But as it always does, the day came and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.
Only then did he realize that his creditor had not only the power to repossess [take away] all that he owned but also the power to cast him into prison as well.
"I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so," he confessed.
"Then," said the creditor, "we will take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced."
"Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?" the debtor begged. "Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?"
The creditor replied, "Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?"
"I believed in justice when I signed the contract," the debtor said. "It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then nor think I should need it ever."
"It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty," the creditor replied. "That is the law. You have agreed to it, and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice."
There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail [win] except at the expense of the other.
"If you do not forgive the debt, there will be no mercy," the debtor pleaded.
"If I do, there will be no justice," was the reply.
Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served and mercy also?
There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.