Found this passage interesting in The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses, W. W. Davies, 1905. From the Code of Hammurabi:
49. If a man have taken money from a merchant, and have given [as security] the merchant an arable field, to be planted in grain or sesame, and have said to him, Plant grain or sesame in the fiels and take the crop; if the cultivator produce grain or sesame in the field, then at harvest the grain or sesame that the field has produced shall be the property of the owner of the field, and he shall pay grain for the money he received from the merchant, and for the interest and for the support of the renter.
Davies adds this commentary:
We know, from other inscriptions, that interest, amounting to what would now be regarded as usury, was charged in ancient Babylonia. The rate, as a rule, was 11 2/3 or 13 1/3 per cent, though same tablets record interest at 20 per cent. Interest was often paid in money, but quite commonly in grain, fruit, or vegetables. The contracting of debt was regarded by the Hebrew law as a misfortune; consequently those having anything to lend were exhorted to be generous. We read:
If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him usury. (Ex. 22:25)
It must be noticed, however, that the Hebrews made a distinction between a native Israelite and a foreigner, in money-lending matters; for we further read:
Thou shalt not lend on usury to thy brother, usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent on usury; unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend on usury. (Deut. 23:19, 20.)
The reader must bear in mind that the work usury is employed here, as everywhere in the Old Testament, as the exact synonym of interest, and therefore should never be regarded as an excessive rate of interest. Driver observes, very justly, that Hebrew legislation, in condemning interest on anything lent, agrees perfectly with the thinkers of Greece and Rome, as well as those of the early Christian Church. The fact, however, is, that it was very uncommon in ancient times to borrow money simply for the sake of speculation, or mere investment in some business project. A clear-cut distinction should be made between the ancient charitable loan and the modern commercial loan. Our Savior, though acquainted with purely commercial loans, did not speak in unmeasured terms of condemnation. (See Matt. 25:27ff.) Nor must we think that it was ever a general practice among the Jews to receive no interest, accept no pledges, or demand no security. Indeed, we know that debtors were sold (for a limited period) as slaves. (See 2 Kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 50:1.) The seventh year, the so-called year of release, is known to us all. (See Deut. 15:1-6; and Ex. 21:2.)
Davies correctly observes that the words usury and interest are employed as synomyms in the Old Testament, rather than usury being “excessive interest” . It is also interesting to consider Davies’ remark, written in 1905, that the Bablyonian rates of interest (anywhere from 11 to 20 per cent) “would now be regarded as usury.” Today those rates are common – we sometimes hear complaints about interest rates being “too high”, but almost never regarded as usurious, except perhaps from someone using the term in the pejorative sense for rhetorical affect.
However, even after noting that the “Hebrew legislation” condemns interest on anything lent, Davies makes a couple arguments in favor of the legitimacy of usury today, by asserting that (1) God’s law only had charitable loans in view, not commercial lending, and furthermore that (2) Jesus addressed commercial lending without “unmeasured” condemnation.
In support of assertion (1), Davies states that “it was very uncommon in ancient times to borrow money simply for the sake of speculation, or mere investment in some business project. A clear-cut distinction should be made between the ancient charitable loan and the modern commercial loan.” While perhaps not as common as today, loans for speculation and investment were not unknown, and by no means “very uncommon” – at least among pagan peoples dating back to the code of Hammurabi and during the time period of the Exodus when God gave his law to Israel through Moses. In fact, the code of Hammurabi (circa 1700 B.C.) addresses such loans, even in the passage being commented upon. Loans from “merchants” by definition are properly classified as “commercial lending” and not “charitable loans”.
Furthermore while there is nothing improper about making a distinction between commercial lending and a charitable loan, that distinction must be proper. The Old Testament law was given to Moses at a time when commercial lending had been practiced in societies for at least several hundred years. Yet that law condemned all interest without exception as to the type of loan, the only exception being that of lending to foreigners. Not only that, but after the Israelites spent time in captivity in Babylon, where such commercial lending was commonplace, and brought usurious practices back with them, God addressed them clearly and forcefully through his prophets, not making any exceptions. The only distinction that can be derived from God’s law between commercial lending upon usury and charitable loans without usury is that the former are condemned and the latter are required.
Davies argues that it was not ever “a general practice among the Jews to receive no interest, accept no pledges, or demand no security.” But while the Scriptures indeed provide for pledges and security, Davies can offer no support that they ever received interest – excepting those times when they were rebuked for disobeying God! His grouping of interest with pledges and security is unsupported and misleading.
In support of assertion (2), Davies states that “Our Savior, though acquainted with purely commercial loans, did not speak in unmeasured terms of condemnation. (See Matt. 25:27ff.)” This is patently false, and we actually find in the gospels that not only did Jesus emphatically affirm the abiding validity of God’s law as given in the Old Testament, he also specifically and categorically condemned the practice of receiving interest upon bank deposits, one of the most commonly accepted forms of usury practiced in modern times. The reader is encouraged to peruse the discussion of this passage at the following link: A Warped View of Christ.
Davies’ incorrect view of usury is very similar to the view which would be later argued by Gary North. Some discussion between North and S. C. Mooney can be found here. Additionally, we recommend Mooney’s brief primer on the topic which can be purchased here.
