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)
John,
Thanks for the input on the rate of interest in Nehemiah’s time. We agree that it is a rate of one percent (hundredth = per cent). What is speculated is that this was a monthly rate rather than an annual rate. I have yet to see any definitive research that supports either. What I don’t agree with is transposing Roman financial practices back on the scriptures to reinterpret them. I see many commentaries that suggest a monthly charge, none of them back it up with facts, as some of your quotes show:
Joshua,
We have a very different view of the law which won’t get reconciled on a blog post. But I do want to reply to some of your comments.
This was always the case, for all of us. Paul was not talking about the Law, but his attempts to keep it.
And, yes, I have the strange idea that God’s law reflects his righteousness and unchanging morals. The ceremonial laws are fulfilled in Christ’s obedience and once for all sacrifice, so we make no effort to follow those.
Wow, I have never heard of the Substitutionary atonement described in that way before. It seems that you have made a distinction between the Ceremonial Laws and the non-ceremonial Laws.
And that Jesus died only for those laws.
All the moral laws are not fulfilled in Christ’s obedience?
I know that you don’t really believe this, but it is the logical extension of what you just wrote.
I do agree that the Law reflects God’s unchanging character. I even believe that by living your life in the same pattern as some of them will prove to be beneficial, but to force adherence to the Old Testament? Even Israel couldn’t do it to God’s satisfaction, and they were the Chosen people.
Josh,
No – its different and you can’t take a modern legal arrangement and force it back onto the scriptures. Purchasing and leasing are different things, and God calls it a purchase.
Under the Jubilee laws, the Israelites were restored to full possession of their family lands every fiftieth year. Because the purchaser of lands was only granted partial and temporary posession, those transactions resemble modern leases. However, they are NOT leases, but actual purchases – a permanent exchange of goods. Money is exchanged for the “fruits of the land”, not the land itself.
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament:
John Wesley’s notes:
1599 Geneva:
Josh,
Yes, there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. We no longer have a duty to make those sacrifices that Christ was the fulfilment of, but we still have a duty to, for example, abstain from bestiality and theft.
Josh, I pointed you to another post I wrote on Law and Grace, so you know where I’m coming from, and I’m surprised you now twist what I said about Christ fufilling the ceremonial laws to construe that I’m saying God died for our sins under the ceremonial laws only. If you want to have a discussion, hten avoid the temptation to rant about something you know I don’t believe anyway. Did you really think I was trying to give you a complete doctrine of atonement there, Josh?
Israel couldn’t keep the law – but it is still the law nonetheless.
Josh,
God never condemned the Pharisees for keeping his law, but for rejecting it. He condemned them for keeping their own traditions rather then his law.
Josh,
Easy answer: its always a sin to exact usury from your brother!
I’m familiar with Jesus’ command in Luke 6:34,35 to lend, hoping for nothing again. But what verse in Proverbs are you referring to? I’d like to look it up.
Indians occupied no more than 3% of North America when the Puritans came here, and God wiped a lot of them out with plagues. God gives land to nations, and takes it away. Are you hurling insults across the ocean to make a legitmate point?
… Implying that I believe otherwise. Thanks but no thanks. You know better than that so kindly stop such innuendo.
Josh,
God defines sin as the transgression of the law: 1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Its misleading to say that sin abounded where there was no law. There has always been law and always will be, but in Rom. 5:13 Paul is referring to the fact that sin existed prior to the law’s codifcation.
Wrong. Gen 26:5: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” God’s laws, statutes, and commandments existed prior to their codification at Sinai. What’s different is how they were communicated to man.
It illuminates sin by defining it.
Yes, even now we are sinners (breakers of God’s law) because of the flesh that we dwell in.
The laws were given to the one family so that they would teach them to the other families and be an example to them!
That’s true, my analogy doesn’t really bring out the Holy Spirit that well.
Josh,
No, Josh. At least try to understand the orthodox position of law before you continue ranting about it.
The sad truth is that the heretical understanding of Law does not rest on my shoulders, and the revisionist view of History is not my misunderstanding but yours.
You know the Scriptures. James tells us clearly that to be a violator of one part of the Law is to be a violator of the WHOLE law. Why is that? Because it is the same Law giver.
Tell me, when are you going to address the issue of Poly-Cotton blended clothing? Are you then going to decree that the government should enact laws preventing the sale of blended fiber materials? After all, that is part of the Law.
I wonder about what we should do with violators of the Sabbath? Should we drag them out of the city gates and stone them? I would assume that you do not wish that we should re-enact capital punishment for that offense, but if you do…you will come across certain problems. If you don’t wish to enact stonings for this moral law, then you are a violator. You are now guilty under the law.
What about if your kids ever lose their temper and yell at you? Should you then stone them under a theonomist view of Scripture?
The Christian society that the Puritans founded on “Biblical” or “Scriptural” mandate was flawed from the start. And the genocidal actions of well intending Christians was a damned mistake.
For someone who is so particular about individual definitions of words you have forgotten the location in which Israel was given the Mosaic Law. They were given the commands to enter the geographic promised land.
If you want to establish your “Biblical” restorationist Agrarian Mosaic Law based society, I suggest you move to Israel, become circumcised and keep the WHOLE Law.
THEN you could be an example…a city on a Hill..leading all men unto a sociological ideal, not the person of Jesus Christ.
Although I am sure that you are familiar enough with Commentaries on Galatians, Romans (Where Paul describes himself as blameless under the Law, yet he still defines himself as a sinner to Christ) and Colossians, I would recommend that you go back to the Greek texts and read them VERY slowly. Your implication that I am unfamiliar with orthodoxy is an ad hominem that I will not engage with.
Remember, YOU ARE A GENTILE. Rejoice in that, that your salvation does not come through the Law, but according to a promise. Remember Romans.
The Law is only perfect if people are perfect. The Law is weakened by the flesh. We sin, we die. That is the Law. Now we are dead to that law, we are crucified with Christ, the life we now live in the body is by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I am a Gentile, who is saved, not because of my ancestry into Abraham, but because God saw fit to save the people that were not called his people.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free, stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
I respect that you would probably not wish to continue discussion with me, and if you so desire, I will desist from posting on this board. You have my email address if you wish to discuss this further.
Yours in the service of Jesus Christ.
Josh
I’m not a Baptist, but I like how Phil Johnson described the antinomian arguments from pacifists. I think it applies to our discussion of usury also:
Josh,
The orthodox view is summarized pretty well in the Westminster Larger Catechism:
I hope that this is not a veiled attempt to call me a Pacifist Liberal Antinomian.
And I would refer you to the book of Hebrews. It would seem that an indepth study of the Obsoleteness and inability of the old covenant to accomplish it’s purpose is in order, but that is probably where you have justified your “ceremonial law” distinction.
Remember, I have NEVER said that the moral standard has changed. Morality is Absolute as it Proceeds from the unchanging eternal nature of God.
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.
Remember, I am not without Law. I have the Law of Christ which is life by the Spirit.
This life will be consistent with but not submitted to the decrees of the Old Covenant.
Like I have said earlier. If you want to become an Israelite, recieve your circumcision, and not wear poly-cotton blends, then go right ahead. You can obey all the Mosaic requirements to your heart’s content.
REMEMBER ONCE AGAIN.
You are genetically/physically a GENTILE with NO CLAIM on salvation under the mosaic Law.
Your only claim on salvation comes through the Grace of Christ which God extended to the Gentiles through a promise, not an agreement.
You wanna be legalistic? You got it, Flights to Tel Aviv leave daily… But unless you are one of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob…you are cut off from the commonwealth community of God and are without hope in the world.
REPENT.
Well… isn’t wearing poly-cotton blends inconsistent (by your own interpretation)? How can you hold views consistent with views you attack?
??
Josh,
Your misunderstanding of the theonomist position is quite sad. Many of the objections you brought up have been answered over and over again in forums, blogs, and books all over the place. You would be wise to consult those resources before opening your mouth (or releasing your fingers).
Well Spotted Travis,
I should have included that the consistency is with the SPIRIT of the Law, (which can only be discerned by the Spirit) not the LETTER of the decrees. Remember my previous statement, that the decalogue can be inferred through natural theology. As a gentile I am bound by what can be discerned through natural theology and what can be discerned through the gift of the Holy Spirit enabled conscience.
And Trevor, my lack of understanding (or exposure) of the Theonomist position does not nullify my observations.
I do not have the same access to the blogs forums and books that you talk about…but seeing as my objections have been well covered as you say, it should be simple enough for you to defend.
Just for clarity, I understand the Theonomist to be attempting to establish a society based on a reading of the Old Testament Deuteronomic and Levitical Laws, adhering to the decrees given by God to the descendants of Jacob in the Sinai desert, and attempting to transfer them to the Americans in the mid-west (just an assumption, don’t shoot me for being wrong on that one) If this is inaccurate, then I accept that. Whatever direction this discussion takes is coloured by my understanding that one of Chad’s goals is a society along those lines.
Show me where I am wrong. That shouldn’t be too difficult.
I’d say that’s close to accurate. I’d point out, though, that you didn’t lay out what you see as the underlying assumption(s) for this course of action. As I see it, one of the primary assumptions which lead to the Theonomist view is that culture is closely tied to worship: who, what, and how a society worships forms the center of their culture. If such is the case, then the culture-specific laws codified with Moses have much more bearing on how a society as a society ought to interact with God and man.
I suppose it comes down to asking, “should the theocracy established by YHWH at Sinai be seen as the pinnacle of human government, or is it simply ‘one option among many,’ a relative equal among dictatorships, democracies, monarchies, and anarchist nations?” Is the point of the Mosaic Code changed lives, or simly a God-centered government framework?
Mr. Degenhart:
Thank you for your polite reply. I certainly agree that the rate can in a literal sense be called 1%, but I would not recommend describing it in that manner to modern readers, since most would, in the absence of other information, probably assume that it is a yearly rate.
Although the commentators’ speculation about a monthly rate is based mainly on the Roman practice, the excerpt from TSK (R.A. Torrey, et al.) suggests that if anything, this yields a low-end estimate. The TSK does back this up with a comparison to known rates in Syria.
I was at the library today and found a book called A History of Interest Rates by a scholar named Sidney Homer [Rutgers Univ. Press: New Brunswick, NJ. 1977, 2nd ed.]. The following passage may be relevant to the question of whether the comparison to Rome is legitimate:
“There was a good measure of continuity in the development of credit forms over the entire ancient era, even though the center of civilization shifted at least twice and the customs and traditions of the peoples were very different. The Greeks adopted certain Babylonian weights and measures. It is likely that the elaborate but small-scale banking methods of Babylonia were also imitated by the Greeks; in any event the Greeks used similar forms. These credit forms were exploitable by the Greeks in an atmosphere of freedom and laissez-faire very different from that of Babylonia. Finally, Roman bankers were largely Greeks who must have brought with them to Rome all of their techniques and there re-adapted them to an authoritarian society.” [p. 62]
It should also be noted that the early Roman laws imply interest calculations on a yearly basis, but that this practice had apparently shifted to a monthly basis by the end of the Republic. One scholar has argued that the latter approach was of foreign origin [1]. This would fit into the continuity scenario proposed above, especially since the Romans borrowed extensively from the Greeks during the latter part of the Republic.
In any case, it is nearly certain that “the hundredth” in the Nehemiah passage is not a yearly rate. Interest rates were usually higher, not lower, in antiquity than they are today (cf. the tables in Homer’s book); and as you have observed, today we would consider a 1% yearly rate “nigh unto charitable.” Moreover, according to Homer:
“During the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. there is some evidence that Greek rates increased; in any event they declined no further. In Rome, however, it was for these centuries that the lowest rates in antiquity are quoted. This is the only period when a rate as low as 4% is to be found in ancient times.” [p. 62]
If the lowest (yearly) rate in antiquity is 4%, then it cannot be maintained that “the hundredth” is given at a yearly basis.
Homer also includes an account of the Mesopotamian civilizations in his history. He concludes that during what he terms the “vast Babylonian Epoch,” the prevailing rates generally ranged from 10-25%, but may even have reached 40% during the fifth century B.C.–the time period associated with the book of Nehemiah. Given the historical situation of the Jews in the time of Nehemiah, this data seems quite relevant.
Again, I do not mean by this to dispute your overall position on usury. I only hope this information is helpful for you and your readers.
Respectfully,
J.A.
———-
[1] http
Sorry–it looks like the link on the bottom did not come through. Here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/kzsc3
John,
Thanks for the quotes – they are interesting!
Trevor,
I do intend to revisit the property ownership question, but I need to do a little more thinking on it. I’ll put further thoughts into a separate post so we can discuss further.
Josh (and all),
I don’t believe that the theonomist position is really even a big part of the discussion here, because my basic position (and that of the Church for the first 1500 years after Christ) is based generally on a Reformed view of God’s law as authoritative, not necessarily a theonomic one (which tends to differ primarily on the civil magistrates duty to enforce the penal sanctions.)
But I would add that the theonomic position views the entire Word of God as authoritative, not merely the Pentateuch. For a short summary, see What Is Theonomy?” by Greg Bahnsen, and even better read his free book By This Standard.
Finally Josh, you told me to repent. Could you tell me exactly what it is I am to repent of? Its only fair.
Repent because you are living as the Galatian Judaizers were. Not in regards to the circumcision, but with the requirement of Gentiles following the (rest of) the Law of Moses.
Remember the Acts 15 council?
Josh,
I do not believe, nor have I ever written, that any works are required for salvation, including keeping any part of the law.
Then Chad, you are a walking contradiction.
4 things that the Holy Spirit felt should be imposed on gentile believers (Thats YOU by the way)
Abstain from food sacrificed to idols.
Abstain from the eating of blood.
Abstain from meat that has been strangled.
Abstain from sexual immorality.
These are the ONLY regulations that have been explicitly placed on Gentile believers. To place ANY more, is of the same TYPOLOGY of the Judean circumcizers.
You may not be advocating circumcision, but you are advocating that man MUST be submitted to Old Testament law. If it is not a salvific issue, then what is it?
If it is not required for my salvation, then I don’t care. Neither should anybody else.
Josh,
My own views in regard to the law/grace issue are very much like Chad’s, although I am aware of a few specific points upon which I would disagree.
It is my understanding that Paul reminded Timothy that all of the Scriptures (in this context he was speaking of the OT Scriptures, although certainly the NT would apply as well) are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness. In other words, when we wish to know how we should live, we are instructed to open the Word and to consider ever word. They are profitable for our instruction in righteousness.
The two foundational axioms that God has given to man are to love the Lord with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourself. We have sixty six books in the Bible that reveals to us how this takes place.
In fact, all of the law was designed to teach us how to observe these two laws. Love is not a law of itself, it is motive. It is God’s revelation moral law that instructs us how we must love God and neighbor. My great love for my wife may compel me to go out and steal a diamond if I was unable to purchase one to fulfill her desire. Someone once remarked: “All’s fair in love…” Actually, if there were no boundaries of law to establish how we are to love, this would be true.
It is my view that all of the OT Scriptures are binding upon my conscience unless the revelation of NT states that their significance has been abolished. I understand that the Old Covenant is obsolete and has vanished away. Many of the Mosaic strictures were designed as types that would be ultimately fulfilled by the death of Christ.
We know that the sacrificial system has been abolished. With the coming of Christ, the kingdom is offered in a fuller way. The symbolism of the Old Creation has been superseded. “The gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worhshipper perfect in conscience, since they are only for food and drink and various washings, regulations for the flesh imposed until a time of reformation.”
It is belief the NT insists that these cermonial elements have passed away. I do not observe these beggarly elements which have been fulfilled in Christ. I am not concerned with the cotton/polyester blend, the rites of purifications, clean/unclean distinctions, dietary laws, etc. It was these types of issues that the Jerusalem council concerned itself with. The council was not dealing with every issue of biblical ethics.
Do you suppose after the council the Gentile believers were free to murder? to covet? to take the Lord’s name in vain? These things weren’t mentioned specifically.
All of Scripture is binding upon our conscience unless it has been repealed by God’s instruction.God is unchanging and the morality of the law flows from the very essence of God Himself. We cannot justify ourselves by works of the law. This was the sin of the Galations. Part of the New Birth includes the writing of the laws of God upon our hearts. We do not keep them with the intent of justifying ourselves by law works but rather we keep them by desire because we love God. We understand that the law is holy, just, and good and we delight in them after the inner man. We can state with David “Oh, how I love thy law.”
In Christ,
Bob
By the language implemented in your post, it appears that you are saying that I am advocating an anti-nomian position. This could not be farther from reality.
As believers we have the Law of Christ. Paul himself during his missional work (which happened to be his continual lifestyle, and by association with his command for us to imitate him as he did Christ…lived as one without the [mosaic] Law, although not without the Law of Christ.
The Law of Christ is the SPIRIT of the Law. Yes, the Law of God is perfect…but we can NEVER live up to the standard required by Christ’s “fulfillment” (usually described by theonomists as “extension of intent or meaning” of the Law. Not only is the moral requirement of the Law binding, but so are the punishments decreed by God for violations of the moral law. These are moral issues. To say otherwise is simply, exegetically false.
The Acts 15 council does cover moral issues, and not simply ceremonial issues as you described. The pronouncement against sexual immorality is evidence of this.
I suggest you look into the New Covenant Theology (specifically DesiringGod.org’s position on the issue), rather than your archaic traditional (traditions of man being on my mind here) covenant theology which has no consistent and coherent scriptural basis.
When Jesus said that he was not here to abolish the Law but fulfill it, he said that not one Jot or Tittle would pass from the Law until all was accomplished.
Accomplishment has been translated by your PDF ebook link to represent “the end of the cosmos”, when this is not a contextual exegesis of the term, but an eisogesis.
When Jesus uttered his last, his words were “It is Accomplished” I wonder what THAT means. If you feel that you can seperate the Law and the Prophets into seperate components; such as “Civil”, “Ceremonial”, and “Moral” in contradiction to James who states that violation of one part of the Law means that you are in violation of the WHOLE Law, AND whwn you hold that ALL SCRIPTURE is profitable for instruction in righteousness…you are still a walking contradiction.(note that it does not say that SUBMISSION to ALL scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness)
And just in case you choose to render it as “submission to all scripture” then you need to remember that Abraham, was a Liar, and an Adulterer. Should we then follow the letter of the Law (of Scripture) which requires us to do the deeds that Abraham did. Either that, or we should follow the SPIRIT of what Abraham did, which was that he “believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness”
And then you have Ruth, who seduced Boaz in order to get him to marry her. Should your daughters replicate Ruth’s actions?
The Bible says that Godly wisdom is open to reason. One of the foundational laws of reason is the law of NON CONTRADICTION: “A” cannot equal “A” and “non-A” at the same time.
If the Word of God is contradictory, (which a theonomist reading of the Law would suggest when compared to James) then you are saying that it is not reasonable, and that it is not Godly Wisdom…sounds like a problematic position for you to hold.
Chad,
I don’t know how to use quotes for this blog, so i apologize for the formating.
You say:
—————————————————–
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.
—————————————————
I think you missed my point. To take your example, if you give your son $10 and to expect him to grow the money and give you back more than the original $10 is in principle no different from extending a loan to someone and expecting him to return the original plus some extra (interest).
Now there are biblical ways to grow money (say selling lemonade), and there are sinful ways to make money, (selling abortion services) but the inherent act of expecting a return on your money is not wrong, as that is precisely what the master in the parable of the talents did.
You say:
—————————————————-
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.
—————————————————-
With respect, I do not think this is a valid comparison. On this logic, should we not resist the devil since Jesus told us not to resist evil (Matt 5:39)?
The general principle for God’s people in both Old and New Testaments is to live at peace with the unbelievers as much as possible. It is in this context that the Exodus passages on not oppressing strangers are given, especially since in that age the people of God has their own particular nation. Now at times God required this people to physically take action against his enemies and that is the reason why we have those passages about dashing babies and what not. As a specific example, Israel was told to wipe out the cannanites completely, but they were not told to do likewise to other pagan nations. So to answer you question, yes dashing babies against rocks was inherently oppressive, but that was an exception to general principle of non-oppression.
Regarding Lev 25, yes, that passage tells the iraelites not to lend on usury to a stranger, but it is a poor stranger who is under consideration. If fact, the very start of v35 tells us that the focus of this law is care for the poor; there is simply a reminder for Israel not to think that the poor person being a foreigner somehow made it ok to oppress him.
In fact, that passage seems to me a good summary on the OT teaching on usury, it is charging of usury when it would be greedy or oppressive that is condemned, not the practice itself.
Mark,
I see what you are saying now. Let me try to explain the distinction. What the master in the parable did was expect his servants to use his money well. He did not loan them money and require a return, which would be usury. It is like an employer that hires machine operators to use his capital assets to make products which are sold at a profit. He expects the employees to use his assets to make a profit for him, but this is very different from loaning the equipment to his employees and then expecting them to return the machines with an additional return. A father that gives his children money and wants them to earn a return is also very different from a father that loans his children money at interest.
The distinction is a loan on one hand, which is to be made free of usury, and expecting your servants to use your property profitably. Those are very different.
Mark,
Yes I agree that the passage in Leviticus 25 specifically prohibits taking interest from a poor brother (who is also a stranger). It does not follow that interest may be exacted from anyone else.
Is that passage speaking to poor people only?
Another question that comes to mind is how we define what a poor person is. In America, where even the homeless are obese, I don’t think very many would be considered off-limits to usurers. And with commercial loans, we know that all expenses are passed on to the consumer, so the poor end up paying usury like everyone else even if they don’t take out a loan. (But to me a very simple test for being poor would be the fact that they need a loan.)
Greg Bahnsen, with whom I have disagreements with on this topic, also rejected the idea that usury is only interest exacted from “poor†brothers:
So Bahnsen points out that usury is forbidden on loans (of anything) to any brother. And in the same article, written to refute Mitchell’s assertion that the law forbids only usury on the poor, he goes on to illustrate this beautifully:
I’d like to draw attention to those last three scripture citations also, in order to get a broader summary of the OT’s teaching on usury.
Chad,
Thanks for the reply.
I understand the distinction you are making, I just don’t agree it is one the bible supports as far as defining sin is concerned.
I think I’ll leave it at that for now, I know I’am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me (prehaps the Holy Spirit might one day, but we’ll see).
For what its worth I enjoy reading your blog and though i often disagree, I find a lot that is challenging and makes me think.
Thanks, Mark. I appreciate that.
Josh,
Ah, yes. The old “anathemize now, ask questions later.”
Obedience is not how justification is obtained, and it never has been. And justification is not an end unto itself.
Good works are defined by God, and that’s what this is all about.
But don’t worry about apologising for demanding that I repent for teaching that works of the law are required for salvation, even though I’ve repeatedly said the opposite.
Brilliant statement.
Joshua,
I think that my position is not half as problematic as the position that you accuse me of holding.
I’ll pass on “New Covenant Theology”, thanks. Actually I’m waiting for “Really New Covenant Theology” to come out.
Even Piper doesn’t agree with all of NCT’s doctrines, and he doesn’t call covenant theology heresy as you do.
I think this tangential discussion has run its course now, Joshua. Thank you for reading, and may God bless you.
Josh,
I have not the time at this point to engage in a lengthy discussion over these issues. I am very familiar with New Covenant Theology, having spent a few years conversing with those who hold that position over at the Sound of Grace.
I met a few folks there that I grew to respect in spite of our differences, but for the most part, I felt that most were mired into a troubling form of antinomianism.
I will refer you to a couple of good articles that will do a much more effective job of presenting my views than I could myself. I am not sure how to use the html, so I have pasted the links here. The articles are by John Frame and John Murray. I follow with a quote from Murray that I hope will if nothing else whet your appetite for a further read.
http://www.the-highway.com/lawgrace.html
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.php
“It is symptomatic of a pattern of thought current in many evangelical circles that the idea of keeping the commandments of God is not consonant with the liberty and spontaneity of the Christian man, that keeping the law has its affinities with legalism and with the principle of works rather than with the principle of grace. It is strange indeed that this kind of antipathy to the notion of keeping commandments should be entertained by any believer who is a serious student of the New Testament. Did not our Lord say, ‘If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments’ (John 14:15)? And did he not say, ‘If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love’ (John 15:10)?”
Regards,
bob
Ok, so I just read your posts on usury…and I am trying to integrate all of this with the credit union philosophy. My DH works for one and I have had quite a few conversations with him about their purpose in society. It is my understanding that they essentially exist to serve the members financial interests, and to charge them the least possible to keep the credit union afloat. Our credit union does not charge exorbidant interest, and what is charged just pays for the fair wages for the employees.
From what I understand you to say via scripture (or scripture to say via your blog): All interest charged to christians is unethical.
Then, are we supposed to open up christian credit unions? Or should we just keep our money in a box at home?
I am not being flip or glib, this is just the natural conclusion I come to at the end of your blog.
Could you respond? Thanks!
Imajackson
Imajackson,
I don’t think that there is anything wrong with paying someone to store your money, and perhaps there is a place for credit unions. But loaning money at interest would be prohibited, and so in turn no interest would be paid to depositors. The credit union would have to charge fees for the costs of storing and protecting the money, and conducting transactions. These costs are real and would be passed on. Typically those costs are borne by usury, so depositors exchange the use of their money (to obtain usury for the bank) for the use of the vault and convenience of making electronic and paper transactions with their paper money.
I was hoping to look at the things that you wrote referenced in comment 43, but could not bring them up. Are they still available?
Hello Angela. Here are the updated links:
Law and Grace
Theomotistry in Safety Patrol Ethics
I was interested to look back on this post again, I had forgotten that we’d had this much discussion. Seems like aeons ago.
Also, I recall with embarrassment that I still have an email from you to which I’ve never responded. I meant to, but procrastination and forgetfulness are powerful adversaries. I will try to send you a belated reply, OK?