Restitution, a term applied in the A. Y. in two very different senses.
l. /'nin! (C?'J, to repay, Exod. xx, 1 II. etc.: else- where "requite," etc.; but iu Job x\. L8, ~~"":r. change, as elsewhere rendered), that act of justice by w bich we restore to our neighbor whatever we have un- justly deprived him of; a point insisted on under both the old and the new covenant (Exod. xxii, 1: Luke xix,8). Justice requires thai those things which have been si. .leu or unlaw fully taken from another should be
restored to the party aggrieved, and that compensation
should be made lo him by the aggressor. Accordingly various tines (,r pecuniary payments were exacted by
the Mosaic lau : as. | |.i Fines, OSS, onesh, strictly so called, went commonly to the injured parly, and were of two kinds: fixed, i.e. those of which the amount was determined by some Btatute as. for instance, that of Deut xxii, 19, or xxii, 29; and undetermined, or where the amount was left to the decision of the judges (Exod.
RESTITUTION
1051
RESTITUTION
xxi, 22). (2.) Twofold, fourfold, and even fivefold res- titution of things stolen, and restitution of property un- justly retained, with twenty per cent, over and above. He who, by ignorance, should omit to give to the Tem- ple 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. v, 10, 11), and Zacclnvus (Luke xix, 8) promises a fourfold restitution to ail from whom he had extorted in his office as a publican. The Roman laws condemn- ed to a fourfold restitution all who were convicted of extortion or fraud. Zacchams here imposes that penal- ty 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. xxiv, 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 (Exod. xxi, 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 (ver. 3G). (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 (vers. 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 (xxii, 6). See Damages.
Moralists observe respecting restitution : (1.) That where it can be made in kind, or the injury can be cer- tainly 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 mid- dle estimation. (4.) We are at least to give by way of restitution what the law would give, for that is gener- ally equal and in most cases rather favorable than rig- orous. (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. Apocatusfdsis, a term which, in its Greek form, oc- curs but once in the New Test, in the phrase "restitu- tion of all things," cnroKaTaaraaig irch'rioi' (Acts iii, 21). As an event, it is in that passage connected with the "refreshing (ai'ai^S'C) from the presence of the Lord" (ver. 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.) re- gards both these as being decisively settled by the par- allel expression of our Saviour — that Elijah " will re- store all things," cnroKciTaaTaati iravra (Matt, xvii, 11). The principal opinions of interpreters are thus summed up by Kuinol {Comment, ad loc.) : (</) De Dieu, Lim- bach, Wolf, and others understand by the times of "re- freshing" 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 safe- ty 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 pros- pect of the last day (Acts xvii, 30 sq. ; 2 Pet. iii, 7 ; xi, 13 sq. ; comp. especially the similar language of 2 Thess. i, 7; ii, 10), and the fact that Jewish writers were ac-