggestion of a universal restoration of sinful beings (see Rev 21:8; Rev 22:11). The same thing must be said of Joh 12:32, which is sometimes adduced in the interests of a Universalist doctrine. The context (Joh 12:20 ff.) shows the point of the verse to be that the uplifting of Jesus on the Cross (cf. Joh 3:14 f.) would draw to Him Gentiles as well as Jews.
(2) It is in St. Pauls writings, however, and especially in such passages as Rom 11:32, 1Co 15:22 ff., Php 2:10-11, Eph 1:9-10, Col 1:20, that support is chiefly sought for the idea of a universal restoration. But the argument of Romans 11 shows that in Rom 11:32, as in Joh 12:32, all means Jew and Gentile alike. In 1Co 15:22, again, nothing more is asserted than a universal resurrection of the dead, and in 1Co 15:24-28 what is in view is a subjugation of all forces that are hostile to the Divine Kingdom so that God may be all in all. And if we find that in Php 2:10-11 the adoration of the Exalted Jesus is represented as an act in which the whole creation participates, while in Eph 1:10, Col 1:20 Christ appears as summing up all things in Himself and reconciling all things unto Himself, these soaring utterances cannot be interpreted apart from St. Pauls emphatic teaching that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), and that destruction awaits the enemies of the Cross of Christ (Php 3:19). In the light of such texts it seems safe to conclude that the Apostles universalism implies not a universal redemption of individuals, but a restoration of the disordered world to unity and harmony by an elimination of all discordant elements or a subdual of all hostile powers.
(3) Support for a restorationist doctrine is sometimes sought in those passages of the Pastoral Epistles where it is said that God willeth that all men should be saved (1Ti 2:4), that He is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe (1Ti 4:10), that His grace hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men (Tit 2:11). Yet it seeing hardly possible to affirm more here than that the Divine saving purpose brings salvation within the reach of all, while the realization of that purpose depends upon the attitude of the individual to the Divine grace. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1Ti 1:15); but to obtain mercy men must believe on him unto eternal life (1Ti 1:16). In the same Epistle we read that destruction (; cf. 2Th 1:9) and perdition (; cf. Php 3:19) await those who walk in the way of their own lusts (1Ti 6:9).
Attractive as it is, the idea of universal restoration finds little support in a careful exegesis. Those who advocate it usually fall back upon conjectures suggested by the hidden possibilities of the future life or general considerations with regard to the grace of Christ and the Fatherly love of God. Even when a case has been made out for Universalism from the direct utterances of the NT, it has to be admitted that the materials for a case against it are abundantly present. To Martensen it seemed that on this subject the Scriptures set before us an unresolved antinomy corresponding to the antinomy between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The Divine saving purpose is universal in its scope, but it is conditioned by human freedom. The one entitles us to cherish the larger hope; the other suggests that in the very nature of man there lies the possibility of final condemnation (Christian Dogmatics, Eng. translation , 1866, pp. 474-484).
Literature.-S. Cox, Salvator Mundi, 1877; F. W. Farrar, Eternal Hope, 1878; O. Riemann, Die Lehre von der Apokatastasis, 1889; S. D. F. Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 1895, pp. 449 ff.; 642 ff.; articles Restoration in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , Apokatastasis in PRE [Note: RE Realencyklopdie fr protestantische Theologie und Kirche.] 3.
J. C. Lambert.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
RESTITUTION
That act of justice by which we restore to our neighbour whatever we have unjustly deprived him of, Exo 22:1. Luk 19:8. Moralists observe respecting restitution,
1. That where it can be made in kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the thing or the value.
2. We are bound to restore the thing with the natural increase of it, that is, to satisfy for the loss sustained in the mean time, and the gain hindered.
3. Where the thing cannot be restored, and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable satisfaction, according to a middle estimation.
4. We are a least to give by way of restitution what the law would give, for that is generally equal, and in most cases rather favourable than rigorous.
5. A man is not only bound to restitution for the injury he did, but for all that directly follows upon the injurious act. For the first injury being wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it. Tillotson’s Sermons, ser. 170, 171; Chillingworth’s Works, ser. 7.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
restitution
(Latin: restituere, to give back)
The returning of something that has been unjustly taken from another, or of its equivalent; also the indemnification of another for unjust damages done to his person or reputation or property. One who has been guilty of a serious act of injustice that demands restitution cannot obtain the pardon of his sins unless he makes restitution, or at least has a sincere intention of doing so when, and as far as, he is able.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Restitution
Restitution has a special sense in moral theology. It signifies an act of commutative justice by which exact reparation as far as possible is made for an injury that has been done to another. An injury may be done to another by detaining what is known to belong to him in strict justice and by wilfully doing him damage in his property or reputation. As justice between man and man requires that what belongs to another should be rendered him, justice is violated by keeping from another against his reasonable will what belongs to him, and by willfully doing him damage in goods or reputation. Commutative justice therefore requires that restitution should be made whenever that virtue has been violated. This obligation is identical with that imposed by the Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” For the obligation not to deprive another of what belongs to him is identical with that of not keeping from another what belongs to him. As theft is a grave sin of its own nature, so is the refusal to make restitution for injustice that has been committed.
Restitution signifies not any sort of reparation made for injury inflicted, but exact reparation as far as possible. Commutative justice requires that each one should have what belongs to him, not something else; and so that which was taken away must be restored as far as possible. If the property of another has been destroyed or damaged, the value of the damage done must be restored. Restitution therefore signifies reparation for an injury, and that reparation is made be restoring to the person injured what he had lost and thus putting him in his former position. Sometimes when an injury has been done it cannot be repaired in this way. A man who commits adultery with another’s wife cannot make restitution to him in the strict sense. He has done his neighbour an injury which in a certain sense is irreparable. He should make what reparation he can. In this and similar cases it is a disputed point among theologians whether the adulterer is obliged to offer a money compensation for the injury. If he is convicted and sentenced to pay damages by lawful authority, he will certainly be bound to do so in conscience. But apart from such a sentence, he cannot be obliged to compensate the injured husband in money, because there is no common measure between such injuries and compensation in goods of another order.
Commutative justice looks at objective equality, and prescribes that it be preserved. For this reason Aristotle called this species of justice corrective, inasmuch as it corrects and remedies the inequality which an act of injustice produces between the injurer and the party injured. The one has less than he ought to have, because the other has taken it away, and they will not be quits until restitution is made. In cases where an injury is irreparable, the injurer will be bound to do what he can so that the injured party may be content. This is called making satisfcation, to distinguish it from making restitution in the strict sense. We are thus bound to make satisfaction to God for the injury which our sins do Him; we cannot make Him restitution, nor did He suffer damage on account of our sins. A violation of commutative justice alone imposes the obligation of making restitution, for when charity or obedience or any of the other virtues is violated, there is indeed a consequent obligation of repenting for the sin, but there is no obligation of performing the omitted act of charity or obedience now. The obligation was urgent at the particular time and in the particular circumstances in which the sin was committed. Now the need of relief which called for the act of charity, and the reason for the command which was disobeyed no longer exist, and so there is no reason for supplying now for the omitted acts.
The grounds on which restitution becomes obligatory are either the possession of something belonging to another, or the causing of unjust damage to the property or reputation of another. These are called by divines the roots of restitution, for it is due on one of those two grounds if it is due at all. The moral obligations of one who finds himself in possession of another person’s property, and who on that account is bound to make restitution, will depend on whether he had possession of the property hitherto in good faith, or in bad faith, or in doubtful faith. If hitherto he thought in good faith that the property was his own, and he now discovers that it belongs to someone else, it will be sufficient to restore the property itself to the owner, together with any fruits that still remain. If while he was in good faith he consumed the fruits, or even the property itself perished, the possessor will not be bound to make restitution for what no longer exists. If the possessor consumed what he thought was his own property, possession in good faith justified him in doing so; and if the property has perished or been lost, the owner must bear the loss. But if possession was begun in bad faith, the possessor must not only restore all that remains of the property or of its fruits, but he must also compensate the owner for any loss or damage that the latter suffered on account of being deprived of his property. For the unjust possessor must make compensation for all the damage that he has caused the owner by unwarrantably retaining his property. If possession was begun in doubtful faith, inquiry as to title should first of all be made. In this way, or by the use of presumptions, the doubt may often be settled. If it cannot thus be settled the common opinion of divines is that restitution must be made to the doubtful owner of a portion of the property corresponding to the probability of his right, while the possessor may keep a portion corresponding to the probability of his title. A few recent theologians think that the possessor in such a case may keep possession of the property, provided that he is ready to hand it over to the true owner if and when the latter’s title is proved. If the doubt about the title arises subsequently to the beginning of possession, inquiry should be made, and if the doubt cannot be solved, the possessor may keep the property, for in doubt the possessor has the better claim. Fruits, as a general rule, follow the property, on the principle: Accessorium sequitur principale.
The deliberate causing of unjust damage to the property, reputation, or other strict rights of another imposes on him who does the damage the obligation of making restitution for it, as we have seen. For, although in this case there is no possession of what belongs to another, still the wronged person has not what in justice he should have, and that through the unjust action of him who did the damage. The latter therefore has unjustly taken away what belonged to the former, and he must restore to him something which is equivalent to the loss which he has suffered and which will balance it, so that equality between them may be restored. However, as a man is not in conscience responsible for damage which he caused inadvertently and by accident, the action which caused the damage must be voluntary, with at least some confused foreknowledge of its probable effects, in order that an obligation in conscience may arise to make compensation for the damage caused. Even though in a particular case there was no theological fault of this kind, as it is called by divines, yet sometimes if the amount of diligence was not used which the law requires in the case, the law imposes the obligation of making compensation to the injured party. There is then said to be juridical fault, and after the sentence of a competent authority has imposed the obligation of making compensation, it will be matter of conscience to obey the sentence. Besides being voluntary, the injurious action must be against commutative justice in order that an obligation to make restitution may arise from it. If while exercising my own right, as by putting on the market a new patent machine, I cause loss to others, I do not offend against justice, nor am I bound to make compensation for the loss caused to others. Neither is one responsible for damage to others of which he was the mere occasion, not the cause. Thus if the arrival in a city of some great personage causes a crowd to gather, and there is a crush, and an accident, by which damage is done to persons and to property, the great personage is the occasion of the damage, not the cause; and he is not bound to make restitution for it.
The foregoing principles are applicable whenever a strict right of another has been violated. Not only when property rights, or reputation, have been injured, but when spiritual rights to innocence, or true doctrine, or religious vocation, or any others of mind or body, intrinsic to man’s nature or extrinsic, have been unjustly violated, restitution as far as possible must be made. The efficacy of the confessional in bringing about restitution of ill-gotten property and the reparation of injuries of whatever sort is too well-known to need more than mention here.
———————————–
AQUINAS, Summa theologica, II-II, Q. lxii (Parma, 1852); LUGO, De Justitia et Jure (Paris, 1868); BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Opus morale (Prato, 1892); SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908).
T. SLATER Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Restitution
a term applied in the A.V. in two very different senses.
1. Penal (, to repay, Exo 20:1-14, etc.; elsewhere requite, etc.; but in Job 20:18, , exchange, as elsewhere rendered), that act of justice by which we restore to our neighbor whatever we have unjustly deprived him of; a point insisted on under both the old and the new covenant (Exo 22:1; Luk 19:8). Justice requires that those things which have been stolen or unlawfully taken from another should be restored to the party aggrieved, and that compensation should be made to him by the aggressor. Accordingly various fines or pecuniary payments were exacted by the Mosaic law: as,
(1.) Fines, , onesh, strictly so called, went commonly to the injured party, and were of two kinds: fixed, i.e. those of which the amount was determined by some statute as, for instance, that of Deu 22:19, or deu 22:29; and undetermined, or where the amount was left to the decision of the judges (Exo 21:22).
(2.) Twofold, fourfold, and even fivefold restitution of things stolen, and restitution of property unjustly retained, with twenty per cent. over and above. He who, by ignorance, should omit to give to the Temple what was appointed by the law for example, in the tithes or first-fruits was obliged to restore it to the priests and to add a fifth part besides, over and above which he was bound to offer a ram for his expiation. Nehemiah prevailed with all those Israelites to make restitution who had taken interest of their brethren (Neh 5:10-11), and Zacchaeus (Luk 19:8) promises a Fourfold restitution to ail from whom he had extorted in his office as a publican. The Roman laws condemned to a fourfold restitution all who were convicted of extortion or fraud. Zacchaus here imposes that penalty on himself, to which he adds the half of his goods, which was what the law did not require.
(3.) If a man killed a beast, he was to make it good, beast for beast (Lev 24:18). If an ox pushed or gored another man’s servant to death, his owner was bound to pay for the servant thirty shekels of silver (Exo 21:32). In the case of one man’s ox pushing the ox of another man to death, as it would be very difficult to ascertain which of the two had been to blame for the quarrel, the two owners were obliged to bear the loss between them; the living ox was to be sold, and its price, together with the dead beast, was to be equally divided by them. If, however, one of the oxen. had previously been notorious for goring, and the owner had not taken care to confine him, in such case he was to give the loser another and to take the dead ox himself (Exo 21:36).
(4.) If a man dug a pit and did not cover it, or let an old pit remain open and another man’s beast fell into it, the owner of such pit was obliged to pay for the beast and had it for the payment (Exo 21:33-34).
(5.) When a fire was kindled in the fields and did any damage, he who kindled it was to make the damage good (22:6). SEE DAMAGES.
Moralists observe respecting restitution:
(1.) That where it can be made in kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the thing or the value.
(2.) We are bound to restore the thing with the natural increase of it, i.e. to satisfy for the loss sustained in the meantime and the gain hindered.
(3.) Where the thing cannot be restored and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable satisfaction according to a middle estimation.
(4.) We are at least to give by way of restitution what the law would give, for that is a generally equal and in most cases rather favorable than rigorous.
(5.) A man is not only bound to restitution for the injury he did, but for all that directly follows from the injurious act; for the first injury being wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it.
2. Apocatastasis, a term which, in its Greek form, occurs but once in the New Test. in the phrase restitution of all things, (Act 3:21). As an event, it is in that passage connected with the refreshing () from the presence of the Lord (Act 3:19). The grammatical construction as well as exegetical interpretation of the whole passage has been greatly disputed by commentators (see Meyer, Commentar. ad loc.); but Alford (Greek Test. ad loc.) regards both these as being decisively settled by the parallel expression of our Saviour that Elijah will restore all things, (Mat 17:11). The principal opinions of interpreters are thus summed up by Kuinol (Comment. ad loc.):
(a) De Dieu, Limbach, Wolf, and others understand by the times of refreshing and restitution (i.e. the predicted period when the due position will be assigned each one), the days of the last judgment, the times of affliction to the impious and contumacious, but of relief, quiet, and safety to the saints. In support of this view they adduce the frequent argument of the sacred writers to induce Christians to diligence and hope drawn from the prospect of the last day (Act 17:30 sq.; 2Pe 3:7; 2Pe 3:11; 2Pe 3:13 sq.; comp. especially the similar language of 2Th 1:7; 2Th 2:16), and the fact that Jewish writers were accustomed so to speak of it (Pirke Aboth, 4:17).
(b) Schulz (in his Dissert. de Temporibus , in the Biblioth. Hagan. v, 119 sq.) understands the time of death, the terminus fixed to each man’s life, the future rest of the dead in the Lord; a view which Barkey (ibid. p. 411) justly opposes by this, among other considerations, that if this had been Peter’s meaning it is strange he had not used clearer and more customary phraseology.
(c) Kraft (Obss. Sacr. fascic. 9:271 sq.) remarks that Peter on this passage derives his argument not merely from the hope of pardon, but also from the benefits already bestowed by God, and therefore considers this refreshing to be the liberation afforded by Jesus from the ceremonial yoke of bondage of the Jewish law, an exposition which is well refuted by Barkey (Bibl. Hag. 3:119 sq.), who pertinently remarks that Peter at this very time was not himself free from legal prejudices.
(d) Barkey (ibid. v, 397 sq.) thinks these times of refreshing are the period of the delay of the divine judgment upon the Jews, the time of the divine longsuffering, in which the zeal of the Almighty’s vengeance was remitted or relaxed. He regards the expression Jesus Christ here as put for the word of Jesus Christ, and so refers the words he shall send, etc., to the preaching of the doctrine of Jesus.
(e) In the opinion of Grotius, Hammond, and Bolten, the times of refreshing are the time of the freedom of Christians from Jewish persecution and the calamities impending over the wicked and refractory Jews (Mat 24:33; Luk 21:28); while the times of restitution are the time of the fulfilment of the predictions concerning the overthrow of the capital and polity of the Jews (comp. Mat 24:15; Mat 24:30).
(f) Ernesti (in his Opusc. Theol. p. 477), who finds a follower in Dbderlein (Institutio Theol. Christ. ii, 223, obs. 6), interprets the term apocatastasis as meaning a new, greater, and truer perfection of religion, the doctrine of the Gospel clear and free from all shadows of figures and rites; first announced by John, then promulgated by Jesus among the Jews, and finally propagated by the apostle everywhere. This view he fortifies by the observation that times of restitution is equivalent to time of reformation (, Heb 9:10).
(g) Also Eckermann (Theologische Beitrage, 1, ii, 112 sq.) interprets the apocatatasasis of all things to mean the universal emendation of religion by the doctrine of Christ, and the times of refreshing to be the day of renewal, the times of the Messiah. The same writer, however, afterwards (ibid. II, i, 188 sq.) rejects this exposition on the ground that the parallel passages (Mat 11:17; Mar 9:12) speak of Elijah as to precede and rectify Jewish faith and morals. He therefore concludes that Peter was referring to a restoration of the Jewish polity in its original splendor. Yet finally (in his Erkalrung aller dunkeln Stellen des N.T. ii, 184) he returns to his original opinion. (h) Rosenmuller, following Morus, understands the times of refreshing to denote happy times, not merely the day of the resurrectioni of the dead, but also spiritual benefits of every kind which Christians enjoy in this and the future life (Morus: the Messianic times), and refers the times of restitution (full and perfect fulfilment of prophecy) to the consummation of that auspicious period when all enemies shall be subdued (1 Corinthians 20:25 sq.; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:15; comp. Psa 110:1), and every influence opposing true religion removed. Many of these interpretations are obviously fanciful, and most of them too vague, although some contain an element of truth. The word signifies emendation, restoration to a pristine condition, change to a better state. (So Josephus, Ant. 11:3, 8; 4:6; Philo, De Decal. p. 767 b; De Rer. Div. Her. p. 522 c. Hesychius and Phanorinus likewise explain it by ; but the scholiast in the Cod. Nosq. ad loc. renders , . In like manner signifies to complete, bring to a conclusion; see the Sept. at Job 8:6, where it corresponds with ; so in Gen 41:13; Jer 22:8; comp. Polyb. 4, 23, 1; Diod. Sic. 20:34.) By the expression until the times of the apocatastasis of all things which God hath spoken, etc., Peter means the time when all affairs shall be consummated, all the prophetical announcements shall be accomplished, including the inauguration of the kingdom of the Messiah and its attendant events, the full extension of the Gospel, the resurrection, judgment, etc. in short, the end of the world (see Olshausen, De Wette, Hackett, and most others, ad loc.). SEE ESCHATOLOGY.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Restitution
RESTITUTION.See Crimes and Punishments, 8.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Restitution
To be made for injury to life, limb, or property
Exo 21:30-36; Lev 24:18
For theft
Exo 22:1-4; Pro 6:30-31; Eze 33:15
For dishonesty
Lev 6:2-5; Num 5:7; Job 20:18; Eze 33:15; Luk 19:8
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
RESTITUTION
(1) Enjoined
Exo 22:3; Lev 6:4; Pro 6:31; Eze 33:15
(2) Examples of
1Ki 20:34; 2Ki 8:6; Neh 5:12; Luk 19:8
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Restitution
* For RESTITUTION see RESTORATION
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Restitution
that act of justice by which we restore to our neighbour whatever we have unjustly deprived him of, Exo 22:1; Luk 19:8. Moralists observe, respecting restitution,
1. That were it can be made in kind, or the injury can be certainly valued, we are to restore the thing or the value.
2. We are bound to restore the thing with the natural increase of it, that is, to satisfy for the loss sustained in the mean time, and the gain hindered.
3. When the thing cannot be restored, and the value of it is not certain, we are to give reasonable satisfaction, according to a liberal estimation.
4. We are at least to give, by way of restitution, what the law would give; for that is generally equal, and in most cases rather favourable than rigorous.
5. A man is not only bound to make restitution for the injury he did, but for all that directly follows upon the injurious act: for the first injury being wilful, we are supposed to will all that which follows upon it.