In this article I will make a brief explanation of what usury is and why it is wrong. I won’t, at least in this article, be able to offer a detailed rebuttal of every possible attempt to justify usury. Such arguments fall into two broad categories – economic arguments and theological arguments.
Economic arguments in favor of usury generally assert that usury is either beneficial or inescapable. While I believe that both of these assertions are plainly foolish, I argue from the position that the scriptures are both true and authoritative, so purely economic argumentation over usury is a waste of time since no economic argument could ever justify what God has condemned. This would be as pointless as giving sodomites the opportunity to make psychological, aesthetic, or other extra-biblical arguments in favor of their chosen depravity. Since God’s Law condemns sodomy, we have no standing to make any other case in favor of it. Likewise, since God’s Law condemns usury, it is pointless and blasphemous to purposely give a hearing to sinful man’s attempt to justify it. As Scott Mooney wrote:
I simply assume that economic reasoning is possible without usury because the Scriptures 1) require economic reasoning and 2) condemn usury. We must not wait to find out experimentally whether economic reasoning is possible without usury before we dare to condemn usury. We gain confidence to condemn usury because that is the Word of our God, which gives us confidence for all things. If that posture makes certain kinds of economic thinking impossible (e.g. the elimination of “interest theory†would make Austrian School economics impossible) then all that tells us is that Austrian School economics is unbiblical. Whatever economic theory that cannot accommodate the standard of God’s law must be shunned by Christians who expect to hold their faith seriously. We cannot afford the procedure of setting up an unbiblical economic theory as the standard of all truth and then whining about how usury must be legitimate because without it our pet school of economic thought could not work.
~Scott Mooney, Usury: Destroyer of Nations
Theological arguments in favor of usury, on the other hand, must be addressed. If God’s Law did not condemn usury, then neither could we condemn it. There are a number of typical theological arguments in favor of usury that have been advanced over the years, and I will briefly mention some of them and explain why they are wrong. I do not have the time to address each one throroughly in this one article, but if you would like a more detailed explanation of any of these arguments, the reader is welcome to email their questions to me or post them in the comments section below, and I will attempt to address them in a future post. It is probable that there will arise some arguments that I haven’t heard before, and as those are brought to my attention, I will gladly devote more posts to them as necessary.
Now, some might be wondering if the discussion of usury is a purely intellectual exercise. Is the sin of usury a trivial point of contention? Let me explain why I think it is not.
First, it is important that we not be hypocrites, which we certainly are if we pick and choose which sins to condemn. Take a look at this article, “The Bible Condemned Usurers, Too†by John Corvino, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, Fall 1996. While relativists are blind to their predicament, the enemies of the church can see the Achilles Heel of the position that attempts to honor parts of God’s law while ignoring other parts. Corvino writes:
Is it possible to affirm the truth of the Bible yet deny the anti-gay conclusions the Church has drawn from it for centuries? To answer that question, I want to explore another case where the Church has re-interpreted Scripture: usury. For centuries the Church used the Bible to condemn the lending of money for interest — for any interest, not just excessive interest. Today it has more money in the bank than many major corporations. And its explanation for this shift — that cultural changes render the Biblical prohibitions inapplicable — works just as well for homosexuality as for interest banking.
If usury is indeed a sin, then we ought to repent of our wickedness and bring forth fruits in keeping with it. The scriptures tell us that:
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination. (Proverbs 28:9 KJV)
Second, nearly every professing Christian in America, and most institutional churches, are participating in usury-based economics – whether through their investments so-called, their business practices, their retirement accounts, the savings bonds they purchase for the kiddies, their conditioning of their children to tolerate and even seek usury, or the theological defense of those that perpetrate the same. This is a sin problem of epidemic proportions.
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (Romans 2:21 KJV)
Thirdly, it can hardly be argued that usury is not ravaging people and families. When interest bearing investments are made, who pays the costs? One of the arguments in favor of usury on commercial loans is that the business pays the usury through profits, and that this is inherently different than a loan to a private individual. But do businesses ever really absorb costs – or are those costs passed on to the consumer through higher prices which make it possible for the business to pay the price of usury? In the end, it is the individual that pays the usury, and generally by those individuals that can least afford to pay. Thus unless we repent of usury, then any pretense of concern a man voices for his family, his kin, or his people is purely a façade of feigned compassion, for our support of usury continues to oppress them every hour of every day, even on the Lord’s Day.
For Christ said to his Disciples, Love one another, as I have loved you. But it may be said if the Usurer, See how he hatheth his brethern, and hear how he loveth them: for he loveth them in words, and hateth them in deeds. He sayeth that he loveth them, and that he lendeth for compassion, but it is for compassion of himself, that he may gain by his lending. The Usurer loveth the borrower, as the Ivy loveth the Oak: The Ivy loveth the Oak to grow up by it, so the Usurer loveth the borrower to grow rich by him. The Ivy claspeth the Oak like a lover, but it claspeth out all the juice and sap, that the Oak cannot thrive after: So the Usurer lendeth like a friend, but he covenanteth like an enemy, for he claspeth the borrower with such bands, that ever after he diminisheth, as fast as the other increaseth.
~ Henry Smith, 16th century English Puritan preacher
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28 KJV)
Now to the question at hand. What is usury?
Usury is really quite easy to define. When someone makes a loan to another person, and requires something extra when the loan is repaid, that something extra is usury. You might think of it as a fee for making a loan, and in our modern enlightened economy it is called interest, or consideration, or an origination fee, or some other such term to sound very professional and legitimate.
They will not call it Usurie, lest the word should be offensive, or make the thing less odious. But it shall be termed Use or Usance in exchange, which are smooth words as oyle, never a biting letter in them. Or it shall be called Interest, or Consideration, which are civill and mannerly terms, though by them they meane indeed nothing else but plaine Usurie.
~ Roger Fenton A Treatise of Usurie, 1611
And don’t get hung up on assuming that usury is only interest upon loans of money. Usury can be exacted upon a loan of anything. If you loan me 10 bushels of seed corn, and require me to repay you 11 bushels (or the monetary equivalent of 11 bushels), then you have attempted to extort me through usury. As God said:
Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20 KJV)
Bishop John Jewel sums up the definition of usury very well:
“Usury is a kind of lending of money, or corn, or oil, or wine, or of any other thing, wherein, upon covenant and bargain, we receive again the whole principal which we delivered, and somewhat more for the use and occupying of the same; as, if I lend one hundred pounds, and for it covenant to receive one hundred and five pounds, or any other sum greater than was the sum which I did lend. This is that that we call usury; such a kind of bargaining as all men that ever feared God’s judgement have always abhorred and condemned. It is filthy gains, and a work of darkness; it is a monster in nature; the overthrow of mighty kingdoms; the destruction of flourishing states; the decay of wealthy cities; the plagues of the world, and the misery of the people; It is theft; it is the murdering of our brethren; it is the curse of God, and the curse of the people.”
~ Bishop John Jewel, 1522-1572, Bishop of Salisbury
Now some say that usury is not the charging of interest, but the charging of really high rates of interest. Did this definition come from the scriptures, or is it simply a redefinition of the sin which provides justification for our system of modern capitalism? Defining usury as a high rate of interest is like defining gluttony as really gluttonous gluttony – it becomes meaningless and something you can’t objectively apply to any one or any situation in particular. Usury and interest are two words for the same sin. This sin has become almost universally accepted among modern Christians, but this was not always the case.
There is no distinction made in the scriptures between interest and usury. Easton’s Bible Dictionary tells us that usury is a “sum paid for the use of money, hence interest; not, as in the modern sense, exorbitant interest.” Likewise Smith’s Bible Dictionary explains that:
“the word usury has come in modern English to mean excessive interest upon money loaned, either formally illegal or at least oppressive. In the Scriptures, however, the word did not bear this sense, but meant simply, interest of any kind upon money. The Jews were forbidden by the law of Moses to take interest from their brethren, but were permitted to take it from foreigners. The prohibition grew out of the agricultural status of the people, in which ordinary business loans were not needed. And loans as were required should be made only as to friends and brothers in need. — Editor). The practice of mortgaging land, sometimes at exorbitant interest, grew up among the Jews during the captivity, in direct violation of the law. Lev_25:36-37; Eze_18:8; Eze_18:13; Eze_18:17.”
In Nehemiah chapter 5 we find the prophet castigating the nobles for exacting usury from their brethren – at the rate of 1%. Thus even if usury was merely exorbitant interest, the scriptures plainly call 1% interest exorbitant and usurious.
Others assert that usury only refers to interest taken from poor people, as a couple of the passages in God’s Word that condemn usury mention specific protections for the poor, such as this verse in Exodus:
If thou shalt lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. (Exodus 22:25, Webster Bible)
Puritan preacher Roger Fenton made the obvious point: “Immediately before this law of usurie in Exod. 22.22 is there a law for widowes and fatherless children: Thou shalt not trouble any widow, or fatherless child. Doth it therefore follow that thou maist trouble a married woman, or a childe that hath a father?” Of course not.
One other objection that is sometimes made to the plain and straightforward definition of usury is by those who make an arbitrary distinction between personal and commercial loans. They believe that its perfectly alright for businesses to charge interest on commercial loans. But would that logic apply to any other commandment? Are businesses allowed to worship other gods too? I can’t find anywhere where God says that businesses can’t do that, can you? Maybe he was just talking about personal, not commercial worship. There is no personal/commercial distinction made in the scriptures which would justify usury on business loans. Usury is a sin whether it is taken from me by Jim the individual or Jim the business owner.
Now let us briefly answer the question of why usury is wrong. First and foremost it is wrong because God’s Law forbids it.
If thou shalt lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. (Exodus 22:25 Webster)
And if thy brother shall have become poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he may be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no interest of him, or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus 25:35-37 Webster)
Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20 KJV)
For most of its history, the Church had little difficulty in understanding that usury was a sin. The fact that usury was condemned by God was:
“without any exaggeration the universal opinion of all teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years. All interest exacted upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its reception was esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty. Those who wish to read the history of the matter in all its details are referred to Bossuet’s work on the subject, Traite de l’Usure, where they will find the old, traditional view of the Christian religion defended by one thoroughly acquainted with all that could be said on the other side.
The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which that which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured into innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin! He made the modern distinction between “interest†and “usury,†and was the first to write in defence of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry.
…Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and the West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two churches are equally explicit and systematic in their condemnation of the practice of usury. Among those belonging to the Greek church we find Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. xiv); Basil the Great (Hom. in Ps. xiv). Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cont. Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. c. 37), Epiphanius (adv. Haeres. Epilog. c. 24), Chrysostom (Hom. xli. in Genes), and Theodoret (Interpr. in Ps. xiv. 5, and liv. 11). Among those belonging to the Latin church, Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. xiv); Ambrose (de Tobia liber unus). Jerome (in Ezech. vi. 18); Augustine de Baptismo contr. Donatistas, iv. 19); Leo the Great (Epist. iii. 4), and Cassiodorus (in Ps. xiv. 10).”
~ The Early Church Fathers; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume XIV. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors.
In fact, the 17th Canon of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) specified that any clergy found to be putting out their money at interest should be defrocked and expelled:
Since many enrolled have been induced by greed and avarice to forget the sacred text, “who does not put out his money at interest”, and to charge one per cent on loans, this holy and great synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge fifty per cent or in general to devise any other contrivance for the sake of dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names struck from the roll.
What happens when we disobey God’s laws on usury?
Whoever despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death. Good understanding giveth favor: but the way of transgressors is hard. (Proverbs 13:13-15 Webster)
This is illustrated for us in the book of Nehemiah.
And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live.
Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.
And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer.
Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn:
I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise. Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and emptied.
And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people did according to this promise. ~(Nehemiah 5:1-13 KJV)
As we mentioned earlier, this account involves an interest rate of 1%, and notice that there was no effort at all made to distinguish “non-oppressive†usury from “oppressive†usury, nor between commercial and personal loans. Most Christians would consider a 1% loan to needy people for food and land to be nigh unto charitable – but according to the prophet Nehemiah it was a damnable form of oppression.
How do we repent of our sinful usury?
Usury is theft. The Heidleberg Catechism puts it this way:
Question 110. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?
Answer. God forbids not only outright theft and robbery[1] but also such wicked schemes and devices as false weights and measures, deceptive merchandising, counterfeit money, and usury;[2] we must not defraud our neighbour in any way, whether by force or by show of right.[3] In addition God forbids all greed[4] and all abuse or squandering of His gifts.[5]
[1] Ex. 22:1; I Cor. 5:9, 10; 6:9, 10. [2] Deut. 25:13-16; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 11:1; 12:22; Ezek. 45:9-12; Luke 6:35. [3] Mic. 6:9-11; Luke 3:14; James 5:1-6. [4] Luke 12:15; Eph. 5:5. [5] Prov. 21:20; 23:20, 21; Luke 16:10-13.
Similarly, the Westminster Larger Catechism says:
Question 141: What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and suretyship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.
Question 142: What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land marks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor: What belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God has given us.
In those catechism answers is a wealth of wisdom. I think the main points that the scriptures teach with regards to repentance from the crime of theft is to:
—Quit stealing;
—Make restitution; and
—Practice charity and proper debt forgiveness
Finally, I think that we need to recognize the aspects of warfare inherent in our economic choices. Do we really want to be waging war upon our own people? Usury is prohibted among kindred, but to be exacted from the alien. But look around and you will find Christians not only being ravaged by aliens through usury, but also cannibalizing each other through participation in economic methods that exact usury from other Christians. Somehow, getting a slice of the pie blinds us to economic morals. At present, we are a people that borrow and pay usury, that build houses and don’t live in them, that beget children only to see them become slaves (whether it be of the government, of debt, or worldliness), that are the tail and not the head. An honest comparison of Deuteronomy 28 with our national balance sheet tells us that we are a people under judgement. Instead of repenting and crying out to God to free us, we have pretty much just accepted judgment as a way of life. Instead of Biblical economics, we teach our children to “use credit wisely†and how to “manage their debt.†In other words, we prepare our children to be slaves rather than conquerors.
My hope is that we would do as the congregation did in Nehemiah Chapter 5 when Nehemiah rebuked them for their sin – confess our sins in this area and repent of them.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (Proverbs 29:18 KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (Hosea 4:6 KJV)
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV)
Interesting post.
I wonder, however, if you’re missing that other (larger) source of usury in your observations – land rent. Landlordism has done more to enslave men than any other injustice imo.
Just try pointing out that we are a people under judgement, that we are living as slaves! I have done that before and been greeted with horrified silence.
This is America, the land of the free, how dare you say we are slaves! Never mind the objective fact that government takes ~40% of our earnings, that your property can be seized, that our women can be groped in order to travel, that there is no area seen as outside government purview. All these objective facts exist simply for our good and protection.
Joel Chesser
Well, Joel, yes and no. All those thing are travesties at one level or another, I agree. However, the “slavery” I’m speaking of would exist even without government. Landlordism takes advantage of God’s free gift to man and “rents” it out (usury) as if they owned it. How does one “own” God’s free unimproved creation? I understand property rights founded in our body and the fruits of our labor (an extension of our body) but I see no foundation for property rights in land (as economically defined). Land IS NOT the product of human labor.
This fundamental error, caused by our greed and ignorance of scriptural wisdom on the subject, is our most grievous since it is the foundation of all economic activities. (The three “sources” of production are land, labor, and capital)
In terms of usury and interest, let’s not forget that the marginal “interest” (economic “rent”) is tied (at different levels) to that which can be earned through land investment. Get rid of the mechanisms which encourage rent seeking behavior in land and you will lower the interest on such things as loans.
I am not seeking a reason to exact usury but to clarify your argument on a few points.
A consolidation of the guidance given in these three texts (listed above: Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19-20) indicate that we are instructed not to loan on interest to our brothers or the poor but that we may to strangers (assuming they are not poor) but you appear to have left no concession and I am curious why.
Also, it appears that you were implying that savings and investments were a form of profit from usury and in essence the same sin. If that is what you were implying, how can this parable be understood:
“Matthew 25:26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.”
And on a practical level, if I understood correctly, how do you save for emergencies, retirement, etc?
I am also failing to see a connection with usury and being a landlord. If my understanding of the above propositions are true, one could rent to a brother or a poor stranger a home for the cost of maintaining the property (taxes, maintenance, etc) and to a “non-poor pagan” at interest. Your statement also implies then that poor people and Christians are entitled to live “rent free” if they can not afford their own property. Am I misunderstanding your implications?
Trevor,
Regulations were laid out in Scripture for “selling” your land if you needed to; but with a 49-year limit in effect on such “sales” (the land reverted to its original owner in the Year of Jubilee), it was really a lease — ie. long-term renting.
Scott,
I was not referring to rental charges levied on non-real property (homes, equipment, etc.) but rental charged for real property (land). Classic economist referred to this as “bare site rental” or “ground-rent.” See Adam Smith or David Ricardo on the subject. I see no problem in building owners renting their building (home, business, whatever) but I see a huge problem in rents charged for land use by those who claim to own it (albeit this rental fee is typically lumped into the “real-estate” costs, never-the-less it is a very different cost economically). The classical economist did a good job showing how land-rent is a form of usury. Google “law of rent” for more info if you’re confused.
Travis,
That is my point excatly. Under the OT system land rents (as defined economically – see “law of rent” from wiki) did not accrue to individuals because of this ingenious system.
One of the things my employer specializes in is leasing to business and school districts. Most of the time they “pay no finance charges”, we absorb them from margin. A significant part of my income derives from this arrangement. As God has begun to open my eyes to what Biblical economics look like, and how one should earn his daily bread, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with this arrangement. If nothing else, the end of the day I go home without the feeling of honestly earning my bread.
Scott,
It is true that one of the passages (Deuteronomy 23:20) did permit lending to the stranger for usury. It is also obvious that they were not to lend to the poor or to their brethren.
I suppose considering the many negative reference, one should consider why permission was granted to lend at interest to those outside the covenant community. My repsonse would be that because Israel was to prosper and gain the land as the obeyed God’s commandment, that this permission was granted as a form of a divine judgment upon the wicked. It was a form of warfare designed to ensure their dominance over the Canaanites.
If we were to suggest that there is a permission granted for us to lend with usury to the stranger, who are going to define as the stranger? The lost man? Those from another country? How is profitable for my community and if I desire to lend and oppress my neighbor? Is this what it means to love one’s neighbor?
In regard to the the parable that you mentioned, I think perhaps the church would do well to take a fresh look at the passage. I was taught while growing up that this was a good passage designed to teach about the good stewardship involved in laying our money out to earn interest. Considering the passage in greater detail, especially in context with the rest of Scripture, I would argue that this passage actually speaks against usury.
It is uttely absurd to assume that Christ was speaking positively of usury considering the manner in which the Scriptures refer to the use of usury.
Psalms 15: LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?…. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Proverbs 28:8 ¶ He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
The passage in Luke reads:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
The wicked servant had no idea of the true nature of his master and in justifying his wickedness, he attempted to shift the blame to his master, whom he viewed as “an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow”. These were vicious lies.
The master condemns him not by defending his character. He would not demean himself so as to stoop so low to defend himself to such a fool as this. Rather, he condemns him by his own words. “Out of thy own mouth I judges thee.” In other words, if my character is as you accuse, you could have at least given my money to the usurer to receive usury. This would have been the logical practice of one who would try to reap something that he did not sew. Rather than applauding the use of usury, as some modern theologian have attempted to suggest, Christ is rather tying the practice of usury to one who is a thief.
It is also interesting to note Christ’s wrath when he chase out the money changers in the temple. Among the things they were doing, one of them would have been charging fees for the conversion and use of money. Christ called them for what they were – thieves. They were taking that for which they did not labor.
Bob
Scott, good questions.
I think that it is definitely unlawful to charge interest to either a believer or a non-believing kinsman. There are also different kinds of “strangers”. Take a look at this passage:
I don’t believe we can charge interest to our brother even if he is not a believer, nor do I think we can love our neighbor by oppressing them with usury.
To understand the stranger we have to make a distinction between nokri and ger. SOme people believe that the allowance of usury was general, and others believe that it was only allowed within the context of the overall warfare with the nations of Canaan (just as the other parts of their warfare, like killing women and dashing babies heads against the stones, were not a general sanction but a particular one). At this point, though, I would not quibble with taking usury from actual enemies of God that were not part of your own nation and lived outside the borders of your own country. Of course, I have never actually met anyone that was getting usury from a “stranger”, most people don’t have any idea where it is coming from.
Not at all, though any type of “interest bearing” investment would be usury and sin. But saving and investment are our responsibility.
The Ban on Interest – A Study in the Use of the Old Testament in Christian Economics by Paul Mills has some more on the parable of the talents. Let me know what you think of it. That parable condemns usury, as Bob explained, because it shows interest to be something collected by a thief (one who reaps where he did not sow).
That’s correct, though I’m still not 100% in the rent=usury camp. Pretty close, though.
That’s correct in a sense, but if usury was prohibited then less people would “invest” in rental houses, so prices would come down. Also, people would have more available capital to help their brothers build houses. I don’t believe that anyone is “owed” a house, but I’d be glad to help someone build one. (Of course, that may be risky to let me “help”!) The bottom line is, regardless of the asset or property, you can’t loan it at usury.
Trevor,
Rent is indeed an important part of the usury discussion. I would commend you to the discussion of this in Scott Mooney’s book, Usury: Destroyer of Nations. Additionally, Gary North’s diatribe against Mooney, Mooney’s Response to North, Ian Hodge on North and Mooney, and Mooney’s Response to Hodge all have discussions of the rent question.
I am sympathetic to the position that rent is usury, based on the fact that it is a fee for the use of something loaned – in this case real estate. However, if rent is usury, Trevor, then it makes no difference whether the land is improved or not. You can’t charge usury on loans of ANYTHING.
Also, I believe you dismissed Travis’ point without dealing with it. That the Israelites owned land perpetually, undermines your argument that land can’t be owned. Their ownership was based on God’s covenant, and that covenant had no conditions of improvement as a basis for continuance. Land is not the product of human labor, but we can nevertheless own it.
Joel,
You’re right. People get used to their condition and view it as normal. They have this discontent inside them, but the world tells them that they need to use a better shampoo, smoke a more trendy cigarette, and probably get a nose job. As long as man chases vanity he’ll never realise what his actual problem is. The distraction that entertainment provides keeps him from having to listen to his inner voice.
Chad,
I haven’t yet taken the time to read the articles you posted but I will do so soon.
With regards to rent as usury I want to be clear that I do not think the rental of non-real property will result in usury “abuse” given a competitive and free entry market (no monopoly forces). However, the rental of real property (land) by nature does. I’ve written elsewhere about this (see http://thefriars.net/ofkirkandale/?p=45 ) and many economist have observed the same (see http://www.henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm for a cursory introduction). I realize that in normal life we combine land rent and building rent together and call it, simply, “rent” (i.e. a landlord rents both his building and land yet charges a single “rent” payment). I believe it is important to separate the two when we begin to make economic observations.
Back to Travis’ comment.
Please notice that I didn’t argue with Travis’ observations about land ownership in the OT because the genius of the system, as I stated, was that it prohibits land rent (as economically defined) from accruing to private individuals (or, more accurately, equally distributed the rents to all families fairly equally and forever). Land rent, not ownership per se, is the heart of the issue. In America, our system of land ownership has no mechanism inherit in it to stop the private collection of land rent – unlike the OT system. You see, land rent is a function of land monopoly (not just acres, but monopoly of “good†land) that, due to scarcity, allows parasitic landlords to extract land rents from tenants legally. The OT system equally distributed all land to all families with rights to it forever making it impossible for any family to be permanently “cut off†(charged land rents by others) from the land either by other Israelites of by foreigners. “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity†writes Moses. My point, exactly. Our system of land ownership is an affront to the Biblical system.
I have yet to see a Biblical or Philosophical argument for the exclusive ownership of land as understood in America. I’ll agree that ownership via homesteading and other means is a great way to appropriate common property but it does not follow from this that present owners have the exclusive right to the land rents that develop on their property.
Let me be clear that I am NOT arguing for the opposite of land ownership, that is, common ownership. All I am saying is that landowners have no legitimate claim to the rents from their land. Those rents are a result of community forces such as technology, population growth, infrastructure improvements, etc. and not the labors of private landlords. Therefore it is just to establish mechanisms that prohibit landlords from collecting these rents. The most successful mechanisms I’ve been privy too are Community Land Trusts and Land-Value Taxation. The latter has been recommended by Adam Smith, Thomas Pain, Winston Churchill, Henry George, Thomas Friedman, and a host of other economists and thinkers while the former is primarily the solution encouraged by catholic distributists.
Did I say Thomas Friedman?? Oops! I meant Milton Friedman, the economist, not the NYT journalist.
Interesting post. When one considers that the modern economic system is fraught through with problems, it is hard not to feel some sympathy with the position put forth herein. However, the first thing that popped into my mind in reading it was, “Doesn’t the parable of the talents establish the legitimacy of lending at interest?” Thus I read with interest (sorry) the Mills article linked by Chad. But I find Mills’ treatment of the parable unconvincing. Essentially, Mills’ position is that the bad steward slandered his lord by describing him a man who reaped where he did not sow, and the lord responds by saying in so many words, “Well, if that’s the kind of person you think I am, you should have acted accordingly and given my money to the money lenders so I could have the interest thereof.” I don’t think that’s an outrageous way of reading the text but at the same time it must be pointed out that Mill’s interpretation is one that must be read into the text, not out of it. As an objective statement of fact, it is accurate to describe God as one who reaps where he did not sow. Our tithes — 10% of the increase — are a testament to that. An employer too does not distribute 100% of his employees’ increase to them; rather, he keeps a portion of their increase for himself. I do not see that as vastly different from the concept of lending at interest. There are times when employers pay their workers more than what each worker produces, as during their initial training periods. And there may be cases where, as a sort of charity, an employer may be paying the employee 100% or even more than 100% of what the employee produces for an extended period. The employer is able to do so because of some other source of productivity that can be tapped into. But the basic idea is that employers have a right to reap where they did not sow. Moneylending at interest is a logical extension of that. I’m all for interest-free charitable loans, but I think the parable of the talents affirms the legitimacy of extracting interest otherwise. I might add that I don’t buy into the concept of “usury = high interest” — whatever interest the lender and borrower agree to is legitimate interest, as long as it is a situtation where the demanding of interest is legitimate to begin with. Obviously in a situation where an interest-free charitable loan would be in order, any interest is too high. Sadly, it is in just such situations where poor people are victimized the most, with such high interest demanded that the victim is soon enslaved by the lender.
Trevor,
But the issue is one of right or wrong, and the standard is God’s law – NOT a utilitarian analysis of how well the practice comports with our view of an equitable economy.
I can agree with you that the modern system of land ownership is flawed; however you totally lose me when you get to your conclusion:
So the solution is to have the State collect rents and distribute them, so as to achieve equity? Count me out.
Christopher,
Regarding Mills’ interpretation of the parable of the talents, the 1599 Geneva notes said essentially the same thing at Matthew 25:27:
Wouldn’t you find it a bit strange if usury had always been forbidden, and then Jesus came and castigated someone for not collecting usury?
God doesn’t reap where he does not sow, he created the earth and everything in it, which makes it all his.
Chris,
I shared my own view on the parable earlier in the thread. It would coincide with that of Mills.
The view that the passage embraces usury as good stewardship is the most forced and read into position, for it requires the claims of the servant to be true. It would miss the point of why the master does not acknowledge the servant’s claims, choosing instead to simply judge him by the wicked words that proceeded from his lips.
While I mean not to offend you concerning your remark about God reaping where he does not so, honesty from my perspective would compel me to suggest that such a claim is a grievous error. If honesty were allowed to win the day, I would submit that it is blasphemous notion.
“The earth is the Lords and all the fulness, The world and those who dwell therein”
Whatever it is that we have, whether our land, our life, our heritage, our abilities, we have received from above. They did not originate from within, they were gifts of God, for “every good and perfect gift is from above.
God remarked to Job: “11 ¶ Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine.”
The saints of God have always realized this: “1 Chronicles 29:11 Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, The power and the glory, The victory and the majesty; For all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, And You are exalted as head over all.”
On the parable, Gill remarks:
Ver. 21. For I feared thee, &c.] Not with a right fear, with a fear of his goodness, who had bestowed such an excellent gift on him; for this would have taught him to have departed from evil, and have put him on doing his master’s will, and making use of his gift to his glory: his fear was not of the right kind, and was ill grounded, as appears by what follows:
because thou art an austere man; cruel and uncompassionate to his servants, and hard to be pleased; than which nothing is more false, since it is evident, that Christ is compassionate both to the bodies and souls of men; is a merciful high priest, and is one that has compassion on the ignorant, and them that are out of the way, and cannot but be touched with the feeling of his people’s infirmities; and is mild and gentle in his whole deportment, and in all his administrations:
thou takest up that thou layest not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow; suggesting, that he was covetous of that which did not belong to him, and withheld what was due to his servants, and rigorously exacted service that could not be performed; a most iniquitous charge, since none so liberal as he, giving gifts, grace and glory, freely; imposing no grievous commands on men; his yoke being easy, and his burden light; never sending a man to a warfare at his own charge; but always giving grace and strength proportionable to the service he calls to, and rewarding his servants in a most bountiful manner, infinitely beyond their deserts.”
Bob
P.S.
Sorry for not using the block quotes. I have forgotten how to insert them.
re: Christopher and Parable of Talents. Also, wages and capitalist profits have nothing whatsoever to do with usury. You may characterize capitalist profits as a case of “reaping where one has not sown” if you wish, and we could discuss whether this interpretation is true. However, the coincidence of the phrase, “reaping where one has not sown” is not sufficient to create an analogy between usury and profit. Wages are a contract of exchange. Usury involves the contract of loan. One does not regulate the other. The duties of the parties to each contract are to frame the contract according to God’s Law and to fulfill their contract obligations according to God’s Law.
Chad, don’t be so naive. Every form of taxation results in a redistribution of wealth. Would you rather that distribution be equitable or no? Unless you are an anarchist libertarian, you must deal with this question. I propose to finance government through a land-value tax as landlords are the most direct beneficiary of government spending (when done justly) and hence are the most likely to profit from increased rents. Rents that are NOT the product of their labors!
Of course their are other mechanisms that might accomplish the same goal. I only mentioned two because I know a great deal about both. However, you could also follow the Biblical pattern and divide up all of America into little chunks and give one chunk to each family with perpetual rights to it. Any takers? I didn’t think so. What mechanism would you prefer? Or, would you rather the injustice continue? Or, maybe you don’t consider it an injustice that one reaps where another planted?
Chad,
Yes, I would find it a bit strange if usury had always been forbidden, and then Jesus came and castigated someone for not collecting usury. But what was forbidden was the taking of interest when a charitable loan was in order, not the taking of interest on business loans. The Bible does not come right out and say, “It is okay to take interest on business loans.” Rather, it condemns taking of interest on loans to brethren who are in need of charity, and it remains silent concerning the taking of interest in business situtations. Where the Bible is silent, we have Christian liberty.
There is no necessary contradiction between saying on the one hand that God reaps where He does not sow, and saying on the other hand that He created the earth and everything in it, which makes it all his.
Again, with regard to the question of whether God reaps where He does not sow, Bob, would it be a blasphemous notion to say that God gave Eve to Adam as his wife? One bad steward made the excuse, “You are a hard man who reaps where You don’t sow.” Another bad steward made the excuse, “. . . the woman that You gave me.” As a statement of objective fact, there are senses in which each statement is true. Of course, in neither case does that legitimatize the way the respective persons made those statements to God: obviously their stewardship of the truth was no better than their stewardship of the property that God had entrusted unto them.
Godly men have disagreed over this for millennia (although I acknowledge that prior to the Protestant Reformation there was an extended period in Europe where interest-taking on business loans was prohibited on religious grounds). I still think that the basic perspective of Calvin, Rushdoony and North is correct: we should not go beyond what the Bible says, and respect the principle of Christian liberty where the Bible is silent.
Trevor,
First, I don’t believe that such a scheme falls under the jurisdiction of the civil government.
Second, if land rents are usury and violate God’s law, why would the civil magistrate be justified in extracting them from us (even if it was within his jurisdiction).
Third, you don’t have to be an anarchist libertarian to believe that property taxes should not be assessed.
I have no grand mechanism that I can offer to satisfy your perception of social injustice with regards to land rents. Whatever the civil magistrate would do has to be within his jurisdiction, and in accordance with God’s Law. Therefore prohibiting usury would be a fine start and would provide a correction in the real estate markets, as well as remove both the motivation and the means for landlording.
What I can’t understand is why you would say that rent is usury (theft), and then propose that the government collect the rents and distribute them fairly. That would be legalised plunder, and we can’t judge theft to be “good” because we feel that the stolen property is distributed equitably.
Christopher,
The Law prohibits usury on all loans to brethren.
“Commercial” loans are a contrived category. The Bible doesn’t come right out and say “you can’t charge interest on commercial loans”, it simply prohibits usury on loans. Just because some passages of the law explicitly make a point to prohibit usury being taken from the poor doesn’t mean you are free to take it from everyone you deem to be “not poor”. The scriptures don’t give us a way to decide who is poor and who is not.
And yet similar ends where accomplished by other means in the OT. Which would you have, a return to the old scheme or a new one that fits our present laws? Also, wasn’t the civil government in charge of hearing cases with respect to land in the OT? Hence, the civil government did in fact deal with the scheme God instituted. Why can’t it today?
Maybe you would recommend no such scheme and instead retain our present Roman system of land laws?
It is the fault of our Roman system of land laws that make the private collection of land rents possible. We could do two things to fix this. 1) Change the laws or 2) tax away the rents. The first is the ideal but unlikely the second might actually happen. As for your question, I would counter, why is the civil government justified in protecting the rights of landowners according to non-Biblical land laws?
No, I suppose you don’t but what taxes are just in your mind? If none, then how do you propose to finance government?
How would prohibiting usury accomplish this? How would one assess the amount of usury in such cases as property values and rentals?
If a thief steals from you and then the government takes the stolen goods and returns it to it’s rightful owner, is the government’s actions a form of thievery or justice? This is NOT a form of legalized plunder. It is justice. In the case of land, land rent is created by the community and should be redistributed to the community equally. It is not the product of a single individual or owner. If you wish for me to step you through the economics of why this is the case I will be happy to do so.
By-the-way, this is exactly what Alaska does with oil proceeds. That oil is the rightful property of Alaska as a whole and no individual in particular. Thus, Alaska redistributes the proceeds equally in the form a citizen’s dividend at the end of each year.
Trevor,
I appreciate your comments!
I want to clarify that the only type of rent that could possibly be considered usury would be actual charges for the use of property. Usury is a charge on something loaned.
On the other hand, imputed rents arising from increasing property values cannot be considered usury at all. There is no loan, so there can be no usury.
I do not agree that this form of rent is necessarily an injustice at all. Even in the biblical land system, city properties were allowed to be bought and sold outright (after a one year redemption window), so economic rents as you are talking about would arise. So if someone bought a house in the city that went up in value because it became an ideal location to put an inn, then he could sell the house to the prospective inn owner at a greater price. Good for him! This is not an injustice. God didn’t call it an injustice, his law doesn’t prohibit selling us from selling property (land or otherwise) for more than we paid for it, and he did not make provision for any scheme to redistribute such imputed land rents.
To be quite honest, Trevor, the whole philosophy behind the redistribution of land rents (not your personal philosophy, to be clear) seems to be based on envy – a desire for something that doesn’t belong to us.
As far as your questions of me:
I’d prefer the former, though I am unsure as to how to implement it.
It can and it should, but this is quite different from saying that the civil government should enforce Henry George’s theory of imputed land rents and enforce your personal interpretation of social justice. God’s laws reflect his righteousness, and the civil government’s duty to punish evil must be enacted according to God’s definition of evil, not that of economic theorists whose standard is not God’s law.
That is a good question, and condemns equally the civil government’s enforcement of non-Biblical land rent redistribution schemes.
This is a red herring, because the property taxes you propose would not be used to finance government anyway, but to redistribute imputed land rents to the “people.”
Prohibiting usury would first and foremost be an act of obedience to God’s law. But I also recognise that this won’t change men’s hearts, which is the greatest need for our economy, and what I pray for earnestly. Secondly, it diverts capital back into legitimate uses and releases its victims from bondage. Thirdly, it removes a great part of the incentive for speculation and eases the artificial pressure on prices created by ignoring God’s law on usury. The amounts of usury are relatively easy to assess because they are the actual charges added to a loan (of any type of property). In the case of property values – there is no usury. In the case of rentals, it would be the difference between the rental fee and the legitimate amount of “wear and tear” or damage done to the property.
I agree that this would be justice. I disagree that selling a piece of property for more than I paid for it is a form of theft. That would not be stealing from you, my next-door neighbor, or a dirt farmer in East Timor.
Chad,
Wonderful comments! You have given me plenty to think about and I am grateful for it.
Instead of responding point by point to your post I will instead bring up the issue of property rights again since I think it gets to the heart of the issue. You mentioned that there is no injustice done when a man sells his property (real) at a higher price than that for which he bought it. Depending on the situation, I might agree with you. Your premise, however, is that that person has legitimate rights to the said real property. How can you support this? By what reasoning?
I have failed to be convinced that real property rights are defendable by reason or scripture. If they were legitimate then it follows that a man who sells his property at a higher price does in fact have a right to whatever profit he may extract. However, since these rights lack such a sure foundation it is much more reasonable to tax away those profits than to take from any other economic activity, as Adam Smith observed:
“[G]round-rents…are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry.” (The Wealth of Nations, Random House 1937 ed., pp. 795-6).
It seems to me to be much more just to finance the state via ground rents than to use any other form of taxation. All other forms of revenue take from the labor of man and the risk of capital. It’s true that I’ve advocated for a redistribution of land rents equally but that is an argument I typically would use when discussing the issue with my anarcho-capitalists friends who deny the legitimacy of any government and therefore any tax. You, however, come from the reconstructionist/theonomy school (correct?) and hence have a much better foundation and understanding of the role of the state, imo. (I am also a theonomist) Given that the government has a legitimate role, we must find a way to finance it. Taxing land rents hurts no one. It merely denies a future profit to landlords – a profit that they did not earn by their labors and one that far exceeds their risk. Land rent, by it’s very nature, is monopoly revenue.
The reason I restate my position in this way is because I feel as if my statements about “redistribution of rents†were striking you as some sort of liberal socialism of which I am not advocating and don’t wish to be confused with. I am very much a libertarian in many, many ways. Redistributing rents is not foundational to my view. However, taxing rents to finance government is simply the best and most just method. How can anyone disagree? All other forms of taxation are an affront to the sacred right of personal property that has its sure foundation in the rights of man to his own body and the fruits of his labor.
One other comment about land rents from an economic perspective: You mentioned that no injustice is done when one profits from rising land values. This is true in a localized and timeless case but not true when a wider view is taken and a timeline is looked at. Rising land values mean higher future entrance costs (higher mortgages) for future businesses/residents/etc. For businesses this means lower profit margins and, possibly, higher prices for the consumer. All of us will suffer when this happens. The process, however, is delayed since present business owners don’t suffer from higher land values they are better able to compete against future businesses entering the market (which gives them higher profit margin capacity). Also, the higher entrance costs leads to higher demand for loans, which in turn pushes up the interest rates that banks and others can charge. You call this usury, and I suppose it is, but the businesses are entering into the contract freely. If they agree to the charge, how is it usury? It is simple supply and demand and the demand is up due to rising land values. Eventually this whole things leads to a bust and can be seen in history if one looks closely at business cycles. Recessions have always been preceded by escalating land values.
Also, rising land prices leads to higher rents future landlords have to charge to pay off their mortgages. One would think, after reading my posts, that landlords are making a killing (and they have over the last five years) but generally they won’t because most of the profits have all ready ripped from them by previous landlords. Tim Harford has great discussion about this in the first chapter of his book “The Undercover Economistâ€
Sorry about the length. I’m a succor for these sorts of conversations.
One other thing:
Actually, you _are_ stealing. My existance, work, shopping habits, etc. all add value to your site and has given it a distinct advantage over another site outside of the city due to it’s increase earning potential made possible from me, your neighbors, and the city at large. So you may not be stealing very much from anyone in particular but you are stealing from all the residence in the city and country side in general. Why is this stealing? Because it’s me, your neighbors, and the city that has added value to your site. It’s NOT you. You may have added value to the building and to other improvements but you have not added any value to the land.
“Taxing land rents hurts no one. It merely denies a future profit to landlords – a profit that they did not earn by their labors and one that far exceeds their risk.”
This assumes a landlord will not simply increase the amount of land rent to compensate for the taxes. (Business owners “pass along the costs to the consumer” all the time.) Would this not lead to the same “higher future entrance costs” problems you mentioned? How would this do anything except increase the burden on the renter?
That’s silly. That’s like saying I’m stealing from scientists because of the technological advances I enjoy (compared to folks who roamed the earth a millennia ago). If you don’t want to add value to another’s land, move to a place without neighbors. Otherwise, you’re volunteering that “added value”; it’s not being stolen.
Travis,
Landlords cannot pass the tax onto the end user because the market price, due to the scarcity of land in cities, is all ready at the highest the market can handle (or is quickly approaching it). Hence, the landlords will be forced to eat the tax.
Think about it. The supply curve for land is vertical (fixed in quantity) meaning that the price is directly proportional to the demand. Increasing the tax will have no effect on the demand and hence no effect on the price.
This also supplies us with a sure way of knowing if the rent tax is too high. If it is, vacancies will develop and the tax should be lowered. Ideally we should tax 90%-100% of the land rent.
Sorry, that last quote is should not be in quotes. I messed up the html.
Anyway…
I don’t follow. How have scientists etc. added real monetary value that you’ve profited from? They made goods cheaper but they’ve done so equally for all. How does this relate to our discussion? Also, those scientists have been well compensated for their contribution to our good. How is that unjust? The landlord, however, contributes nothing. He is merely a parasite. What good work does he do?
??
Chad, this is just to say thanks for the excellent blogging that you have done on this subject. It is clear that I need to give this subject much more thought.
Thanks Christopher!
Regarding the Parable of the Talents
Laying aside the Master’s reference to usury, i still fail to see what in principle is the difference between interest/usury and the Master giving his servants talents and expecting a return on those talents when he saw them again.
Anyone care to explain?
We are told that Christ shared the parable because the disciples thought that the kingdom was immediately to appear. Christ wants them to know that he would be going and leaving them to occupy until he returned. (By this, we could reference either his coming to destroy to Jerusalem or the Second coming. It makes more sense to me to take it to mean the destruction of Jerusalem, although I would allow that the spiritual principles are perpetual.)
I tend to think that the improvement that Christ has in view is not the literal coins that he uses to illustrate by way of the parable, but rather spiritual gifts given for the purpose of the Christian ministry. It could well be that we could use the parable to refer to our improving whatever gifts God is pleased to grant, whether temporal or spiritual.
The nobleman gives them the ten pounds for the purpose of “occupying”, by which is meant to improve or employ for the purpose of making a profit. God has ordained that we should labor with our hands for the purpose of having something with which to buy bread and to give in charity. There is no sin in buying, trading, and selling for the purpose of making a profit. Such activity requires labor on our part – finding the goods, improving them, and finding another market for which to sell for a profit. It takes our physical labor to accomplish this.
I understand that we think of money as something that can work for us, but I think that this a faulty conclusion, for money is something that actually is consumed and cannot be reproduced. (Unless of course you own massive printing machines!)
Well did the Old Testament word for usury denote “to bite”, for I think honesty should compel us to understand that trying to come up with principle plus interest is indeed oppressive. Just google a search on rising interests rates and you can read secular media reports warning that higher interest rates are beginning “to bite” those who have borrowed money.
I read a encyclopedia article on the history of usury and copied down the following remark: “As the demand for capital grew theologians became increasingly aware that lending at interest was not always theft….Eck, supported by the Fugger banking family, became famous for his book Tractates contractu quinque de centum (1515), defending five percent as a harmless and therefore legal rate of interest as long as the loan was for a bona fide business opportunity.”
Well, this is always the way, isn’t it? We always are in demand of more capital and if we can gain interest by loaning our money to those who lack, what a clever ploy for an easy buck! Thus we don’t have to labor ourselves – we can allow our money to labor (actually, our money isn’t doing anything – its the poor chap that borrowed money who has to do the labor) and require the one who lacks to not only pay the money back, to try to find some way to pay something additional besides.
The SCriptures seem to me to clearly denounce the use of usury. Even if we were to set aside these passages, let us look around and observe the harsh bite of usury. I fear that debt will one day be the ruin of many our neighbor. I wonder if we were truly to love our neighbors as ourselves if we would be so quick to desire to increased our goods by way of usury, especially when we recognize that this lending will ultimately lead to the demise of many.
Bob
Not to imply that Bob believes otherwise, but it should be kept in mind that although the parables are pointing to a deeper spiritual dimension — in this case the spiritual gifts given for the purpose of the Christian ministry — the lessons of Christ’s parables are also always true at the superficial level. So there are certain lessons for us concerning the literal coins that Christ uses to illustrate by way of the parable.
By the way, I find it interesting that two people could interpret the superficial meaning somewhat differently (as we see here in these comments) and still be in close agreement about the underlying spiritual lesson being taught.
Dear Mr. Degenhart:
Greetings. A friend sent me a link to your discussion of usury, and since I am currently pursuing a degree in economics, I thought it would be worthwhile to look over. Although I basically agree with Calvin and North, I appreciate that you have sought to establish your position from Scripture. You are entirely correct in saying that “no economic argument could ever justify what God has condemned.” The question can only be resolved, as you recognize, from a study of God’s revelation in the Bible. Positive economic analysis can attempt to predict the effects of policies, but it cannot ultimately declare one policy right and another wrong.
At this point I do not wish to dispute your argument, although I would raise one point about a piece of evidence that you have cited. In doing this I do not mean to challenge your overall position or support mine, but only to seek that the facts of Scripture be presented clearly. Specifically, I think you might be misinterpreting the magnitude of the burden described in Nehemiah 5:11. Scripture uses the term ‘the hundredth’, but it does not necessarily follow that the rate is what today we would call 1% interest. While the matter is somewhat speculative, it appears that the interest was not collected yearly, but more probably monthly. Please consider the following nine selections, which give commentary on the verse:
—–
JOHN GILL
the hundredth part of the money might be what they took for usury, as the Romans did in later times, even so much a month; so that if the loan was one hundred pounds, a pound was given every month for it, and so one hundred and twelve pounds in the year
ALBERT BARNES
It is conjectured that the 100th part was payable monthly, or, in other words, that interest was taken at the rate of twelve per cent.
KEIL & DELITZSCH
The hundredth taken as interest is probably, like the centesima of the Romans, to be understood of a monthly payment. One per cent. per month was a very heavy interest, and one which, in the case of the poor, might be exorbitant.
SAMUEL CLARKE
the hundredth part] Which they receiv’d every Month for Interest; which is after twelve per Cent for a Year.
GIOVANNI DIODATI
The hundredth part] a tax of usury, at one in the hundred by the month, forbidden when usury is forbidden in general, Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.36. Deut. 23.19.
MATTHEW HENRY
They exacted interest from them at twelve per cent, the hundredth part every month
TREASURY OF SCRIPTURAL KNOWLEDGE
This was probably the rate of interest which they obliged their poor debtors to pay each month, which would amount to about 12 percent. Another author states that this is the lowest rate of interest in Syria. The usual rate is 20; and it is sometimes as high as 30 percent.
MATTHEW POOLE
the hundredth part] Which they required every month for the use of their monies or goods, according to the Custom then used, and afterwards by the Romans.
WESTMINSTER ANNOTATIONS
for they used to take the hundredth part of what they lent every moneth; as, if they lent five pounds (which is an hundred shillings) they had twelve shillings a year; if an hundred pounds, twelve pounds.
—–
I hope this information is helpful. It does not prove the point, but it does offer something to consider.
Respectfully,
J.A.
I read this article expecting a simple conclusion, and found nothing but confusion.(I’m a poet and didn’t know it, I make a rhyme all the time)
Seeing as God is not the author of Confusion, but peace, I am tempted to reject out of hand these arguments and defer back to the hermeneutical root of this discussion.
Do we have the strange idea that by building a society based on the Law given to Israel during their sojourning, that we will be pleasing God? Even Paul counted his righteousness attained under the law as skubala (Strongs G4657)
I am also under the impression that the Law was given as a tutor, until Christ. That the Law and the Prophets were until Christ, and that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is now preached, and that all men are urged into it.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but the fact of the matter seems to be that even Israel in it’s self-righteousness, attained after the restoration from exile back into the promised land, along with the Pharasaical obedience to the letter of the law was insufficient in bringing about the righteousness that God desired. Even their strict obedience to the law was rejected by God. Their sacrifices and temple worship were not what God desired, but brokenness and contrition.
Will the kingdom of heaven be a place where one does not wear clothing woven of two types of material? Is this the kingdom of God? Or is the kingdom of God, righteousness, (not attained through works that any could boast), joy (a marker of fruit and reward of the Spirit) and peace (another marker and reward of the Spirit)
Going back to a scriptural understanding of Ursury, one of the first passages that was quoted made provision for exacting ursury from those that were not “brothers” or were “pagan neighbours”. If exacting Ursury is ALWAYS a sin, then why does God give CLEAR provision for this action? The context of the passage does not suggest that it was a limited provision during the case of “warfare” or “judgement” against the Pagan states, but a provision for the Covenant people of God in their economic development.
I personally prefer the concept of lending money not even expecting it back. That one is in Proverbs, you should look it up.
As for Land rents being ursury, as was pointed out earlier, The Jubilee return of the land to the original owning family would be constructed in todays legal understanding as a 49 year lease.
If you want to return the land that you live on to the Native Americans that your fore-fathers stole it from, within the next 49 years, then you would be righteous in God’s eyes.
Otherwise, you are simply theives, without Biblical justification for owning your homes, as the directives to take the promised land, and cleanse it of the pagans were given to the People of the tribes of Israel, the direct descendants of Jacob, not to the Puritans settling in America.
Good thing Jesus is my righteousness. Otherwise I would be screwed.
“Good thing Jesus is my righteousness. Otherwise I would be screwed.”
Amen! (For all of us, of course.)
“I am also under the impression that the Law was given as a tutor, until Christ.”
I thought it was given as a tutor to lead us to Christ. Either way, it lays a foundation. The dispute seems to be whether or not it’s a foundation to later reject. Where would the English professor be who decided he had moved beyond the alphabet, and no longer needed it? (However, that doesn’t mean he needs to recite his ABCs and practice writing block capital letters all day long!)
Or shall we sin so that grace may abound?
“Rightly dividing the Word of Truth” does not mean dividing between Malachi and Matthew, retaining the latter and tossing out the former. Faith without deeds is worthless, and we need to study the Law in light of what it tells us about who God is and what He expects His creation to be like.
The New Testament is the best interpreter of the Old Testament. If Jesus commands us not to worry about what we will eat, drink, and wear — and uses a wealthy man upgrading his silos as an example of what such worrying looks like — how much less ought we to exact (any) interest from someone to whom we have loaned? The proverb you mentioned (could you include a reference?) was reiterated (and maybe even stepped up a notch or three) by Jesus.
So there’s even greater obligation for the Christian to not engage in usery — not less.
So then, should I be circumcised?
Seeing as the law is to serve as foundation?
Do I then have a greater obligation to engage in circumcision, now that I am a Christian?
Are all issues of the law and the prophets considered now to be sin for everyone? Or are certain pronouncements limited to National Israel within their historical context?
I am a Gentile, seeing as I am not of Jewish descent (as I presume most Americans are), so which Old Testament laws are intended for me?
“I am a Gentile, seeing as I am not of Jewish descent (as I presume most Americans are), so which Old Testament laws are intended for me?”
Is the command not to murder binding on you as a Gentile believer? If not, then you may have a case. Otherwise, we’ll need to carefully examine the Scriptures to determine what other commands we ought to continue adhering to. That includes examining the New Testament, in which Paul emphatically declares that circumcision (of the flesh) counts for nothing — rather circumcision of the heart (which means desiring holiness, ie. obeying God) is all that matters.
A man with a hard heart can avoid charging usery, and it means nothing. A man with a circumcised heart cannot put such an unjust hardship on another person without at least feeling some guilt about it.
Jesus commanded us not to require that principal be paid back; so how can any of us justify charging interest?
By the way, I’d like to make it clear that the heart-circumcision I was talking about only comes through being made alive in Christ Jesus. (Just in case anyone might mis-read that.)
As for the circumcision of the flesh, you are correct, it profits nothing. But it is a command of God. My point is that the command of God given to the people of national Israel is not a command that Christians are to adhere to.
If, under your hermeneutic of “law-as-foundation” then I as a Christian would be under a greater obligation to be circumcised, even though it counts as skubala
As a Gentile, I am without the Law (as given to Moses) (Romans 1). So to be technical, the Mosaic 10 commandments are not binding on me.
However, when I break the law of conscience and the law that can be discerned by natural theology, I am condemned by it.
(The 10 commandments could be discerned through natural theology and conscience, otherwise Men would not be “without excuse” which would indicate that I would be also bound to not murder, then there is the Jewish concept of the ‘Noahide’ 7 commands however I am not sufficiently learned in this subject to comment on them.)
As a Christian I am not under the Mosaic law, but under the Law of Christ which is life by the Spirit (which is the circumcision of heart that you speak of).
Do we have any letters of laws that would define what that life is? It is the Spirit that brings life. The letter kills.
We know what the works of the Flesh are, thanks to Paul, which are the works that are aroused by the Mosaic law. And we also know the fruit and reward of the Spirit, these are given even to the Gentiles apart from the obedience to the Mosaic law (only through the work of Jesus Christ)
It is my basic understanding that the law then; was simply a seed, which when planted, died, and Jesus was manifested as a fulfillment of that Law. Jesus as manifestation (fulfillment) of the “Law and the Prophets” is not a seed anymore, but the very Tree of Life.
More later, but for now just wanted to point to some earlier thoughts I wrote:
Law and Grace
Theomotistry in Safety Patrol Ethics
Chad,
I do like the work in both posts. Believe me that I am no Anti-nomi-something or other. I do not believe that we have no laws.
We are under the Law of Christ, which is the life of the Spirit. But the simple fact of the matter is that the Law of Moses did not ever bring about righteousness, even though the Law is perfect, it was weakened by the flesh.
I think that the fundamental problem becomes the definition of “Sin”. Sin abounded even where there was no Law.
So sin could not have been the simple rejection of God’s commands, between the fall and moses, there were no commands to disobey.
Sin is illuminated by the Law, not defined by it. The law DOES serve a purpose…it illuminates a sinful state, that is already existant.
I am not a sinner because I violate the 10 commandments as given to Moses, I am a sinner because my heart is naturally bent away from God.
The Law that I need to submit to is the Law of Faith, which establishes the Law which was the seed and precursor to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Now that Jesus has come, he is the end of the Mosaic Law and is established by the Law of Faith.
As for your Theomotistry blog, I thought that it was very well done, but the problem is that the 5 commands were only given to a select family. There was never a transition from the giving of the 5 commands to their required adherence by all the other families of the earth, at least until the whacky second generation safety patrol officers messed the whole thing up…
The Holy Spirit is not simply an instrument cluster to help us discern when we are breaking the 5 commands, but the King himself who is sitting in the car with us, telling and compelling us to drive considerately, loving the other crazy road users and safety patrol officers.
Joshua,
I really don’t see what your problem is with the post, then.
Come to think of it, neither do I really…which is an indicator that I am lacking in sleep…
As the Law of Moses considering ursury is concerned, it is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not Jews. We are Gentiles.
However, Jesus’ teaching that we should love our enemies and lend to them without ursury is plain enough. But deferring to the Old Testament in this account as the “foundation” of the law is problematic for the reasons illuminated earlier.
If the hermeneutic for understanding the Old Testament is that it is “foundation” and that we have “greater” obligations to the Law, then the issue of Circumcision is actually VITAL to our understanding as Christians. We MUST be circumcised if the Old Testament is binding on Christians.
Seeing as Paul vigorously defends the Gentiles and even goes as far as to say that the circumcision profits nothing, then the problem is now a hermeneutical one. The hermeneutic that is being employed is faulty. The Old does not simply transfer over as the foundation to the new.
I suppose that I should clarify MY understanding of Christ being the end of the law to those that believe…Christ is exactly that…the cessation of the seed form of the law. He himself is the olive tree that is incarnated OUT OF the seed of the Law and the Prophets. As Jesus himself stated, “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have life, but the scriptures spoke of me.”
As is written, “Unless a seed falls into the ground and dies…” The Law of Moses is dead to those who believe. The Law that is now established is Repentance from sin (not violation of Law), through Faith which is given by grace.
Ultimately, my concern is with trying to build laws for today based on Old Testament Law. Anyone that would support those laws would be attempting to bring us under the burden that the Jews themselves were never able to bear.
It is simply a bad reading of the Bible to assume that we are the recipients of the Mosaic Law; we are not the national Jews, we are the blind [gentiles] that Paul refers to in Romans. The blind ones who recieve the righteousness of God without the receipt of the Mosaic Law.
We are the blind gentiles who have recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit, that we may live by the Spirit, and stay dead to the Law.
Either way, I will make use of the bank’s opportunities to borrow money at ursury. It contributes to good investment opportunities.
Bob,
Thanks for the reply, sorry i didn’t respond for quite a while.
I understand your point, and agree that we shouldn’t take the parables to literally but look for the spiritual meaning. My point was simply that i do not see any difference in principle between the master leaving his servants some talents and expecting them to increase those talents for him and a commercial loan whereby the lender expects the borrower to increase the amount loaned and return the principle plus an amount of interest or usury. And while the parable of the talents was not given to teach economics per se, i doubt that if the master was meant to represent the Lord, than he would be presented as doing something immoral.
I think Joshua makes a noteworthy point that the laws given to Israel are not all meant to be applied wholesale in the twenty first century. Many of those laws do indeed reflect God’s unchanging moral character, but there are also laws that were given to Israel that were simply God’s standard for that particular national community. The majority of those laws indeed represented unchanging principles, but the application of those principles today will not always be exactly the same as it was for the Israelites.
In any case, it seems to me that no where in the law is usury forbidden absolutely. It forbids usury to the poor, and to brothers, which I believe teaches the principle of not being so greedy as to try to make a buck off those in need or your kindred, but that still leaves the matter of usury in other cases open.
The law specifically made provision for usury to be charged to foreigners (deut 23:20), which indicates usury is not inherently oppressive as Israel was not to oppress strangers (Exo 22:21, 23:9). I know some people take the license to charge interest to strangers was a form of warfare waged against the cannanites, but I disagree. Israel was to completely wipe out the cannanites from the land (Exo 23), not be involved with them in commerce such as lending money. I think Exo 22:21 and 23:9 tell us the kind of strangers who were not to be oppressed – people like the Egyptians, whom God has not ruled against as harshly as he did the cannanites, and if any of them came into Israel for purposes such as trade than Israel was allowed to lend to them at interest.
Mark,
Thanks for the gracious response. I am not sure that I have much to add by way of argumentation. I’ll just share a few thoughts while attempting not to rehash what has been said earlier.
I believe that there is a very significant difference between taking our talents and laboring in such a way as to make a profit and profiting from usury. I believe that God has designed labor in such a way that it should be by our “sweat equity” and God’s goodness that we see increase in our labors.
To take our money and lend it at interest is to make a profit off of the labor of someone else, taking advantage of our substance to capitalize from his lack.
We look around this country and we immediately have the illusion that there is great prosperity. Such “prosperity” would not have been possible if it were not for usury based economics. The truth of the matter is, most people are buried under significant debts and I fear that many are slipping down that path that leads to default. Sure, the boat and the new car looks nice now, but what happens if the average man loses his job or finds himself paying 18% interest?
Our local paper just recently ran an article suggesting that foreclosures are going to be increasingly on the rise. It would seem that the first wave of ARM mortgages are being adjusted – over a billion dollars of worth of loans will now reflect higher interest rates. The family in the article saw a $500 a month increase in their payment.
Debt is a staggering burden. Well did Solomon point out that the the borrower is servant to the lender. We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourself. I fail to see how charging our neighbor interest is a biblical expression of loving one’s neighbor. At the end of the day, our community and our country suffers when we are willing to capitalize off the back of our neighbor.
I appreciate the gracious tenor of your response. Regardless of how strongly you might disagree with me, I would like to recommend that you click on Chad’s bookshop and get yourself a copy of S. C. Mooney’s book “Usury – Destroyer of Nations.” He succinctly presents a negative position of usury and I think you would find it an interesting read, even if you don’t find his arguments fully compelling.
Bob
Thanks for everyone’s civil comments.
Mark, you say that you don’t see:
Well, there are lawful ways to increase one’s wealth, and unlawful ways of increasing one’s wealth. Our Lord expects us to stay within the boundaries of his Law as we use what he has given us. Usury is an illicit method of gaining a return.
If you give your son $10 to start a business, you want him to increase his capital. He could be $10 of lemons and sugar and make lemonade, and earn $20. That would be good. He could also take the $10 and invest it in a joint stock company that provided abortion services, and earn $20 in dividends. Either way he gets a return on your money, but it also matters how the return was earned.
As far as usury and the stranger:
Dashing babies against rocks must not be inherently oppressive, since God told Israelites to do it to certain foreigners, and since we know that Israel was not to oppress strangers.
What I’d ask you to do is review my comment number 19962 and also add Leviticus 25:35-37 to your position on the stranger.
Great, I’m all for you lending your money to the Egyptians. I don’t think its the greatest idea, though.
Trevor,
I agree with Travis that this is silly. Benefiting from voluntary actions of others cannot be construed as stealing.