C.F.W. Walther was the first President of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LC-MS). I was very interested to learn that Walther was strongly opposed to usury, and that his definition of usury included the taking of any interest. (Also of interest is that the LC-MS also used to be opposed to life insurance, and one of the reasons was that the insurance industry was built on usurious practices).
Dr. Mark Braun gives this analysis of the change (emphasis mine):
Missouri’s chief founder and leading pastor C.F.W. Walther sharply condemned the practice of taking interest. In an 1864 essay “Die Wucherfrage,” Walther put the taking of interest in the same category as theft, robbery, adultery, and idolatry. “God Himself here denies eternal salvation to him who practices usury.” Following that logic, Walther also concluded that it would be wrong for a Christian to be a stockholder in a bank, since “the banks are nothing but institutions of usury.” (He did allow that ordinary bank transactions conducted by average citizens “seem to have nothing dubious about them.”) Walther was thinking not only of usury but of any taking of interest. His view was ratified by Missouri’s 1869 convention.
By 1927, however, after a series of tactical omissions and subtle alterations, Carl Manthey-Zorn concluded, “Nowhere in His revealed Word has God prohibited the charging of interest as such.” In a letter to the faculty of Concordia Seminary, Zorn asked whether it would be appropriate for Synod to state that its position had changed, but was told by two faculty members that they considered such a revocation unnecessary.28
So, if we could be honest for a second, we have to say that those Lutherans that participate in usury, either directly by making loans and taking interest, or indirectly by owning shares in institutions that do, would in the eyes of our not-too-distant forebears such as Walther, be seen as non-Christians in dire need of repentance.
Amazing how things change!
Here is an explanation by a modern-day LC-MS Pastor (emphasis mine):
… Somewhat recent study suggests passages such as Leviticus 25:35-54 and Deuteronomy 23:19-20 do not forbid any and all interest from one Israelite to another. Rather, in part from a comparison with codes of the surrounding countries, the claim is made that the type of interest prohibited is that interest that came when the loan was due and might involve the slavery of the borrower, in addition to the initial interest taken off the disbursement of the loan.
…As for Lutherans in America, I wasn’t around in the early days of the Missouri Synod, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some who prohibited lending at any rate, as they used to prohibit such things as dancing and any and all life insurance. As I write this I can’t locate my copy of the relatively early Missouri Synod book The Borderland Between Right and Wrong, but I would expect there could be some discussion of usury in it. The only reference to usury that I find in John Fritz’s 1932 Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of Scriptural Principles comes in the discussion of communicants not to be admitted to the Sacrament: “Any one engaged in an unlawful or ungodly occupation, as that of actors, sorcerers, spiritualists, fortune-tellers, keepers of brothels, bootleggers, dispensers of forbidden drugs, abortionists, usurers, etc., must be suspended from the Sacrament until he forsakes such occupation” (p.152).
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could ask a question about what the Bible says, and get an answer about what the Bible says. The Bible says:
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)
But the Pastor says, “recent study suggests passages such as Leviticus 25:35-54 and Deuteronomy 23:19-20 do not forbid any and all interest from one Israelite to another. Rather, in part from a comparison with codes of the surrounding countries, the claim is made that the type of interest prohibited is that interest that came when the loan was due and might involve the slavery of the borrower, in addition to the initial interest taken off the disbursement of the loan.”
Well, the Sodomites say that God didn’t forbid all homosexual relationships, only abusive ones, and the Usurers say that God didn’t forbid all lending upon usury to your brother, only abusive usury. The arguments are really the same. It all hinges on the authority of scripture versus the authority of modern scholars.
But the question I have is if someone thinks that Walther and the early LC-MS leaders were such dolts, then why do they join the LC-MS? It seems quite dishonest to join a denomination knowing that it stood for things that you would have been excommunicated for.
Interestingly, 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.
Were these guys ignorant of the sacred texts also? Seems kind of ironic, really that you can become a Pastor of a church that confesses the Nicene creed while committing sins (and teaching the congregation to do the same) that they would have defrocked you for.
I was googling for articles on usury and came up with a great example of what you were saying in these comments. One commenter is supporting the Church’s stance against homosexuality and how we can’t just throw the Bible out the window, and that God’s morals don’t change from day to day. Then the typical response:
He lumps in paying usury with the crime of exacting usury, but that’s beside the point, I guess. Another commenter adds:
CRAZY! But if we throw out the Bible because the modern economy and Calvin say its OK, then we’ve jumped on the relativistic teeter totter and aren’t much different from these queer “Christians” that mouth the creeds while committing abominable acts without shame.
Thanks Dabitur, great piece!
In my mind there can not be enough written dealing with interest/usury.
I like Psalms 15, it says it so well and with such balance.
Psalm 15 (King James Version)
1 Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Novice, thanks for that interesting link… yes that is a great illustration. (Also see Now We Don Our Gay Apparel… and Dangerous Relativism. You are right, it is CRAZY.
Thank you mlane, I appreciate the encouragement and Psalm 15 is one of my favorites as well. What with so many universities and even churches being funded by interest-bearing endowments these days, I suppose its not too surprising that its a taboo topic among the well-heeled literati of the day. But we must do our part, and leave the rest to God.
I never have seen a church’s financial statement that did not contain the line-item: “Interest Income.” (Not that I have seen them all!) In several different churches I have challenged the practice on the strength of the Biblical prohibition. In every case the church in question has opted for the view that justifies their practice. This seems to be the prevailing dynamic. It is a very, very difficult thing socially and politically to wean a church from the practice of usury. It is far easier to keep a church free of usury than it is to convince a church to repent of usury. The need to justify current practice colors the usurer’s judgment in consideration of the matter. As English Puritan Henry Smith put it, “None stand for Usury but Usurers.”
You know, Calvin actually makes some good points in his commentary in Psalm 15, among which he states:
“With respect to usury, it is scarcely possible to find in the world a usurer who is not at the same time an extortioner, and addicted to unlawful and dishonorable gain. Accordingly, Cato {1} of old justly placed the practice of usury and the killing of men in the same rank of criminality, for the object of this class of people is to suck the blood of other men. It is also a very strange and shameful thing, that, while all other men obtain the means of their subsistence with much toil, while husbandmen fatigue themselves by their daily occupations, and artisans serve the community by the sweat of their brow, and merchants not only employ themselves in labors, but also expose themselves to many inconveniences and dangers, — that money-mongers should sit at their ease without doing any thing, and receive tribute from the labor of all other people. Besides, we know that generally it is not the rich who are exhausted by their usury, {2} but poor men, who ought rather to be relieved. It is not, therefore, without cause that God has, in # Le 25:35 36, forbidden usury,”
I suppose, though, that recent studies would reveal that David really meant to say: “He that putteth not out his money to usury in loans to very, very poor.”
Ahh, this just in! An even more recent study reveals that we can actually charge interest to even the very poor and then rush down to the courthouse to pay their back taxes when they can’t afford to pay them! Then we can become landlords with vast rental properties and rake in huge passive incomes. We then can write a book entitled: “From Rags to Riches….Doing it God’s Way! – How to let Passive Income build your Multi-generational Dreams!”
Well, back to being serious, I’ve noticed a more, shall we say, Lutheran slant to the blog. I’m starting to wonder if you aren’t a Lutheran!
S.C., it can be very discouraging, can’t it. But I think I speak for a lot of others when I say that your work, especially in your books, is greatly appreciated. I don’t think I could say that enough. God has blessed us through you in so many ways. Martin Luther said something to the effect that his people wouldn’t try things God’s way until they had sent every last coin to foreign lands and were destitute. Its tough not to think the same in our time.
Bob, you crack me up. You’ve got the agenda of “Christian Entrepreneurship” pegged! (Christian entrepreneurs you know are the baptised pirates of the Caribbean). Its not stolen money, its passive income! But instead of a book, I believe they’d produce an independent Christian film… and advertise it on Sunday during the Hula Bowl of course!
Yes, I’m definitely a Lutheran my Calvin-quoting Baptist friend!
Just passing by for the sake of Nathan’s conversations, I stumbled across this and leave you with two remarks:
First, as for biblical exegesis, the differentiation between foreigner and fellow Israelite in Deut. 23:21 (Eng. 20) needs an explanation.
Secondly, as for Calvin, his letter on usury written in 1545 to his friend Claude de Sachin (published by Beza in 1575) should also be consulted.
Cf. http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=84
Thanks for your remarks, Thomas. Regarding the differentiation between the foreigner and the brother, I agree that it needs an explanation. 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 Jew or a Turk, most people don’t have any idea where it is coming from (and would rather not know.)
This was discussed here also: Ian Hodge on Usury
The article you referenced was quite interesting, thanks for providing the link. I think this quote was quite insightful and makes the same point I was getting at regarding the similarity between the pro-usury and pro-sodomy hermeneutic:
Also, this was a good summary:
More on Calvin and usury here.
The permission of “usury” was clearly not general. To suggest so goes directly against the text. I have not heard of anyone suggesting this.
But it is also quite implausible that “usury” was allowed only within the context of the overall warfare with the nations of Canaan. God would hardly permit lending resources to people who were supposed to be under the ban!
The ger seems to be the resident alien, the nokri the foreigner who travels through the land – presumably on a regular basis, otherwise one would hardly want to lend them anything!
Well. Since you quote the First Ecumenical Council, that includes Orthodox as well. I must admit I found Mr. Mooney’s books VERY hard going, but then, I never knew how to balance my checkbook, let alone worry about ‘interest income,’ as I never had any until I married, and my wife’s investments became ‘ours.’
As to the definition of ‘nokri’ and ‘ger’ – does it not again touch on the subject of ETHNIC/RACIAL issues? What is the word in the LXX, the version of Scripture that Paul and the Apostles used? IF it is a ‘racial’ issue, then do we ‘discriminate’ by race, and see it as a ‘biblical norm’ once again, thus giving credence to those consistent Christians who saw the Civil War as a war for Israel [Gal. 6:16] and against the ‘nations round about them,’ i.e., the Black slaves all over the South?
How does the racial aspect of this prohibition against usury work itself out, now that Jews own most of the banks? You see, open a box, and Pandora’s evils arise unbidden….(just a little Caucasoid-friendly Greek mythology to ‘multiculturalize’ our discussion, you understand, that is all.)
The historic position – from the ancient “fathers,” through the Middle Ages, and the Reformation – has been that the Deuteronomic permission pertained specifically to those Nations that Israel was charged with overthrowing. This position is summarized quite eloquently in a passage attributed to Ambrose: “Who is the stranger by Amelech – but an enemy? Take usury from him whose life you may take without sin. The waging of war implies the right of taking usury.”
Of course, history is not infallible. But, if one wishes to overturn a view long-held, it is incumbent upon him to explain the deficiencies of the historic view and to argue how his new proposal succeeds where the old view fails. I think it was in the 19th century that it became fashionable to hold that the “foreigners” in Deuteronomy were mere “traveling merchants,” thus supposing to justify usury on “commercial loans.” However, such a view completely ignores the connotations (and even to some extent the denotation) of the original language. Similarly, other modern commentators fail, I think, to appreciate the extent to which their views diverge from historic orthodoxy, and thus fail to do much at all in accounting for this divergence.
Thomas, by “general” I meant the view that the allowance to exact usury from the “stranger” was not particular to the “detestable” (nokri) nations of Canaan, but an open-ended “loop-hole” that we can apply to any “stranger”.
While it took me some time to accept, I now tend to agree with the orthodox (or, what used to be held as orthodox by the Church) position, which is that the allowance to exact usury from the “stranger” was particular to those Canaanite nations.
To your objection that “God would hardly permit lending resources to people who were supposed to be under the ban!” I would offer two points of reply.
First, your objection seems to presuppose the modern view of lending and usury, which seems to think that men borrow themselves into prosperity! In actuality, the opposite is true. Lending to others upon usury brings them into subservience and subjection, and this aligns perfectly with God’s plan for Israel and their conquest of Canaan (cf Dt. 28).
Second, I would point out that God indicated to Israel that the Canaanites would be driven out little by little over a period of many years. Usury was a tool of dominion that would keep these nations in check and subjugated while the numbers and resources of Israel grew. In time they would fill the land and inherit the resources of the Canaanites as God expanded their boundaries in accordance with their numbers. Given the promises of God, these would be true “no risk” loans.
Saint Ambrose explains the orthodox doctrine both concisely and ably when he writes:
Without a command of God to wage war upon a particular people, we have no warrant to exact usury. Roger Fenton also made this point in his “A Treatise of Usurie” (1611).
In writing this, it struck me as highly ironic how modern Christians are so quick to relegate so many of the prohibitions of God’s law to be particular injunctions against the ancient Hebrews only, but eager to make the usury exception the rule.
S.C. – I should have read your comment before posting my own, I see we’ve both quoted Ambrose.
I agree with the points you make regarding the historical position and the almost nonchalant dismissal of it by modern usurers.
Luther said of those that steal:
That usury (by whatever term or form it goes under – whether interest, rent, etc.) is good and honorable is an assumption that must be challenged.
S. C. Mooney: “such a view completely ignores the connotations (and even to some extent the denotation) of the original language” – could you elaborate on this? If I go to bed with a wife “other” than my own, I do something detestable but does this mean that the word “other” has detestable connotations?
Dabitur – I was not adopting the perspective of the borrower, my query was whether God would permit Israel to lend resources to those they were supposed to commit to complete destruction. Bringing into subservience and subjection is completely different from putting under the ban – the Gibeonites knew this, Saul should have known this, and so should Saint Ambrose (I would not mind a fuller reference to read the citation in context).
The fact of the matter is that there is no hint in Deut. 23:20 or,as far as I can see, elsewhere in the Bible that usury might be a means of warfare. This is a later rationalisation whose logic is open to question.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible provides no hint of the supposed identification of the nokri with a member of one of the seven Canaanite nations. Note, e.g., the nokri that comes from a distant country in Deut. 29.22.
Thomas, according to sources that are accessible to the layman, such as Harris, Archer, Waltke, eds., “Theological Word Book of the Old Testament,” nokri derives from the root neker, which means “misfortune, calamity.” Nokri also is employed in certain Proverbs to indicate “adulteress,” (2:16; 5:20; 6:24, etc.) Thus, there is the distinct connotation of moral deficiency. It is the term used to refer to all the nations that Israel was charged with purging and displacing. The unmistakable sense is that these peoples are to be eradicated due to their wickedness. It is clear that there is a great deal meant by the term beyond simply “non-Israelite.” Part of this clarity arises from the fact that there are others terms employed to indicate “non-Israelite” in contexts that warn Israel to deal kindly with them and to be careful not to oppress them. The usage is very consistent. The nokri are to be eradicated, the ger are not to be oppressed.
I feel I again must stress that what I have sketched above has been the consensus understanding of commentators and expositors for centuries. If you have issue with the reasonableness of this view, and question its grounding in wise biblical scholarship, your issue goes far deeper than myself and others who post here. You must be prepared to take on the first 1500 years of Christian scholarship. I may not be the most competent defender of the historic view. But should I fail to pass your test, do not kid yourself that you thereby have justified your position. You have quite a lot of scholarship yet to undo before you can pretend to declare any victory.
In Deuteronomy lending is an exercise of rule rather than a means of warfare, see 15:6 and 28:12. A ruthless exercise of rule can of course be a form of warfare but I do not think that the covenant people are encouraged to be ruthless.
Given the differentiated rulings, there must be a difference between a ger and a nokri in Deuteronomy, but what is it? The distinction which makes best sense of the text is that the ger needs economic support, the nokri does not.
Cf. Deut. 14:21 “You shall not eat any carcass. To the ger who is within your gates you may give it, that he may eat it, or (you may) sell it to a nokri. For a holy people are you to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”
This demonstrates (a) that the ger does not belong to the covenant people bound by the food laws and therefore may be given meat unfit for the covenant people; and (b) that the nokri may be expected to pay for meat.
Note that the ger is mentioned in Deuteronomy alongside the orphan and the widow, e.g. in 24:19 in another context of benefits given free of charge. (The orphan and the widow are not mentioned in 14:21 because an impoverished member of the covenant community must still abide by the food laws.)
There is an obligation to be generous and charitably to the ger, but no obligation to be generous to the nokri. This has nothing to do with the nokri being a member of a particular nation, as neither the term nokri nor its usage gives any hint of that.
The distinction suggested above also makes sense of the warning in Deut. 17:15 against appointing a nokri as king. Why nokri? Would it be all right to make a ger king over Israel? Not at all, as the rest of the verse makes clear. But if the distinction between a ger and a nokri is that the former needs economic support and the latter has means, no-one would dream of appointing a ger king but there may be a temptation to appoint a nokri king – hence the warning against doing so with specific reference to a nokri rather than a ger.
Applied to Deut. 23:20, this suggests that loans to a ger are “consumer credit” (loans for the purpose of consuming and staying afloat, which may include seeds for sowing to stay alive), while loans to a nokri are “producer credit” (business loans).
Lenders are not to take advantage of people who have fallen on hard times (whether such people are part of the covenant family or not). They may, however, invest resources with business people. In the case of members of the covenant community, this presumably happened in the form of joint ventures. In the case of foreigners, loans were permitted – presumably at whatever interest rate was agreeable to both sides (the borrower not being “in need”, there is no question of exploitation).
An interesting theory, however, it is not without its difficulties. I could quibble with its application at various points of usage – for example, why were only those “of means” to be destroyed or otherwise dispossessed from their lands? – but there is no need. Your theory has much greater problems. First, it fails to account for its divergence from what Christian scholars have believed and taught for 1500 years. Second, it fails to integrate into the economic realities of the Ancient world, in which “investment” and borrowing for “business” purposes were unknown.
No one is suggesting that usury “is” warfare. Usury is oppressive and ruinous, and therefore is complementary to warfare. Those “of means” can, of course, avoid borrowing, and, indeed, may become lenders. There was nothing in the Ancient economy that might have induced one “of means” to become a borrower nonetheless, and therefore subject to usury under the Deuteronomic permission. The Deuteronomic permission cannot be explained economically.
Thomas, the underlying Hebrew word for usury itself is the “hint” of its being like warfare. Neshek is a biting, a violent act. Violence is not generally encouraged or even permissable among the covenant people, except in special cases such as war. There simply is no “non-ruthless” form of usury Thomas.
“Applied to Deut. 23:20, this suggests that loans to a ger are “consumer credit” (loans for the purpose of consuming and staying afloat, which may include seeds for sowing to stay alive), while loans to a nokri are “producer credit” (business loans).”
No, it doesn’t suggest that loans to a ger are “consumer credit” in Deut. 23:20 because the ger are not even mentioned in that verse, and neither is any hint of a distinction between “consumer credit” and “producer credit”. In Deut 23:20 simply ALL usury is forbidden to brothers, no matter the purpose. It is forbidden because they are brothers. If usury could ever be a “charitable” thing that would be good for commerce, God could have made such provision, but he did not. And if usury could ever be a charitable thing that was good for business, why would he have his people engage in such a thing with foreigners and not their own brothers? In fact you’d think he’d require such a loving thing to be done to the brother first. But we go in circles when we depart from what is simply and clearly written.
In the Leviticus passage where the ger are mentioned, it seems clear that this particular ger is a brother, a kinsman, who is soujourning and not in his own country. This verse rules out the idea that you can exact interest from a kinsman who is not of your own community or country:
The producer credit vs. consumer credit is a rather recently invented distinction which isn’t supported by the text. It only works if you ignore a large part of the meaning that nokri conveys, and instead impose a narrow deifnition of “merchant” back upon the text and then re-define the ger to be a complementary partner to the scheme. I don’t believe that the meanings are easy to sort out, personally, but I am very comfortable in taking the position that the “detestable heathen really means merchant and thus usury for purely commercial purposes is OK with Jesus” is decidedly off-base.
S. C. Mooney – I am a little taken aback by your hostile tone. Let me assure you that I have no wish to declare any victory, over you or anyone else. I am concerned that Scripture is understood properly.
You have misunderstood TWOT. The author of the entry believes neker in the sense of misfortune/calamity to be a derivative of the root nkr, “recognize, acknowledge, know, respect, discern” and lists nokri as a derivative of the same root. If you want to rely on etymology, a nokri is someone unknown, unfamiliar.
Your wife is the woman with whom you are familiar, the “adulteress” is the “other woman” – this does not mean that “other” (“strange”) has “the distinct connotation of moral deficiency”. Note “a stranger” in Prov. 27:2 in the sense of “someone else” not “someone morally deficient” (cf. 5:10), and remember that God’s work is said to be “strange” in Isa. 28:21.
You claim that nokri “is the term used to refer to all the nations that Israel was charged with purging and displacing” and that “the nokri are to be eradicated” – tell me, where?
The same underlies your later question “why were only those ‘of means’ to be destroyed or otherwise dispossessed from their lands?” Where does it say that the nokri is to be destroyed or dispossessed? You claim consistent usage but you do not cite a single Biblical reference.
You also claim that this view “has been the consensus understanding of commentators and expositors for centuries” but so far you have not even given me a proper reference for Ambrose. I am not talking about the condemnation of usury, I am referring to the idea that it was all right to lend to the nokri because the nokri was to be destroyed or dispossessed. Do you really believe that this is “what Christian scholars have believed and taught for 1500 years”? Then, where is your evidence?
Dabitur – my application of the ger-nokri distinction to Deut. 23:20 was too short-hand. My apologies. What I meant is that while Deut. 23:20 permits lending on interest to the nokri; the ger is in this context included in “brother”. Your reference to Lev. 25 may be apposite here.
In your eagerness you misunderstood my reference to “consumer credit” — it is of course to be a loan without interest! The charitable loan is the one without interest and is nothing to do with commerce. The difference between a “brother loan” (which included a loan to a ger) and a “nokri loan” is that you must not take interest for the former but you may for the latter.
This is why it it important that we understand who the nokri is. I think we are agreed on this. I did not say that nokri really means “merchant” but I have sought to understand the difference made in Deuteronomy between a ger and a nokri on the basis of the text itself. I note that neither you nor S. C. Mooney have engaged with Deut. 14:21 or 29:22.
It is clear that a ger in Deuteronomy is not a kinsman, if by that we mean a member of the “holy people unto the LORD”. The ger is also clearly distinct from the brotherhood of Israel in 24:14. Indeed, 29:11 alludes to the Gibeonites (cf. Josh. 9) as the archetypal ger.
There are two different ways in which interest can be reckoned on a loan, either by “biting off” something at the beginning of the loan (e.g., you borrow ten silver pieces but you only get eight silver pieces in your hand) or by a surplus added at the end (e.g., you borrowed ten silver pieces but you have to pay back twelve).
This may explain two Hebrew terms for “interest” – neshek and marbit. It does not mean that you have to be ruthless and violent as a lender. You are ruthless, if you demand interest from someone who has fallen on hard times. Someone who borrows money for commercial purposes may feel the “bite” but this does not mean that the lender is inevitably ruthless.
I agree that many in the ancient world did not know of “investment” and borrowing for “business” purposes. Thus, e.g., Ambrose clearly conceives of usury as lending on interest to someone in need, when he considers it under the general precept “that we may never deprive another of anything for the sake of our own advantage”.
“It is a mark of kindly feeling to help him who has nothing, but it is a sign of a hard nature to extort more than one has given. If a man has need of thy assistance because he has not enough of his own wherewith to repay a debt, is it not a wicked thing to demand under the guise of kindly feeling a larger sum from him who has not the means to pay off a less amount? Thou dost but free him from debt to another, to bring him under thy own hand; and thou callest that human kindliness which is but a further wickedness.”
On the Duties of the Clergy, book 3, chap. 3, par. 20.
“The producer credit vs. consumer credit is a rather recently invented distinction.” No, I don’t think it is. The terminology may be recent but the distinction between a loan given to someone in need (“consumer credit”) and a loan given for commercial benefits is ancient.
It was a custom in Mesopotamia for kings to proclaim the remission of debts etc. at the beginning of their reigns and at intervals of seven or more years. The custom is older than the book of Deuteronomy.
Such a release was of course good news for impoverished people but it would have been bad for business, if business loans were canceled as well. This is why the Babylonians had to distinguish between loans to the poor and business loans.
We are in the fortunate position of having one such edict preserved in fairly complete form, namely the Edict of Ammisaduqa from the 17th century BC. It explicitly excludes business loans and joint enterprises from the general remission. It even includes a paragraph which specifies what happens to people who pretend that a loan was a business loan, when it wasn’t!
Thomas, I apologize that I failed to express myself in a manner that avoids a tone of hostility. I certainly intend none. Mainly, my intent was to convey that though it may not be possible for me to satisfy your concerns, you nevertheless will find more eloquent and able spokesmen for the view I am espousing in an historical survey of the matter.
The same sort of haste that resulted in my inadvertent tone of hostility, will, I fear, preclude my defending the historicity of the historical view to your satisfaction. Surely, I could embark upon a procedure of compiling the evidence you request, but by the time I managed to complete this task, no one would be posting to or reading this thread anymore. Such is the nature of the internet, and such is the plodding pace at which I work. The best that I could do in the short term would be to refer you to the bibliography of my book.
S. C. Mooney – apologies accepted. Unfortunately, I do not have access to your books but I have found the following quotation from your Usury: Destroyer of Nations on the web:
Now, it should be relatively easy for you to find this place in your book and check the footnote which indicates that the historic position is as you claim that the Deuteronomic permission pertained specifically to those nations that Israel was charged with overthrowing.
Thomas: “In your eagerness you misunderstood my reference to “consumer credit” — it is of course to be a loan without interest! The charitable loan is the one without interest and is nothing to do with commerce. The difference between a “brother loan” (which included a loan to a ger) and a “nokri loan” is that you must not take interest for the former but you may for the latter.”
I did not misunderstand your reference at all. When referring to “charitable” usury, I was referring to your idea of nokri loans being good and jolly loans to foreigners. Instead of the distinction that the text indicates – brother versus foreigner – you have sought to make it consumer credit versus producer credit. What is the theological pedigree of this take on usury?
“I note that neither you nor S. C. Mooney have engaged with Deut. 14:21 or 29:22.”
I see nothing in Dt. 14:21 that supports your thesis. You may give it to the ger or sell it to the nokri. Given the wide range of usages, I see no reason to read more into that text than to say that the ger referred to a law-abiding sojourner that dwelt in your town and nokri referred to foreigners that did not dwell in your town but with whom you had commerce. Of course, you can sell things to the destitute – being a purchaser of goods does not necessarily mean that they are “well off”. But it is insisted that course this verse means that since usury was allowed to nokri that of course God had business loans in mind? Why that would force such a convoluted distinction into the texts on usury quite simply escapes me. If God had business loans in mind, he could have said so and also made a provision for business loans to brothers. You claim to be dealing with the text itself but all usury to brothers is forbidden even if they are producers in no need of charitable financial assistance. Thus your distinction holds no water.
As far as Dt. 29:22, I have no problem with nokri as a term being broader than that of the 7 nations of Canaan, just as I assume you recognize it is broader than “merchant in no need of financial assistance”. We don’t simply pick a usage from one text and superimpose it upon another to suit our business plan. Yet if the allowance to exact usury from nokri is broader than the particular warrant to deal vengefully with the Canaanites, how do you account for the subsequent texts (Psalms, Ezekiel) as well as the first 1500 or so years of Church history which condemn all usury, not just “usury to poor people for consumer items”?
Thank you for your patience regarding my replies. I will continue when able.
Dabitur and S. C. Mooney – please read my comments not as a wholesale attack on your views. I agree that today we are often too nonchalant about loans, borrowing, interest etc.
It is good to encourage Christians to “lend freely, expecting nothing in return” (Luke 6:35) but it is wrong to claim that we are under a law which prohibits all interest-bearing loans. The idea that the Deuteronomic permission only applies “within the context of the overall warfare with the nations of Canaan” is neither supported by the meaning of nokri as attested by all Hebrew dictionaries (“strange/foreign” rather than “detestable heathen”), nor by the usage of nokri in Deuteronomy, as I have shown above. I am also fairly convinced that it is *not* the traditional exegesis of Deut. 23:20.
It is good to warn Christians against going into consumer debt but the argument hat business loans must be interest-free is *not* as traditional as you may think. My citation from Ambrose shows that he had only charitable loans in view. As far as I can see, business loans were not on the radar of the church for a while.
But where we have a fuller discussion, we can observe that the traditional condemnation of usury excluded two types of loans, namely profits from partnerships (societas) and rent on “fruitful” property such as farmland, buildings, ships, horses (census). In other words, the ban on usury did not apply to partnership, investment, and rental contracts.
I am not saying that the application to our contemporary situation is easy. But I believe that your attempt to neutralise Deut. 23:20 by giving nokri the narrow meaning “member of one of the Canaanite nations to be destroyed” is illegitimate.
Dabitur – thanks for engaging with Deut. 14:21 and 29:22.
This is the distinction I sought to draw myself, except to add that of course “foreigners that did not dwell in your town but with whom you had commerce” also had to be law-abiding, as far as general law is concerned, and that the ger was not “law-abiding” as far as food laws are concerned. Thus the distinction between a ger and a nokri is not that the former is a good non-Israelite and the latter a “detestable heathen” but that the ger lives among you and the nokri does not.
As for Deut. 29:22, it is merely one instance which demonstrates that nokri does not have the narrow meaning you require for 23:20. Given that it is crucial for your case that nokri only refers to foreigner with whom Israel was to be at war in Deut. 23:20, where is your evidence for it? There is not a single verse in the whole Bible in which nokri specifically refers to a “member of one of the Canaanite nations to be destroyed” – why should this be the meaning here? Why is the general term for “stranger” used in Deut. 23:20 rather than anything more specific like “Canaanite”?
“If God had business loans in mind, he could have said so and also made a provision for business loans to brothers.”
It is true that there is no provision for commercial interest-bearing loans to kinsmen in Deuteronomy. But this is no surprise, given the cultural and economic setting which is in view. The great majority of loans required in Israel would have been charitable, not commercial. Exod. 22:25 only talks about the former; Ps. 15 can use very general language for this reason. And as my citation above shows Ambrose simply assumed the same situation.
If it is true that in Deuteronomy “nokri referred to foreigners that did not dwell in your town but with whom you had commerce”, loans to a nokri are by definition not charitable. This is why I suggested that loans to a nokri are commercial loans. This is not superimposing any elaborate concept on the text but a straight reading of the identity of the nokri from usage in Deuteronomy.
In other words, I suggest that the difference between charitable loans and commercial loans coincides in Deuteronomy with the difference between loans to brothers and loans to (non-resident) foreigners.
Thomas, in that part of the book I cite:
Luther, “If, therefore, for the sake of vengeance on the Gentiles, God wants to punish them through usury and lending, and commands the Jews to do this, the Jews do well obediently to yield themselves to God as instruments and to fulfill His wrath on the Gentiles through interest and usury.” [Works, XIV, 655, 656]
Cleary, who in turn cites Ambrose, but, alas, himself provides no reference
[The Church and Usury, a doctoral dissertation originally published 1914]
Fenton, “Now when the Canaanites were once suppressed, we find all usurie ever after simply forbidden without any such limitation. So the Hebrews understood the 15 Psalme, as if it were unlawfull for a Jew in David’s time to take usurie of any Gentile.”
[A Treatise of Usurie, London, 1611]
Rabbi Leon of Modena, “they have allowed themselves the liberty to take usury, notwithstanding it is said in Deuteronomy 23:20: ‘unto a stranger thou may’st lend upon usury.’ In which place, the Jews cannot understand by the word ‘stranger’ any other besides these seven nations, the Hittites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc., which God had commanded to be destroyed by the sword.”
[cited in Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World, New York, 1969]
We should not forget to mention Lev. 25:35-38, not only because it confirms that the loans spoken of in the Bible are largely charitable loans but because it refers to an obligation to loan to those who have become destitute (without exacting interest, of course). Date Dabitur indeed, or rather Dabitur (v.38) ergo date (vv.35-37).
S. C. Mooney – many thanks for digging up the references. They demonstrate that your view is not new but I suggest that their obscurity also demonstrates that this view can hardly claim to represent the mainstream of the first 1500 years. Aquinas knows nothing of it and Luther does not claim that he merely represents tradition on this. In fact, the elusive Ambrose citation remain the only link to the exegetical tradition of the first 1500 years. (I note that the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture provides only the reference to Ambrose I have cited above.)
I think we are agreed that the basic issue here is that usury is prohibited with regard to the brother (including the ger who, while not a brother, should be treated like one) but permitted in the case of the nokri. I have found the following explanations for this:
(a) general hostility to all foreigners – but this does not reckon with the distinction between a ger and a nokri in Deuteronomy, nor with Exod. 12:49; Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:18 which demand that there is one and the same judicial standard for the stranger as well as the native citizen.
(b) concession to greed (cf. the divorce laws); given the hardness of hearts, God permitted usury when dealing with foreigners – this would seem an odd way to regulate greed and in my view faces similar problems to (a)
(c) application of lex talionis principle; Israelites should not lend at interest among each other but given that they would be charged interest, if they borrowed from foreigners, it is only right and proper that they should charge interest when lending to foreigners – this fails to persuade me; interest on charitable loans could hardly be justified by “that’s what they do to us” (but lending to non-resident foreigners would be commercial and for commercial loans the lex talionis may work, is it necessary to appeal to this, however?)
(d) part of the subjugation of Canaanite peoples – ok, so the view goes back to Luther at least but there is no evidence that nokri here only refers to Canaanites and the difference between subjugating and putting under the ban is not properly taken into account in this view (see above on Gibeonites and Amalekites)
(e) the nokri is non-resident; therefore any loan he will take up is a loan for commercial purposes and thus permissible; Deuteronomy is merely concerned to prohibit interest on charitable loans
I find the last explanation the most satisfying. It takes into account that the legal material uses different terms for non-Israelites who have become resident in Israel (ger, toshab). It is thus eminently plausible that Deuteronomy’s distinction between a ger and a nokri is between resident and non-resident which has a natural relationship to the distinction sometimes made between semi-assimilated and non-assimilated (cf. Josephus).
Echoing Exodus and Leviticus, the concern in Deuteronomy is preventing rich people from taking advantage of poor people. In my reading, the nokri is not the exception to the rule in the sense of being someone who may be taken advantage of (detestable Canaanite) but rather he is someone who, not being local nor meaning to become resident, asks for a loan not for the necessities of life but for business purposes and for this reason does not fall under the ban on usury.
D. W. Jones, Reforming the Morality of Usury (University Press of America, 2004), p. 29, cites Ambrose as the first to develop the “rather unique interpretation” that the interest was permitted in the case of foreigners because they were to be conquered and destroyed. He refers to Justo Gonzales, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and the Use of Money (San Francisco: Harper, 1990), pp. 225-56, for more on the “Ambrosian exclusion”.
I have done some more research and I have found the Ambrosian exclusion! Saint AMbrose, Expositions on the Book of Tobit (Patrologia Latina, vol. 14), chap. 15. Unfortunately, I do not think there is a published English translation of these expositions.
I have read Martin Luther. He does not engage with the usage of the term nokri, nor does he address the problem that Deut. 7:1-2 talks about driving out nations and defeat leading to complete destruction, cf. 20:17. Of course, this will be “little by little” (7:22), but the herem vow consist of putting to destruction, as soon as the LORD gives them in their hands (cf. Num. 21:2). This is rather different from first enslaving them by usury — I say it again, the Gibeonites knew this, Saul should have known the difference, and so should anyone trying to correlate usury with the destruction of the Canaanites.
Thomas, you have posted quite a lot of thoughts and insights. It will take considerable time for me to generate replies to each point, which, as I indicated earlier, may be ultimately unrealistic to expect in the present context. Nevertheless, I do wish to offer the following general responses. The following comprises the sum of what I have to offer the discussion for the time being. I do follow this subject eagerly, and will be happy to contribute more in the future as I am able to compile more material, whether on this thread, if it still is active, or on another forum.
First, regarding the etymology of nokri, which I preface with emphasizing that I am not a scholar of the Ancient Hebrew language: While nokri and neker are derivatives, there is a reason that terms derive from a root, and their usage implies that some nuance is intended beyond the basic sense of the root. You cite Proverbs as demonstrating your point, whereas the prostitute or adulteress is a woman “other” than one’s wife. Yet these texts in Proverbs actually make my case and not yours. While true in a technical sense that the prostitute is an “other” woman, it also is true that every woman in the world is “other” than one’s wife. But, the texts in Proverbs cannot be made to apply to every woman in the world. For example, Proverbs 23:27, “an adulterous woman [nokri] is a narrow well.” It quite simply is not true that every woman other than my wife is a narrow well. The adulterous woman, the evil woman is a narrow well. There is quite a bit more involved here than mere otherness or strangeness. We see the same thing in texts pertaining to “strange” or “other” nations. I Kings 11:1-8 quite plainly relates nokri directly to the heathen nations. Also, texts such as Jos. 24:19-24, Ezra chapter 10, and Neh. 13:26-28 follow the same pattern. There is something definitely wrong with the “other” gods and “other” wives. These gods and wives are of the “other” peoples. The peoples are “strange” not merely due to their “otherness,” but their strangeness consists in the wickedness of false gods and women given to false and therefore wicked spirituality.
Second, in all of my research into the history of economics, the only sources I have found that speak of Ancient economic practice in a manner similar to your comments are those of the modern era. A great snare in surveying economic history – perhaps moreso than other historical emphases – is the tendency to export current cultural modes and economic institutions and practice back onto accounts from Ancient sources. This problem is compounded when reading ancient sources in translations, which of necessity employ terms that are parallel to terms in current usage, but which in current usage do not accurately convey the Ancient reality. A prime example is the term “rent.” You say, “the ban on usury did not apply to partnership, investment, and rental contracts.” Whether this is true is very difficult to say mainly because the “rental contract” (not even to speak for the time being of “partnership” and “investment”) as we know it did not exist in the Ancient economy. The term “rent” as it appears in various English translations of the Bible and other Ancient documents is a convenience resorted to by translators. If the modern English reader exports his understanding of “rent” back onto Ancient economy and life, he thereby has constructed a faulty understanding.
Third, on the matter of the traditional understanding of the “Deuteronomic Double Standard”: In the twenty years since completing the manuscript of my book, I have become familiar with additional sources, though I do not have this material catalogued for ready reference in this forum. However, I can attest that I never have encountered any view of Dt. 23:20 similar to yours earlier than the 19th century. You wish to make much of the fact that I have not provided more than a handful of references documenting my claim (I cannot imagine by what standard Luther may be considered “obscure”), but a converse point, I think, has much more importance: I never have seen any Ancient or Medieval source arguing Dt. 23:20 in a manner such as you do.
Thomas, a few more replies:
1. Regarding my statement that “the producer credit vs. consumer credit is a rather recently invented distinction,” I was speaking only in the context of the allowance for usury and Christian theology. That pagans made such a distinction is interesting, but irrelevant.
2. “But where we have a fuller discussion, we can observe that the traditional condemnation of usury excluded two types of loans, namely profits from partnerships (societas) and rent on “fruitful” property such as farmland, buildings, ships, horses (census). In other words, the ban on usury did not apply to partnership, investment, and rental contracts.”
I am not sure what you consider “traditional”. Profits from a partnership are not usury strictly speaking – a partnership is not a loan. Some modern limited partnership arrangements may involve usury where the limited partner contributes capital and is promised a stated dividend, but otherwise a partnership is merely a combining of capital and the partners share risk and reward. Partnerships are not “loans excluded from the condemnation of usury”.
Rents as we know them today are a relatively recent phenomenon, and should be distinguished from “share-cropping” arrangements that the Bible speaks of. Fixed rents on property, as I understand it, were condemned as usury until the Scholastics made a case for them. Luther engages fairly well the various schemes of rents and such by which merchants of the medieval period attempted to cloak their usury under.
As for investments, where you get the idea that the “traditional ban on usury” excludes them escapes me.
3. “But I believe that your attempt to neutralise Deut. 23:20 by giving nokri the narrow meaning “member of one of the Canaanite nations to be destroyed” is illegitimate.”
I accept your opinion. In any event, usury to brothers is completely forbidden, on loans of anything, for any purpose, whether money or some other form of property.
More later.
S. C. Mooney – I have indeed posted a lot and will stop before long but I am subscribed to the thread, so any further insights you post here should reach me.
First, regarding the etymology of nokri. TWOT may or may not be right in deriving all n-k-r words from one root but this does not mean that you are free to transfer the meaning of neker (Job 31:3, cf. Obad. 12) as a connotation of nokri, even if it were true that neker means “misfortune” which, by the way, the KJV disagrees with (note which word is in italics). Again, the fact that there is something wrong with “other” gods does not mean that the word “other” has connotations of wrongness.
Adultery is having sex with any married woman that is not my wife – who is the adulteress? It is not any specific category of woman but the “strange” woman who becomes intimate with someone for whom she should remain “the other” or “the outsider” – this is also true for Prov. 23:27, for me every woman other than my own wife is a “narrow well”.
I know that various commentators restrict the meaning of nokriya in Proverbs to foreigners but I am not persuaded that this is right. Maybe the nokriya is outside the community of the wise but I consider it more logical to speak of every woman other than my wife as a “stranger” as far as sexual intimacy is concerned (and this is of course the context!)
(Note that if nokriya were a “detestable heathen” or a “regularly unchaste woman”, Proverbs could be read as warning only against sex with prostitutes, loose women and “detestable heathen”, as if it were permissible to commit adultery, as long as the woman in question is a reputable Israelite!)
1 Kings 11:1-8 and other passages “quite plainly relates nokri directly to the heathen nations” – yes and no. They prove no more than this that nokri most regularly refers to “foreigners”. If you read these texts closely, they demolish the view that nokri refers to abhorrent (“detestable”, “wicked”) pagans because the list includes Edomites and Deut. 23:7 clearly states, “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother.”
And what about 1 Kings 8:41-43? The nokri who prays to the covenant God of Israel is still a nokri!
Second, it is of course hazardous to use contemporary economic terms in describing the ancient situation. But this goes for both sides. When I spoke of rental contracts, I did not refer to the ancient but to the medieval situation, using the technical Latin term, and I specified it as rent on “fruitful” property such as farmland, buildings, ships, horses – I made no reference to renting out a home for living.
If you seriously want to claim that the ancient world knew nothing of commercial partnerships, I am flabbergasted. When regulations speak of people receiving “goods either as merchandise for a commercial journey, or as a joint enterprise for the production of profit”, what do you think they are talking about?
Third, I would be glad for any additional sources – any time you stumble across them. I am sure there are more Reformers and Puritans to be found. But my point is that you introduced this hypothesis as “what Christian scholars have believed and taught for 1500 years” and challenged me: “You must be prepared to take on the first 1500 years of Christian scholarship” – BUT the single reference on which this is based remains a sermon on Tobit by Saint Ambrose. I have now read the relevant section. It does not provide the “scholarship” which would solve the problems with this interpretation.
I have never claimed to represent the unbroken tradition of exegesis of Deut. 23:20 (although I believe that my exegesis is compatible with most of what is said in the first 1500 years). The fact that you have never encountered any view of Deut. 23:20 similar to mine “earlier than the 19th century” suggests to me that you have not been looking very hard. Try Matthew Henry, whose commentary could hardly be called anything other than well known.
Dabitur, granted the “the producer credit vs. consumer credit” is only a simplified way of speaking which needs teasing out. Let me first cite Barry Gordon, Lending at Interest: Some Jewish, Greek, and Christian Approaches, 800 BC-AD 100 (History of Political Economy, 14:3. Duke University Press, 1982) p. 411
Note that I have allowed for this in my definition “consumer credit” = loans for the purpose of consuming and staying afloat, which may include seeds for sowing to stay alive, “producer credit” = business loans.
Gordon describes the general situation in ancient Israel well. This explains the unqualified condemnations to usury in places like Ps. 15. Usury was implicitly thought of as usage charge on loans to the poor. This is also true for much of church history.
“Profits from a partnership are not usury strictly speaking – a partnership is not a loan.” You may well be right economically speaking but both sides must beware of imposing contemporary economic concepts on Scripture (see above). How do you know that limited partnerships did not exist in antiquity?
I am not sure what you mean by saying that you respect my opinion that the exegesis of Deut. 23:20 which Ambrose and Luther offer is illegitimate. My opinion counts for little. What matters is that the “jus belli jus usurae” interpretation is not compatible with the rest of Scripture. It can claim support from antiquity (Ambrose) but this in itself does not redeem it.
A quick comment on Matthew Henry. His view could easily be taken to be the opposite of yours and in agreement with mine, as he implied that the reason the foreign merchants could be given loans at usury was because they were prohibited from land ownership and were thus dependent upon “turning the penny” to make a living. Thus, since the Israelite restriction of land ownership is no longer in force, the allowance for usury to the nokri would no longer be necessary, for the conditions that required it (per Henry) no longer exist. That would have the same effect as the way I understand the allowance, though for different reasoning.
Let me show why I think that my understanding of Deut. 23 and its place in the history of Israel is compatible with most of what the church said in the first 1500 years. A brief reminder: My view is (a) that the great majority of loans in Israel were for people in need and usury was condemned on that basis; the righteous lend generously without charge; (b) that the permission of usury from the nokri in Deut. 23 demonstrates that usage charge on loans is not intrinsically immoral; (c) that the nokri is the stranger who does not live among the people of Israel and that therefore a loan given to him is not a charitable loan but a loan for business purposes.
So how does the church’s condemnation of usury fit in? It is not good enough to cite something which says that all usury is wrong and then be content with pointing out that usury means usage charge, i.e. any interest. To understand what is condemned, we need to understand the context in which it is said.
For this we could go, e.g., to Saint Basil’s second homily on Ps 15 which is all about (against!) usurers. I pick this because I found it readily available (Fathers of the Church, vol. 46, pp. 182-91). It is perfectly clear in this sermon that the borrower is a poor man “bent by necessity” and “suffering misfortune” or (later in the sermon) someone who cannot afford certain luxuries. The situation of someone who lends for business purposes is not addressed, in spite of the fact that Basil knows about such situations, as we will see.
Saint Basil describes in detail how some seek to avoid the Lord’s words by claiming at first that they do not have the resources to support the one in need, the prospective borrower “swearing that he is entirely without money.”
This shows that Saint Basil is well aware of the practice of money being entrusted to someone for business matters at a high interest but note that he is only concerned with the way a prosperous person uses (the pretense of) such a business relationship as an excuse for exacting usury from the destitute man.
The remainder of the sermon warns the poor against taking borrowing money at interest and counsels them to use up all their own resources instead.
As he elaborates on the evil of being indebted, he broadens the application: “Are you rich? Do not borrow. Are you poor? Do not borrow. If you are prospering, you have no need of a loan; if have nothing, you will not repay the loan.” He speaks as if into our situation of credit-card spending:
And yet, we see that it is not those in need of the necessities who come for a loan (for they do not find any who trust them), but, that men who devote themselves to unrestrained expenses and fruitless extravagances and who are slaves to effeminate luxuries, are the borrowers. ‘I need for myself,’ he says, ‘costly clothing and gold plate, for my sons decent garments as an ornament for them, also for my servants bright-colored and varied attire, and for my table abundance of food.’…
Saint Basil acknowledges that some have grown rich from taking out loans but warns that many more have become debt slaves. He encourages the rich to accept God as the surety for the loans freely given to the poor, before he launches another attack against those who “make profit from misfortune”.
Technically, usury is (a fixed?) “usage charge on a loan” but the church fathers and councils have “making profit from misfortune” which was probably still by far the most common setting for loans.
The unqualified condemnation of usury by church councils etc. can mean either (a) that interest for commercial loans was also forbidden, or (b) that interest for commercial loans was not in view.
I suggest that someone in ancient Israel who availed themselves of the permission in Deut. 23:20 was not excluded from going up to the holy hill (Ps. 15) and was not under God’s death sentence (Ezek. 18) because the condemnations of “usury” in these places allowed for the Deut. 23:20 exception.
The ancient church’s condemnation of usury may have functioned similarly. To prove me wrong on this point, you would either have to show that loans for commercial purposes were only invented later (but tell me, then, what you make of the Edict of Ammisaduqa and how you explain St Basil’s reference to the practice of entrusting money to someone for business matters at a high interest), or you have to show a condemnation of interest-bearing loans for commercial purposes in the ancient church.
Dabitur – the “same effect” is not the “same understanding”. There is a difference between being primarily concerned about the right effect (banning all interest, or not banning all interest) and being primarily concerned about the right interpretation.
Was not the problem with the “detestable heathen” precisely that they still occupied the land? The nokri which Matthew Henry has in view (and is in view in Deuteronomy) is not the Canannite who has to be subjugated and driven from the land, as you suppose.
Because the nokir is a stranger/foreigner who is not resident, it can be supposed that he “lived by trade”. I do not actually myself believe that nokri is restricted to “foreign merchant” in this passage. A Philistine in the olive oil business might go to a neighboring Israelite town and loan silver to buy an additional mill in the expectation of a bumper harvest.
This Philistine would be a nokri but not primarily a merchant. He would presumably be content to loan money on interest because the increased productivity he could gain with an additional mill would make this expense more than worthwhile.
When I said “loan silver”, I meant of course “borrow silver”…
Dabitur – I am not persuaded that C. F. W. Walther regarded those who disagreed with his position on usury as “non-Christians in dire need of repentance”. Not all pastors and congregations represented at the 1864 synod agreed with Walther’s position (1869 is the year of publication of the minutes) but none were excommunicated, as far as I know. The synod was very concerned for unanimity on this but there is an acknowledgment that they were not yet agreed on usury:
(Vierzehnter Synodalbericht der Allgemeinen Deutschen Evang.-Luth. Synode, etc., St. Louis, 1869, p. 53). I have found this citation in Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
which also provides the following excerpt from an essay by Walther in Der Lutheraner XXVII (May 1, 1871), 131:
Walther took an uncompromising stand against all taking of interest but he did not consider it an article of faith over which to break fellowship.
Thomas: “Dabitur – I am not persuaded that C. F. W. Walther regarded those who disagreed with his position on usury as “non-Christians in dire need of repentance”.
And I said no such thing. Note I did not paint those that merely disagreed as such, but those that actually practiced the sin, following Walther’s statement that “God Himself here denies eternal salvation to him who practices usury.”
Point taken, on the assumption that the pastors and congregations who disagreed with Walther had no income from interest themselves. Do you agree with Walther? And would you happen to know which reference lies behind “here”?
I don’t know which reference is behind that, but I would love to know. I would guess the Ezekiel passage, but I am not sure.
Yes, I agree with Walther, and I think his quoting of Luther in this article summarises that postion well:
I take it that a swill-belly is not just “someone with appalling table manners” (the only definition I found) but someone who drinks to excess… I am not sure the citation from Luther really sums it up all that well. He writes against those who teach (and practise) that Christians, being saved by grace alone, need not be concerned with ceasing from sin. The quote does not directly address the problem of people persisting in sin which they do not recognise as sin which is the pertinent issue here, as far as I am concerned.
What do you say about people who have been incorporated into Christ, who trust Him for their salvation and the redemption of the world, who by the grace of God are keen to be transformed into Christ through His Spirit, who love God’s word and seek to abide by it in all they do, but who receive interest income from an ordinary bank account without seeing anything wrong with it? Do you mean to say that such people “go to perdition” or do you wish to deny that such people exist (if they truly belonged to Christ, he would have shown them that their profit paves the way to hell)? I am genuinely curious.
As for Ezek. 18, how would you relate this chapter to Deut. 23:20? In your reading, does verse 8 characterise the righteous as those who do not engage in usury except as a means of subjugating a nokri, or as those who do not practice usury at all?
If the latter, you seem to be saying that people sinned in making use of the permission in Deut. 23 and would perish for it or else that the permission was only temporary and no longer applied because God’s war against the nokri was over? (Would Ezra 9:1 be relevant here on the seven-nations interpretation of nokri?)
If the former, you will have to concede that the apparently general and absolute condemnation of usury here and in Ps. 15 comes with the nokri-usury exclusion implied, would you not?
Another quick comment on Matthew Henry who believed that “The matter of usury is here [Deut. 23:19-20] settled.”
On the line of reasoning you pursued above, one could more easily conclude that because we no longer hold our estates “immediately from and under God”, the prohibition no longer applies. Note that Matthew Henry goes on to explain how the combination of divinely allotted division of the land and subsistence economy meant that “for a small matter to insist upon usury would have been very barbarous.”
But the main point at issue is of course what the nokri-exclusion proves. Here he comes without any doubt to a conclusion opposite to the one for which you argue:
Thomas, the distinction that God makes in Dt. 23 regarding usury seems quite clear. To a brother usury may not be charged for any reason. To an alien it may be charged. As you pointed out yourself, the ancient world certainly had the capacity to distinguish between “consumer credit” and “producer credit.” However, that is NOT the distinction that God makes in the text. Had he desired to, he could have stated that quite easily! It does not matter whether your brother is rich or poor, or whether the loan is for food or for means of production, or whether the loan is of money or goods – you may not exact usury from your brother.
Now with regard to the allowance to exact usury from the alien, or so-called “Deuteronomic Double-Standard”, I happen to believe that the exception is no longer valid for Christians. That is what Jerome (340-420), St. Ambrose (340-397), et cetera, et cetera taught with clarity. I may expand on that at a later time but am not particularly inspired to do so here. For if you instead believe that your calling is to subjugate the Turk and the Jew through usurious lending, and that the exception to take usury from the nokri is still valid, then I won’t jump up and down about it. I disagree with it, but that at least would seem to be in accordance with the letter of the law. Earlier teachers such as Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-211/216) taught that one’s “brother” with regards to whom it was categorically prohibited to exact usury from included not only your blood-kinsmen but also your countrymen and co-religionists (agreeing also with Philo and Josephus). Clement did not address the exclusion that I am aware, but he did address the abiding validity of the prohibition to exact usury from the brother as just defined.
To depart from the distinction given by God in the text (brother versus alien) because of a rationale that is imputed to God by us (consumer credit versus producer credit) seems to me to be quite unsteady ground.
To suggest that Ambrose only condemned usury taken from the poor is silly. Ambrose clearly taught a universal prohibition against usury, which was often attacked (it was considered the basic doctrine of the church, those attempting to bring usury into favor had to deal with Ambrose) but only in the ca. 15th/16th century did it seem to fall from its status as the unified position of the Church. Yet per Benjamin Nelson in The Idea of Usury – From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood, “not once during the Entire Middle Ages did anyone approach the contention, which was to become a commonplace of modern exegesis, … that it was legitimate to assume that God meant to supress only the usury taken from the destitute.”
With regard to your question about the average Christians who receive interest income from an ordinary bank account without seeing anything wrong with it, I would see those as venial sins, as Walther and Chemnitz both described non-habitual sins and sins of ignorance. All of us commit those and as Luther says, God forgives us for them daily. He also stated in his explanations of the 95 theses:
Of course, I fail to see how interest from bank accounts can even be defended under your view. A banker takes your money and lends it out to a variety of people, including some of your brethren, for a variety of reasons, including both “consumer credit” and “producer credit.”
I see Ezek. 18 much as the command to not kill. No man is righteous who kills or steals except under the provisions given by God. In the case of killing, they are self-defense, capital punishment, et cetera. In the case of usury, it is the nokri. All usury is in view except what God specifically commanded to be taken. In our time, I do not believe that God has given this command to us, but see my earlier remarks on that. Whether or not the nokri can still be subjugated through usury would in no way lend credence to the idea that what God was really saying was that you can get usury on producer credit but not on consumer credit.
Regarding the Matthew Henry quote, it sounds like you are taking me to task for conflating the effect with the intent. Yet, did I not admit as much in my original comment? I have no whit of concern that his conclusions, following Calvin’s errors, are virtually the opposite of my own.
The quote by Basil you mentioned is highly applicable to us today:
Basil well describes the wicked man, who is not unlike many Christians today with funds scuttled away on CD’s and debt securities. Any kind of loan between Christians is quite rare in my experience, I simply have rarely seen it even though it is commanded to us to lend freely. We claim to have nothing to lend, and so our brothers are mortgaged while we get a kickback from the moneylenders on our savings accounts and investments in usury-ridden financial institutions. Is it not like the Pharisees who ducked their duty to provide for their parents by telling them that they gave their money to the church. Its worse in fact.
The use of “interest”, at least by the medieval period, was not always used the way we use it. It could refer to profits from a joint venture, an interest in earnings from a business according to capital invested, rather than interest on a loan. I do not know how Basil meant it specifically.
A few corrections, clarifications, and observations: (1) I have argued that the distinction between brother-loan and nokri-loan would have largely coincided with the distinction between charitable and business loan. But I have made allowance for the fact that the terms “consumer credit” and “producer credit” do not fully capture this. I have never claimed that the text allows for interest-bearing business loans among Israelites.
(2) I am not happy with the term “Deuteronomic Double-Standard” because for me it implies that different standards are applied to different people for no other reason than their being different (outsiders). This may follow from your interpretation of Deut. 23 but it is not true on my understanding of the text. I believe there are different standards because the situations in view are actually quite different.
(3) You know fully well that I do not believe that it is my calling “to subjugate the Turk and the Jew through usurious lending.” I have repeatedly pointed out that this interpretation of Deut. 23 is erroneous. It is not “in accordance with the letter of the law” because the Torah speaks of the nokri, not of the enemy of God.
(4) For the same reason, “To depart from the distinction given by God in the text (brother versus alien) because of a rationale that is imputed to God by us (consumer credit versus producer credit) seems to me to be quite unsteady ground” is polemic which ignores my arguments rather than answers them. I have sought to take the setting into account and to discern from Scripture itself who the nokri is. You have imputed a meaning to the term nokri which it does not have.
(5) As for Ambrose, you simply ignore my citation. I did not mean to imply that the church fathers happily condoned business loans but I note that their condemnation of usury is in the context of lending to someone in need. I have found later writers condemning business loans. Bishop Jewel explicitly rejects the rich lending to the rich and the merchant lending to the merchant in his Exposition upon the Epistles to the Thessalonians (published 1583, but written some time before 1571), see W. J. Ashley, An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, Part 2, p. 468. But I wonder whether we have anything similar in patristic literature. Maybe you can help out with references?
(6) As for Ezek. 18, we seem to be agreed in principle except for our different understandings of what constitutes a nokri-loan.
(7) As for Matthew Henry, he came into the discussion only as an easy way to prove that my interpretation is at least 300 years old. Both his interpretation of nokri, which was the point at issue, and the conclusion he draws from it (“the effect”) are opposite to yours and therefore your earlier claim that his view could easily be taken as in agreement with yours is simply wrong.
(8) As for the economic self-interest of “many Christians today,” there is much agreement between us.
(9) I found the admission in your last paragraph about the different meanings of “interest” astonishing – more on this in another post.