Professor John Mixon standing in front of some of the cartoons that he used while teaching classes at the UH Law Center. He retired in 2013 after a 60-year career as a law professor.
I was scribbling notes as fast as I could—like eighty of my law-school peers. Suddenly, the professor tossed out one of those phrases that made my head spin:
“Now this is a case where your client wants what? Specific performance! And who can provide that? The Court of Law?”
Professor Mixon paused, the old man’s dancing blue eyes looking at us eagerly. He wanted someone to speak, but it was too early in our first semester. No one was quite sure. Finally, a tentative voice spoke up right in front of him, mumbling so only he could hear:
“No.”
“Right! The court of law only cares about cash! So if it’s not the Court of Law, then it is the … Court of—” He waited.
“Equity?”
“Exactly!” And Professor Mixon raced back to the chalkboard to add to his daily, thirty-foot mural. (The man was an artist and a legend.)
When I was a law student, one of the topics I found difficult was the notion of Courts of Equity. While my peers may have struggled with the “Con-Tort,” or Commercial Paper, or Bills of Lading, for me it was the constant talk about “Courts of Equity.” My eyes would glaze over and I would begin this internal dialogue: Okay, what is a court of equity again? That thing with injunctions and specific performance, right? And it’s not about money damages. And it’s motivated by fairness….
The Equity Courts were part of the English legal system and represented a forum for a plaintiff whose needs could not be met in a traditional law court. For example, if you had a difficult tenant renting your property, a law court might award you damages (money). But the Equity Court could award you what you really needed: an eviction. Or if you paid for a one-of-a-kind sculpture by a deceased artist, the law court might award you with a refund, but the Equity Court could require the person in possession to deliver the sculpture to you.
EQUITY, in a nutshell, is a court focused not on the wooden application of the law and the resulting payment of damages, but on achieving a broad range of fair or equitable results[1]. In Biblical terms, a Court of Equity looks not at the letter of the law, but at the spirit[2] or the intent behind the law (2 Corinthians 3:6).
“He cometh to judge the earth. With righteousness shall He judge the world, and the people with equity” Psalm 98:9.
God will judge the people with equity. Fairness.
God will not apply a rigid interpretation of the law, but when He judges people He will consider the “totality of the circumstances.” That is, God will judge not in legalism, but in equity. After all, God is holy. But God is also “not willing that any should perish” 2 Peter 3:9. God loves people and will extend to them as much grace, love, mercy, and “fairness” as He can while remaining true to His holy nature.
God’s court is a Court of Equity.
Isaiah prophesies that Jesus will judge with equity: “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him … but with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked” Isaiah 11:2,4.
Even while executing judgment, Isaiah says Jesus will judge the poor with righteousness and the meek with equity. Again, God is not legalistic about judgment. He wants men to be saved. He will look at their hearts. Again, I believe God will give people as much grace and “fairness” or equity as He can.
God’s Court is a Court of Equity.
“The king’s strength also loveth judgment. Thou dost establish equity” Psalm 99:4.
AΩ.
[1] The curious may wish to know: the notions of law and equity have been combined in U.S. federal law and all but a handful of U.S. states. Consequently, understanding the concept of Equity Courts has been more helpful while writing this Bible study than it has ever been in my legal practice.
[2] The difficulty for lawyers arguing about the “spirit of the law” is that the letter of the law is written in words, whereas the spirit is an indefinable concept, like the penumbras and emanations of which the Supreme Court speaks in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Penumbras and emanations can be impossible to pin down.
Household Words: 