Is the Old Testament Relevant to Compensation for Wrongdoing?

[newton3005]

At first glance, the New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, does not address much the issue of compensation for wrongdoing against another person. There are many passages in the Old Testament, particularly in the Book of Exodus, that address the issue. In the New Testament, there is one passage, Luke 19:8-9, in which Jesus approves of a tax collector who offers to give “fourfold” to those whom he defrauded. If there are any other passages in the New Testament that addresses this issue, I’d like to know. In the meantime, Jesus in Verse 9, says to the tax collector “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.” By declaring the tax collector to be a son of Abraham, does not Jesus bring in the passages in the Old Testament to the New Testament, such that there is no need to look further into what the New Testament says about this issue? It would seem so...

Consider lawsuits for compensation today. Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. have been royally sued as of late, being ordered to pay exorbitant amounts to the victims. And in many other lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek as much as they want. Are these lawsuits valid under God through Jesus?

Romans 13:1 says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Any laws, therefore, including civil, that have been enacted by such governing authorities can be regarded as an extension of God since the government under Romans 13:1 is an extension of God.

Many civil laws provide for the ability of the victim to collect compensation from those who wronged them. There happen to be four Laws in the Book of Exodus that can be thought to be the foundation for lawsuits today.

Exodus 22:5 says, “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.” This is what takes place in successful lawsuits for damages today, based on laws enacted by governing authorities under God. Similarly, there is Exodus 22:6 which says, “If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.” Think of the wildfires in California caused by defective equipment of a utility, which destroyed people’s property. That utility will be expected to compensate the victims for their losses, to the point where such compensation exceeds what it is able to pay out. And to a lesser degree there is Exodus 22:14 which says, “If a man borrows anything of his neighbor, and it is injured or dies, the owner not being with it, he shall make full restitution...” All these have to do with compensation for damages.

In a slightly more complicated matter, there is Exodus 22:7-9 which says, “If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man's house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God (judges in other Bible versions) to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God (judges). The one whom God (judges) condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.” Think of lawsuits involving financial houses who are trusted with other people’s money, of how those financial houses lost other people’s money or used it for things other than giving those people a return on their investment. Think of embezzlers, and of people like Bernie Madoff, who MADE OFF with other people’s money. In the case of Madoff, restitution was paid to the victims to the extent the money was available.

In any courtroom in the U.S. there are the words “In God we trust.” Those courts, then, are perceived to be acting as an extension of God, like any other body of government acting so. And if the Old Testament is not EXPRESSLY relevance to the New Testament, which includes Romans 13:1, there appears to be an IMPLIED relevance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At first glance, the New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, does not address much the issue of compensation for wrongdoing against another person. There are many passages in the Old Testament, particularly in the Book of Exodus, that address the issue. In the New Testament, there is one passage, Luke 19:8-9, in which Jesus approves of a tax collector who offers to give “fourfold” to those whom he defrauded. If there are any other passages in the New Testament that addresses this issue, I’d like to know. In the meantime, Jesus in Verse 9, says to the tax collector “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.” By declaring the tax collector to be a son of Abraham, does not Jesus bring in the passages in the Old Testament to the New Testament, such that there is no need to look further into what the New Testament says about this issue? It would seem so...

Consider lawsuits for compensation today. Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. have been royally sued as of late, being ordered to pay exorbitant amounts to the victims. And in many other lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek as much as they want. Are these lawsuits valid under God through Jesus?

Romans 13:1 says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Any laws, therefore, including civil, that have been enacted by such governing authorities can be regarded as an extension of God since the government under Romans 13:1 is an extension of God.

Many civil laws provide for the ability of the victim to collect compensation from those who wronged them. There happen to be four Laws in the Book of Exodus that can be thought to be the foundation for lawsuits today.

Exodus 22:5 says, “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.” This is what takes place in successful lawsuits for damages today, based on laws enacted by governing authorities under God. Similarly, there is Exodus 22:6 which says, “If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.” Think of the wildfires in California caused by defective equipment of a utility, which destroyed people’s property. That utility will be expected to compensate the victims for their losses, to the point where such compensation exceeds what it is able to pay out. And to a lesser degree there is Exodus 22:14 which says, “If a man borrows anything of his neighbor, and it is injured or dies, the owner not being with it, he shall make full restitution...” All these have to do with compensation for damages.

In a slightly more complicated matter, there is Exodus 22:7-9 which says, “If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man's house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God (judges in other Bible versions) to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God (judges). The one whom God (judges) condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.” Think of lawsuits involving financial houses who are trusted with other people’s money, of how those financial houses lost other people’s money or used it for things other than giving those people a return on their investment. Think of embezzlers, and of people like Bernie Madoff, who MADE OFF with other people’s money. In the case of Madoff, restitution was paid to the victims to the extent the money was available.

In any courtroom in the U.S. there are the words “In God we trust.” Those courts, then, are perceived to be acting as an extension of God, like any other body of government acting so. And if the Old Testament is not EXPRESSLY relevance to the New Testament, which includes Romans 13:1, there appears to be an IMPLIED relevance.

On my part, I'll say that I think the writings of the New Testament writers, as extensions of what Jesus Himself laid out for people to further consider through His Kerygma and the Great Commission, indeed do imply that some nuanced measure of the legal and moral motifs in the O.T. apply to the ways in which Christians can and should form their praxes when they consider biblical ethics and legal jurisprudence on the secular front.

However, this OP of yours is a nicely constructed inquiry and requires a lot more thought than I can provide at the moment since there are a lot of things to chew on here. Besides, since I don't have the maximum expertise in all of this even though some of it surely overlays my fields of study, I'd like to see what folks like @Quid est Veritas?, @Silmarien, @zippy2006, @Sanoy, @Halbhh, @ViaCrucis, among about a dozen or so others here on CF have to say about all of this.

So, we'll see what develops, newton.

Thanks for the thoughtful OP thread, bud!

 

[AlexDTX]

At first glance, the New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, does not address much the issue of compensation for wrongdoing against another person.

Excellent points. Personally, I believe the place of the Bible has 2 areas in society.

While only Israel was under the Mosaic Covenant (with a few gentiles called "God fearers" by Israelis), and has never applied to the body of Christ, it has great value for the unregenerate. Israel was used by God to show what standard of righteousness, without God, required. In other words, those standards should be a guide for secular society mitigated by the influence of the Church. This is why the 10 commandments were displayed in court houses and much of the past legislation was based on the Old Testament.

I qualified the OT statement about being mitigated by the Church, because the goal is not to stone people to death, nor simply imprison them for life, but to transform their hearts with the Gospel.

Likewise, the New Covenant given to all who accept Christ's salvation, and for the body of Christ should be salt and light in the secular world to lead people the the grace of God.

So, yes, I agree with your points.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Such matters belong in the civil courts, not in the church. The adjudication of restitution is practiced by most societies whether Christian or not. Sadly we don't apply it effectively in our legal system. In fact our legal system often frustrates victims of property crimes instead of making them whole. They reward themselves by imposing fines and imprisonment as if they were the offended party, leaving the real victims to suffer the loss.

 

[bèlla]

Greetings,

Medicinal recklessness shouldn’t go unpunished. The opioid crisis is horrible and its easy to understand how it happens. I’ve been on four hour doses of morphine in the hospital and had medicine to take at home.

After the first day, I couldn’t handle it. The medicine made me dizzy and was overpowering. I stopped taking it. But most people would finish the dosage as prescribed. It took 48 hours for the medicine to leave my system. There was a lot of intermittent napping that came on spontaneously.

This isn’t something most should ever have access to at home. When the pain threshold lowers the drug’s effects are deeply felt. It was a bad trip and they should be held responsible for their actions.

I think Psalm 43:1 is an excellent example for these cases:

Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!

~Bella

 

[Sanoy]

Old Testament restitution was based on a equivalence. Eye for and Eye and tooth for a tooth. In the case of the thief who pays double, he pays double because he robs two people. However Jesus gives a different view of the law in the latter half of Matthew 5.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."​

Eye for an Eye refers to injury court. Here you have someone who has been sued, and found wanting by the court of law to pay restitution of a Tunic. Jesus says don't just give the Tunic, but seek to make it right with your brother not just equivalent. However only the law can mandate equivalence, the restoration of the relationship with that brother must be made voluntarily (giving the Cloak as well). In the case of being the recipient of an injury, IE Being slapped here, one should love the offender. Many translation's call the person Evil, but evil doesn't mean what it means in English. In Hebrew it just means adversity, in Greek it is somewhat similar, meaning to cause pain or grieve, or in this context something like the criminal in a hearing, the guilty defendant.

So Jesus establishes a better law that goes above equivalence, and really seeks to restore relationships and persons. So in a perfect world I think the offending pharmaceutical company should pay equivalent damages and if they wish to do what is right they should also seek to restore the wrong they have done to their neighbor as they deem fit.

It's benevolent to passively ignore a slap rather than seeking injury restoration, however it's wicked to ignore a stabbing and leave the threat open to your neighbor. So if these companies are being wicked they need to be punished to the full extent of the law, just as we would with a stabbing.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

I'm not sure that it's relevant to the basic concern of the OP but I, too, without going into details, have been a bona fide victim of the hypocritical machinations of big pharma. They cause more suffering than they relieve or endure, themselves, in far too many cases. I have a cousin who works high in the business, and my mother and I have had to restrain ourselves greatly at a few family gatherings.

People will inevitably point to layoffs resulting from a decline in revenue as a reason to go easy on big businesses. I've been laid off before, and yet I've had worse things happen to me that have always somehow glorified God ultimately.

And while I admire those who work for change within "the system," I think looking for Christian ethics to make a comeback in big organizational structures might be misguided at this juncture in earth's history.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It is well to remember that our systems of Law are not biblically based, and never have been. Most of the world tends to use either a Common Law system, or a prescriptive one like the Napoleonic code; both based largely on Roman Law. There is a reason why the lawcourts are peppered with Latin, as the entire system of Western Law is a direct descendant of the Roman.

Now in Western thought the Law is not perceived as a Moral entity - it is a system in and of itself, based on Precedent established by previous court proceedings or proscribed by laws passed by a legislation. So the Law can be immoral, yet legal; or patently wrong, such as when OJ Simpson was acquited.
Sure, the Law is supposed to be Just, but it is its own structure irrespective thereof. The Enlightenment tried to establish Natural Law as a counterpoint as criticism of our human codes, but in every age voices were always raised against 'Unjust Laws'. The Law is not a Universal, but a Human Construct, in other words. Common Law can be seen as collective human wisdom, and Prescription as based on Authority entrusted to the Legislative body, which usually represents the whole too.

So in essence, we have firm Roman-derived human Law vs. Biblical Hebrew Law. The latter means more something like 'teaching' and as a law-code in a Roman sense, are quite insufficient. This is a part of the reason why the Pharisees asserted the Oral Torah, or a sort-of precedence system of commentary by the Sanhedrin was necessary to interpret it.

This is the background of Paul. One must adhere to the authority placed over you by God, but if that authority demands what is unacceptable to God, then as Jesus said: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but give unto God what is God's. The Holocaust was legal in Nazi Germany, after all. The Moral Law of God takes precedence to the human construct.

Now to the question of compensation: Does paying such compensation impact upon Moral Law? Are these being asked to compromise their moral conscience by paying them? I think not. As Jesus said, if someone asks for your cloak, give them your shirt as well. They are thus likely covered by respecting authority, I'd say.

Are they moral though? By Natural Law is it Just to pay exhorbitant amounts? I doubt that it is, nor do I think it possible to establish what would be a fair price for what transgression. How much wergeld must a man's life be worth? Or his health? But that hardly matters. I see no compelling reason to disobey such laws of men on religious grounds, and if I consider them unjust, then I should be working to overthrow them via legal means or legislation. There has always been a Tribune or some other method of appeal. As long as the law is not impacting my moral conscience, not directly leading me to Sin against God, then we are told to respect it. Whether OT statutes can be implied relevant to such modern proceedings or not, their base has never rested therein, but in Common Law or Prescriptive Law. Besides, material wealth is a two-edged sword - it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle, after all.

 

[newton3005]

Whether OT statutes can be implied relevant to such modern proceedings or not, their base has never rested therein, but in Common Law or Prescriptive Law.

***The OT Law comes from God. Any other law from a government under God is an extension of God. I cannot accept, then, that a government of, say, Nazi Germany was a government under God, so on that basis their law was not an extension of God.

As far as morality is concerned, as a God-fearing person the only morality I know is what is expressed and implied in terms of God.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

***The OT Law comes from God. Any other law from a government under God is an extension of God. I cannot accept, then, that a government of, say, Nazi Germany was a government under God, so on that basis their law was not an extension of God.

As far as morality is concerned, as a God-fearing person the only morality I know is what is expressed and implied in terms of God.

Morality does not, and never has, equalled the Law in a secular sense. As I said, the Law is a human construct based on its own premises of either precedent or statute, not Natural Law - though many thinkers have been critical about it accordingly.