Tim Maas Supporter Retired Quality Assurance Specialist with the U.S. Army

The same requirement is mentioned in other passages in the Law, such as Leviticus 22:14; 27:11-13; 27:27; and 27:31. I would say that the purpose of the added amount was deterrence, from the standpoint of preventing people from taking a casual attitude toward such transgressions that might result if the only requirement were to restore the value involved in the transgression itself.

Also, the offense would not only have been against the affected human party, but, in the final analysis, also against God Himself (as all sin is). The added portion could also then be viewed in that light, as a gesture of repentance toward God.

December 12 2018 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Jack Gutknecht Supporter ABC/DTS graduate, guitar music ministry Baptist church

I have asked this question of other people as well and added a personal example: If I have committed $5,000 worth of vandalism damage (e.g. breaking glass windows on new houses and sliding glass doors), should I offer to make restitution for the $5,000 damage alone, or should I add to this offer one-fifth, i.e. $6,000 total?

How would this compare or contrast with Zacchaeus offer to repay 4 times the amount in his restitution (Luke 19:8)?

The answer given was:

"

The verse is saying that a person who committed a wrong to someone 
else must confess, pay it back with an additional fifth added, and bring
a ram as a guilt-offering. This is in accordance with Leviticus 
5:20-26, which requires the payment of the money with an additional 
fifth as well as a guilt-offering for a list of crimes such as stealing.


As the division of verses 23-24 would indicate, Jewish law required the extra payment of a fifth only in the case of swearing falsely (verse 24), while the ordinary case requires only paying back the theft with no extra penalty (verse 23). Following this interpretation, the case of Numbers 5:5-8 was restricted to the special case of one who falsely swore to a convert, who is likely not to have a relative to inherit him as verse 8 says (Mishnah, Bava Kamma 9:11).


However, a straightforward reading of the verses would seem to show 
that Numbers 5:5-8 is just a restatement of Leviticus 5:20-26, which 
doesn't include the details of specific sins nor of the guilt-offering, 
but does add the requirement to confess the crime.


However, note that Leviticus 5:20-26 doesn't name damages (such as your case vandalism) as one of the reasons for this penalty. Damages 
didn't require an additional fifth, only the payment of the principle 
(Leviticus 24:21).


Zacchaeus' promise to pay back four times what he stole echoes David's judgment for the rich man who stole the poor man's ewe (2 Samuel 12:6). David's judgment was in accordance with the law for stealing a sheep (Exodus 21:37), but Zacchaeus' promise to pay fourfold was above what was required by the law."

December 12 2018 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report