# Usury and Interest



## Blue Tick (Nov 10, 2006)

I need some clarification on this subject.

Can anyone educate me about usury and interest? What's the primary difference and is it lawful for a Christian to capitalize on sales that gain a profit via interest.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 10, 2006)

My belief is that the payment of interest is morally acceptable, and I think that the Mosaic prohibition of such no longer applies for two reasons:

First, the Law allowed money to be lent at interest to foreigners. This implies that lending at interest is not necessarily opposed to the moral law - an Israelite could not, for example, steal from a foreigner, or compel him to work on the Sabbath. A strict Theonomist, however, would have to prohibit ursuary, if they were to universally apply the civil law. This seems, to me, to present a problem for the Theonomist - if they were to universally apply the Law it would require the prohibition of ursuary with anyone, even though the Law itself specifically allows it with a particular group of people. They may, of course, have a way around this dilemma that I haven't seen. 

Second, the buying and selling of land and slaves - capital goods which had to be restored to their original owners at a future point of time - could be used to establish a de facto system of interest rates, unless a strictly proportional set of prices was used - ie. a slave with 7 years to serve costs 7X silver pieces, one with 6 years left costs 6X pieces and so forth. By charging 7X in the first case and more than 6X in the second one could discount the future value of the slave. I don't see anything in the Law requiring this kind of strict pricing proportionality.

Also, practically, we have gone from a gold and silver monetary system to an inflationary fiat money system* - I am not sure that someone lending money for a year should be forced to accept only 90% or 97% of the value back. That said, I do think that interest free loans should be the primary method of assisting the poor within our churches, perhaps with interest only charged in times of very high inflation. 

*A mistake in and of itself.


----------



## bob (Nov 10, 2006)

In modern vernacular, usury refers to the practice of charging interest, especially at an excessively high (illegal) rate of interest. The original meaning of the word, as you find it used in the KJV, refers simply to the charging of interest on something borrowed.

It is my opinion that it is wrong for the believer to loan out his money and goods upon usury. While this view is rare within the modern church, there was a time when the church took a more biblical view in regard to charging interest by eschewing the practice altogether.

In Exodus 22 and Lev 25, the nation of Israel was commanded to not charge interest to any that were poor. In Deuteronomy 23, Israel was commanded not to charge interest to any of those within commonwealth, but they were allowed to charge interest to the stranger outside the gate. This allowance is the only positive (if such it could be called) consideration of usury that the Scriptures record. The very root word signifies "to bite" and as the borrower is the lender's slave, it is my opinion that this permission was to be considered a form of warfare designed to suppress and dominate the pagan nations.

To desire to profit off your countrymen was a great sin. David described those who could rightly be in God's tabernacle and dwell in His holy hill as those who did not put out there money to usury. Solomon observe that he who gathers increase by way of usury gathers if for someone who will pity the poor. Nehemiah scorned those who were charging a hundredth part of usury to their brethren.

The church fathers condemned the use of usury. Luther remarked: " But a usurer and miser-belly desires that the entire world be ruined in order that there be hunger, thirst, misery, and need so that he can have everything and so that everyone must depend upon him and be his slave as if he were God."

It was not until the rise of trade and capitalism did churchmen begin to cast usury in a positive light, usually distinguishing between private loans and commercial loans. Volumes have been written on the subject and it would be unfair to categorize the viewpoints in a paragraph, but essentially it was argued that the law of love would not be trampled by loaning for business purposes as it would give some a chance to expand and succeed where they could not before. And if they should succeed by our gesture, why not receive compensation for the use of our goods?

In the last 100 years, the amount of debt has reached to staggering levels. No longer does the church endorse merely business loans, but endorses for the most part the free exchange of both borrowing and lending money at interest, seemingly without discrimination. I have known believers to lend money at interest to other believers, even fathers to their own children. Perhaps we fail to see the wicked task master that these loans are. We are to labor with our hands in order to obtain that what we need. How can we say that we love our neighbor when we are willing to lend him money so that he can sustain his needs (or meet the demands of his coveteousness) and demand it back with an additional amount besides?

It's my belief that this usurious economy of ours will ultimately play a major factor in destroying the economy of this nation. Both the citizen and the magistrate are indebted beyond imagination. Many believers have so many taskmasters that they have nothing left over to help support and sustain the gospel or to help their fellowman. The sheer ability to raise money by way of usurious loan has played a tremendous role in diminishing the church's obligations to love and care for one another. Why pay for our brother's hospital bill? He can just put in on his Visa and pay it off himself.

By way of application, I strive to make my income by the labor of my hand rather than expecting the sweat equity of my neighbor to increase it for me. Some years ago I opted to pull money out of a mutual fund and try to keep my money when I have some in accounts where it is not drawing interest. I don't want my money used by a bank so that they can give a loan to some poor family that has need of a transportation so that dad can get to work.

I only know personally a couple individuals that have views similar to mine. While I have taught on the subject in our church, the majority of folks have not embraced such a stringent view. I am patient in such things and hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will show them that much of supposed prosperity of this nation and its economy is mere glitter and that perhaps they will begin to hope for better things for themselves, their brethren, and their country men.


----------



## bob (Nov 10, 2006)

Timothy,

Why not just give to the poor and expect nothing in return?

Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil."

If we are to lend to our enemies hoping for nothing return, why should we not graciously give and do good as we have opportunity, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

The reason we are to labor with our hands is so that we have something with which to give. John Piper said something to the effect that God blesses our labor "not to increase our standard of living, but to increase our standard of giving."


----------



## satz (Nov 10, 2006)

I agree with Timothy that there is nothing inherently immoral about interest. I believe that the restrictions on interest in the Law of Moses are part of the civil regulations for the nation of Israel. They still apply to teach principles to Christians today, but I believe their current application is some what akin to the prohibition in 1 Cor 6 against taking a brother before a civil court – they teach principles of charity and self sacrifice, but are not meant to prohibit totally the legitimate use of usury. 

I am not sure the allowance for charging usury to foreigners can be seen as some kind of ‘warfare on them’. Remember that Israel was not to vex or oppress a stranger (Ex 22:21, 23:9) Yet they were allowed to lend at usury to strangers (Deut 23:20) which indicates that usury is not a inherently oppressive or immoral thing. I think it is important to remember that there are different kinds of foreigners under consideration in the Law of Moses. It was the nations of Canaan that Israel was to be at war with. But that declaration did not extend to all nations. Israel was not to oppress Egyptians due to their former time in their land. Solomon later made a league with the nation of Tyre (1 Kings 5) and the Lord blessed that. 

The Israelites were forbidden charging usury to the poor and to their kinsmen, but were allowed to charge it to others. The sin under consideration here is selfish covetousness that tries to exploit those in need, or those you should be extending brotherly love to. I do not see the mere act of lending money at interest condemned. 

No doubt debt is a huge problem today, both personally and nationally, but I maintain that the abuse of a thing does not condemn its legitimate use. 

If a brother in need wants to borrow money, a Christian should loan him the money at no interest: why would he try to make an extra buck of his brother? But that says nothing about lending at usury in considered transactions like business deals or lending to the bank. I would not feel any guilt if I put my money in a bank and it was subsequently lent to a poor person at interest. To me the situation is no different from trading with an unbeliever than wondering if that unbeliever will put the money you gave him to some sinful use. Yet Paul explicitly allowed trading with unbelievers (1 Cor 10). If the poor brother approached me personally than if God helps me I would lend without interest, or even without expectation of return. And if I was aware of the brother’s situation I would offer said financial aid. But the possibility that your funds might be misused by the bank is simply part of living in a sinful world.

Also, if we deem all usury to be inherently sinful, than all rent is condemned as well, whether for houses, land or items for what is usury but rent paid for the use of money? I am not making a logical argument against the word of God. I do not, in the first place see how God’s word condemns the proper use of usury.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 10, 2006)

Bob,

you raise many good points, and I am not sure where to start, so my reply will be somewhat haphazard. First, if we believe the injunction against lending at interest to still be binding due to our our understanding of the use of the Law, then it is binding, and no amount of economic reasoning will change that. I am not sufficiently theologically educated to make the case that it is or it isn't binding, though as I indicated above I am of the opinion that it isn't. For the rest of this post I will assume that it isn't, though I am willing to consider arguments to the contrary.


We should all be more generous, I think it is shameful that some in the church have much yet they make no real effort to help their brother in Christ. I have sat through prayer meetings where a family in severe financial hardship is prayed for, God's blessing upon them is requested, yet no one made any effort to give or loan them money (somone might have done so privately of course, but it is really a task the church through the deacons should help with.) Sometimes it seems we can ask for any practical, spiritual or emotional help, except for money, which remains the great taboo. 

"Why not just give to the poor and expect nothing in return?"

This depends on whether give means give or means lend and do not expect interest. I think it Luke 6:35 recommends both. It is up to our judgment which is the wiser course of action; I was once at a church where a man had difficulty attending for a month or so because he could not afford to register his car. This involved a large upfront annual payment, which he could afford spread out over the year, but not all at once. Here was a clear case where lending, without interest, would be beneficial, to someone who didn't need to be simply given the money. On the other hand, if a homeless person needed money immediately, for basic needs, and had no obvious ability to repay a loan, it would be foolish to loan rather than give money. 

It is not usually a choice between say, loaning $100 and giving $100, it could just as easily be loaning $1000 or giving $100. We have to use wisdom to determine which is more beneficial - I think there is a reason Jesus mentioned both. We should be more generous in both to the Body of Christ than to the world at large, but that need not rule out either method of financial assistance. Often, lending has far less taboo attached to it, and those who would never stoop to asking for a gift will ask for a loan. BTW, great quote from Piper. 

Regarding lending outside the church, to those who are not in dire financial straits, I think interest on loans is fully justified. 

"The desire to profit from your countrymen was a great sin." First, define profit. If you mean a financial transaction in which I expect to benefit, this applies to _every_ transaction. I go to work because the wages I will earn are worth more to me than giving up my leisure time, while my employer values my labour more than my wages. When I purchase $20 of grocerys, I demonstrate that I prefer the grocerys to the $20, while the supermarket prefers the $20 to keeping the grocerys. We both profit, though neither at the expense of the other. 

The same applies to lending money. If I lend you money for one year at 10% interest, I show that I prefer 110% in a year to 100% now, you show that you prefer the 100% now. Both of us expect to profit. That is all we know. We might speculate as to who has more power in the relationship, about who gains more from the trade relative to their initial position, but we do not know. Lending at interest seems bad because it looks like benefiting from doing nothing. The wealth of those with money grows without them doing anything. This is misleading. In order to lend at interest they must do two things: they must aquire the money in the first place, usually through their own work, but also through other legitimate means such as inheritance. Then, most importantly, they must delay their consumption, investing their money rather than spending it. This is, indeed, doing something: it is choosing to forego legitimate consumption now, in favour of consumption later. Those who lend money are doing something very valuable, they are choosing not to consume now in favour of allowing others to consume now, and their is no reason why they should not be rewarded later for doing so. The "they benefit from doing nothing" argument runs into a contradiction; it assumes that money now is worth no more than money later, so it is unfair to trade them other than at a 1:1 ratio, but it also assumes that a group of people (usually falsely designated "the poor") will be willing to give up more money later for money now. If this were true, there would be no reason to exhort those with money to lend, for what they were giving (money now) would be of no more value than what they received (money later). It would be as absurd as me simultaneously claiming that goods x and y were of equal value, and demanding that you give me x in exchange for y as a matter of generosity on your part. Whatever I say, my actions show clearly that I value x over y. 

One cannot earn money simply by the labour of their hands. All labour must be mixed with capital in order to produce something. It might be my labour and my employer's capital, but it is still labour and capital. If my employer purchases a machine and inputs for $1000, pays me wages of $1000, and sells the resulting goods for $2500, he has profited by $500 (assume no risk was involved). Have I been exploited? I would say not. Yet he has gained without using his own labour. To him the same process has occured as lending at interest - he has started with $2000, invested it, and ended up with $2500. Prohibiting interest fully and properly, in practice not just in theory, would result in the end of workers being hired, the only acceptable employment would be the self employed combining their own labour and capital, or partnerships where each partner invested proportional amounts of labour and capital. Even my labour is not pure labour, it is labour combined with rather expensive education, aquired over decades, in the expectation of a future payoff - so to speak of earning money solely by one's current labour is rather simplistic. 

Preventing lending at interest would cause the long term concentration of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy. Those who have sufficient wealth to run viable businesses would make money, and would enjoy great profit margins on capital-intensive production. Those with less wealth could neither borrow to run a business, nor save their money effectively with the hope of becoming richer. Contrary to popular belief, those who benefit most are the poorest, those with very little cash, who are employees without the skills or finance to run their own business. Saving what they can and investing for a profit is the best way for them to escape poverty. The modern welfare state has largely removed the incentive for poor people to save, but it has traditionally been the method by which the poor became less poor. I remember in an economic history class studying the parallel development of the US and Mexico in the 1800s; America allowed free access to banking, and ended up with a wide and growing distribution of wealth, while in Mexico, access to credit was severly restricted, and those who had wealth became wealthier - in comparable industries the concentration of ownership, and the market share of the largest companies, was far higher in Mexico, leading to supernormal profits through oligopolistic charging of higher prices to consumers and paying lower wages to workers. 

Many people, and many governments, get themselves into debts that they would be better to avoid. Most economists agree that we would be better off if we saved more individually and if governments didn't run deficits. But the existance of lending at interest is not what causes people to overspend or get themselves into debt. Those Christians who cannot afford to help their fellow man because they must pay interest on debts, did they aquire their debts because in the past they gave money away too generously, or because they spent it on their own pleasures and status symbols? Usually the latter. So the problem is not that they have exchanged money now for money in the past, but that when they did have money they spent it on themselves. The problem is not one of lending at interest, but unwise spending when thay do spend money. The ability to borrow makes them think they are richer than they are. They need to be told to curb their spending, to be more generous when they do spend.



bob said:


> Timothy,
> 
> Why not just give to the poor and expect nothing in return?
> 
> ...


----------



## bob (Nov 12, 2006)

Timothy,

I understand that there are various views as to how the Mosaic law should be applied under the terms of the New Covenant. While I tend to lead toward a theonomistic view of the law of sorts, the issue of usury/interest must still be considered in light of what the Scriptures teach. All Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Even if we dismiss the the Mosaic law as binding upon us as saints, we should at least consider why the use of usury was prohibited in Israel. All of the law was hinged upon the two great commandments, that is, to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we are to choose to become usurers, we must ascertain as to whether we can do so and not violate the specific texts in the Scriptures that deal with the subject as well as deciding whether or not we can in love charge our neighbor usury.

Henry Smith, in his sermon "An examination of Usury in Two Sermons" mentions: "Sin is never complete until it be excused: this is the vantage which the devil getteth by every sin, whensoever he can fasten any temptation upon us, we give him a sin for it, and and excuse to boot, as Adam our father did. First, he sinned, and then he excused, so first we sin; and then we excuse: first an usurer, anbd then an excuser. Therfore every usuruer will defend usury with his tongue, though he condemn it with his conscience. If the image makers of Ephesus had not lived by images, they would have spoken for images no more than the rest: for none stood for images bu the image makers, so if the userer did not live by usury, they would speak for usury no more than the rest, for not stand for usury but userers."

(If you wish to read Smith's sermon, you can find it here:

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/SCETI/PrintedBooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=smith_usury&PagePosition=1[/URL]

In the sense of an exchange, it is not wrong to profit from one's neighbor or the saints. I work as a carpenter and a cabinet maker and I make my living providing goods and services. The laborer is worthy of his hire and the design of selling a good is to make a profit.

The problem I see is that with loaning money with interest, we are not exchanging consumable goods. If I sell you a table for $500 or trade it for a half of a beef, perhaps I am able to profit. The exchange is complete as soon as we agree with the terms and complete the transaction. When we loan money on interest, one thing is given but not for an exchange, but rather for an obligation; that is, to be paid back the thing lent with interest. Is it not true that the Scriptures state "that the borrower is the lender's slave."

This is where I view the use of usury as problematic. Until the time in which the person is able to pay off the loan, he is in bondage to us. Under modern day loan language, the borrower does not technicaly own the thing bought until the loan is paid in full. This severely hinders and handicaps the borrower and puts him at great risk until he meets the demands of the contract. The loan is only accentuated by the requirement of interest. If he does not have the money to buy something in the first place, how should we reasonably believe that he will come up with the money in the first place? What happens if he becomes sick?

I think it is wrong to be willing to enslave our neighbor and to desire to gain at his expense. It is not wrong to desire to make money, but we should do it with fair exchange, laboring with our hands to receive increase. In the case of usury, we sit still and do nothing while our servants work by the sweat of their brow to pay us back our increase. I believe such practices fly in the face of loving our neigbhors.


----------



## satz (Nov 12, 2006)

> I think it is wrong to be willing to enslave our neighbor and to desire to gain at his expense. It is not wrong to desire to make money, but we should do it with fair exchange, laboring with our hands to receive increase. In the case of usury, we sit still and do nothing while our servants work by the sweat of their brow to pay us back our increase. I believe such practices fly in the face of loving our neigbhors.



Bob,

By this reasoning, would you say it is wrong to rent a house or some other item to someone? After all the landlord is not doing any work but taking a rent payment from his tenants. It seems to me that the bible does not say there is anything wrong with even a true master - slave relationship, since those were sanctioned under the civil laws of Israel. It is how the master treats his servants or slaves that makes the relationship either just or unjust.

As another observation, the Parable of the Talents is, if I am not wrong, one of the more debated passages of scripture regarding the propriety of usury. Most of the debate centers around the Master's final words to the lazy servant and whether those were meant to condemn or condone the idea of giving the Master's money out to the money lenders' to earn interest. Leaving aside that controversy though, the very act of the Master in leaving his servants the talents is comparable to lending at interest. He gives his servants his talents and leaves, while expecting them to to have increased those talents by putting them to good use by the time he returns. It seems to me this is in principle no different from the practice of lending at interest, as the Master gives the servants something that is his for a time, and expects them to enlarge on that thing for his benefit in his absence.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 13, 2006)

Bob,

Thankyou for your reply, I was hoping someone would reply to my earlier post. This is an important topic, and one that deserves more attention than it usually receives. Many Christians are too casual with our application of OT case laws. Again, you raise good points - I will read the sermon you cited when I have time. 

I agree, we must decide both that lending at interest is permitted under God's moral commands as shown in both the Old and New Testaments, and that it is loving to our neighbour to charge him interest, before we lend at interest. Again, I will only address the latter of these points directly, though I am willing to entertain arguments relating to the former. 

Unfortunately I am not sure that you have introduced anything new which I didn't cover in my previous post. 



> The problem I see is that with loaning money with interest, we are not exchanging consumable goods. If I sell you a table for $500 or trade it for a half of a beef, perhaps I am able to profit. The exchange is complete as soon as we agree with the terms and complete the transaction. When we loan money on interest, one thing is given but not for an exchange, but rather for an obligation; that is, to be paid back the thing lent with interest. Is it not true that the Scriptures state "that the borrower is the lender's slave."



Yes, the borrower is the lender's slave - whether or not interest is charged. The employee is the employer's slave, for the hours he is employed. The businessman, the tradesman etc who uses his own capital and labour is slave to the consumer - if he does not supply the products they want at prices they are willing to pay he will lose money. The one who rents a house is slave to the owner - if he cannot pay the rent he becomes homeless. We should consider seriously whether or not getting into debt is a good idea, especially those who desire to serve God in their employment as ministers of the gospel, for debts can trap one in high paying secular employment. We should also consider, before lending to someone, whether or not it is in their interest for us to lend to them - this applies whether or not it is at interest. 

That said, I think your analysis is faulty. In both cases, a trade which is completed now and a trade which is completed at some point in the future, an exchange is made. In one case money or goods now are exchanged for goods now, in the other, money or goods now are exchanged for money or goods later. Both exchanges invovle obligations, though the period in which the obligations must be filled varies. 

Which of the following situations would you think would be morally wrong:
a) you agree to give me a half of beef now, in exchange for a specified weight of wheat in 6 months when the harvest comes in.
b) you agree to give me a half of beef in 6 months, in exchange for a specified weight of wheat in 6 months; this way we can both plan our production now as I know to grow more wheat and you know to raise more beef rather than killing cattle now.
c) we agree to swap a half of beef now for a measure of wheat now.
d) you loan me some wheat now so I can plant my fields which will otherwise stay fallow, I pay you back with a larger portion of wheat in 6 months
e) you lend me some money to buy wheat now, I pay you back with a specified amount of wheat in 6 months.
f) you agree to purchase a specified amount of wheat at a specified price from me in 6 months time; again, I can then plan my sowing of crops more accurately, you can better plan your household budget. 
g) I decide not to sell part of my wheat now, instead I will plant it so I have more to sell in 6 months. 

or: you give me a specified amount of money now, I give you a higher amount in 6 months time. 

Considered individually, which of these is necessarily immoral, and why? (I also had points h) to o) regarding employment, but decided not to include them.) 

I think it comes down to two points, is it necessarily unloving for me to lend to you at interest, in the sense that it will always make you worse off? And if not, is it necessarily wrong to profit from capital without using your own labour?

Regarding the first, the answer is clearly "no". Otherwise, it would logically follow that everyone who borrowed money at interest would have been better off not doing so. This cannot explain why so many people and businesses voluntarily enter into debt. It is easy to think of a situation where someone is better off for being able to borrow; for example, a business which borrows a certain amount of money for new equipment and is able to use it to generate more income and pay the loan with money left over, or a student who takes a loan for graduate school and, after paying $20,000 in fees, earns $25,000 extra per year.

Regarding the second, I think biblically and logically we must also decide in the negative. As Satz indicated, Bible characters own lands and profit by lending them out, they expect a share of the harvest, even though they have not worked for it, and they are not condemned for doing so. Natural interest rates occur in production everywhere, even aside from trade between people; if I plant a field, I must wait for the harvest, if I harvest grapes and produce wine, I can have wine in 4 years time or better wine in 12 years for no extra effort - their is a natural interest rate which is implied by the means of production quite aside from inter-human trade. I won't go over the argument again, but it is impossible to produce anything from raw labour, it must always be mixed with some form of capital, that is some form of previously foregone consumption.

We are all naturally repelled by seeing the rich grow richer as the poor work hard and stay poor. But we must consider carefully whether or not the proposed solutions will do anything to actually inprove the lot of the poor. It is easy to fall into the same error as those who condemn Third World sweatshops - to see a problem and propose a solution which would kick the poor out of a job, or stop more poor people from getting jobs, and forcing them back into absolute poverty. Yes, we could always be more generous - but that applies to everyone, in every sphere of life, both sides in any transaction could be more generous to the other. Attempts to force people to be more generous tend to backfire badly.


----------



## bob (Nov 13, 2006)

> By this reasoning, would you say it is wrong to rent a house or some other item to someone? After all the landlord is not doing any work but taking a rent payment from his tenants. It seems to me that the bible does not say there is anything wrong with even a true master - slave relationship, since those were sanctioned under the civil laws of Israel. It is how the master treats his servants or slaves that makes the relationship either just or unjust



You ask a fair question. I think there are many that believe that if usury is wrong the concept of renting an item to some is wrong as well. I am more unsettled on the issue of rent. A simplistic approach notes that the Scriptures say that the righteous do not lend with usury, so for now this is about as far as I take the issue. While some of the principles could apply to the issue of renting by logical extension, I am not sure if the concept of renting a property is synonymous with lending at usury.

In regard to the parable, I understand that its interpretation is debated. I understand the parable to again strike at the heart of the usury. 

The fact that money was given to the lord's stewards is not synonymous with lend with interest. They were commanded to occupy, that is, to buy, sell, trade, and to try to net a profit on the money that their master had given to them. There is nothing wrong trying to use what God has given to us and try to make a profit. This is what should be expected by those who are laboring with their hands.




> For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?



The wicked servant slanders his master in trying to justify his sloth, describing him as a harsh and rough man by manner who takes what is not his and reaps what he has not sown. This is a precise biblical description of the usurer and the accusations are to be considered as unfair and unjust.

The master will condemn his servant then by his own mouth. "If I am as you say, a harsh man who takes what is not is own, reaping what he has not sown, you are still at fault, for then you should have used my money and become a usurer - conduct compliant with the man you have described."

Do you think that there are any moral principles underscoring the Mosaic commands against lending with usury among the brethren?


----------



## bob (Nov 13, 2006)

> Which of the following situations would you think would be morally wrong:



I'll answer these questions according to my understanding of the Scriptures in their entirety, not merely according the Mosaic prohibitions against usury. 



> a) you agree to give me a half of beef now, in exchange for a specified weight of wheat in 6 months when the harvest comes in.



I would agree with this arrangement, understanding that it is presumptuous on your part to assume that you will in fact have the wheat available in six months. I would take the wheat in exchange if you obtain it. If your crop fails and you have no wheat to meet the demands of your oath, Christian charity would compel me to suffer the loss.



> b) you agree to give me a half of beef in 6 months, in exchange for a specified weight of wheat in 6 months; this way we can both plan our production now as I know to grow more wheat and you know to raise more beef rather than killing cattle now.



Well, I don't see any moral issues around the discussion of a future exchange. This happens frequently in my work as a carpenter - agreeing to do a specified job for a bid price beginning at a particular date. When we make such arrangement, we try not to foolishly presume upon the future, so we write in our contracts that our prices our based upon current markets and that increases in material costs will be reflected on the final bill. 



> c) we agree to swap a half of beef now for a measure of wheat now


.

This is lawful exchange.



> d) you loan me some wheat now so I can plant my fields which will otherwise stay fallow, I pay you back with a larger portion of wheat in 6 months



Sounds like you are having hard times. I'd personally probably just give you the wheat and tell you to take the crop and meet your needs! I don't think it would be wrong for me to accept an equal amount of wheat in return, but certainly wouldn't enter into this arrangement requiring you to pay me back a larger portion of wheat then what I gave. 



> e) you lend me some money to buy wheat now, I pay you back with a specified amount of wheat in 6 months.


f)

I would agree to this, providing the amount of wheat was an equal exchange. There again, growing crops is a risky venture and if your crop failed, I would take the loss rather than to require something else from you.



> f) you agree to purchase a specified amount of wheat at a specified price from me in 6 months time; again, I can then plan my sowing of crops more accurately, you can better plan your household budget.



same as b



> g) I decide not to sell part of my wheat now, instead I will plant it so I have more to sell in 6 months.



If I want wheat, I'll check in with you in 6 months!



> We are all naturally repelled by seeing the rich grow richer as the poor work hard and stay poor. But we must consider carefully whether or not the proposed solutions will do anything to actually inprove the lot of the poor. It is easy to fall into the same error as those who condemn Third World sweatshops - to see a problem and propose a solution which would kick the poor out of a job, or stop more poor people from getting jobs, and forcing them back into absolute poverty. Yes, we could always be more generous - but that applies to everyone, in every sphere of life, both sides in any transaction could be more generous to the other. Attempts to force people to be more generous tend to backfire badly




Well, I do have issues with the sweat shops! 

Our duty before God is to love God with all of our heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our duty as believers is to fear God and keep His commandments. We can always find a reason and an answer to justify the sinful measures and practices that man props up. I suppose the owner of the brothel house might truly be glad that his ladies are able to make some decent money, perhaps even justifying his lot in life by acknowledging that they are making more than they could anywhere else. This does nothing to change that this is an abomination before God.

If we are able to buy cheap goods by means of taking advantage and abusing the poor, we should acknowledge that this is loathsome before the face of God rather than justifying it because we like cheap goods and patting ourselves on the back for at leasting casting a few cents to the impoverished.




> But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right.... He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD


.

I don't have any issues with lending and acknowledge, as you stated, that some can benefit from being able to borrow, but as I consider all of the negative passages pertaining lending with usury, I just cannot in good money lend at interest.

As I consider my neighbor and to a greater extent my countrymen, it is to my gain and advantage to see him prosper and flourish. If I have an abundance of goods and you desire to open up a cabinet shop, I will be happy to lend you some money so you can open up. If you are able to thrive and pay me back what I have given, fine, but I'm going to lend not demanding upon injury payment in full and I am not going to take more than what I have given. It is to my advantage to see another business spring up in my community. Why should we not desire to our neighbor prosper rather than desire to prosper of him?

Others have commented that it should be assumed that we can receive interestto pay back what we have losed via inflation. The whole problem with an usurious money system is that it is impossible to have a money system that is based upon fair weights and just measures. If our country used silver and gold as a mean of reckoning, the use of interest would become impossible, because it would be impossible to add to the money supply. In other words, if the community has a net of 100 piececs of God and it was all being lent with interest, it would be impossible for the borrower to pay it back, because there is simply not enough in circulation. 

Our own curency, through reserve banking and usurious lending, has degenerated into a inflationary currency that is intrinsically valueless. It looks good as we we see the fine homes and vehicles that it has supplies us with, but I suspect, considering that I think it is sinfully flawed, that one day the entire system will come crashing down and we will be forced to sarcastically acknowledge, "Wow, I guess that worked!"


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

There were some previous threads on this same topic...

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=12724

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=5046


----------



## satz (Nov 14, 2006)

Hi Bob, 

Thanks for your replies. Just some of my thoughts. I am quite busy now, so forgive me if there are typos or mistakes.

Regarding the Parable, I actually think it is impossible to derive a doctrine of usury from it, as the Lord’s primary point in that parable was a spiritual application. As an example, the final part of the parable could be interpreted this way as well:

The slothful servant tells his master he was ‘afraid’ and had hidden his sole talent in the earth. This indicates he seems to have been fearful of the master’s reaction should he lose that talent. The master replies that if you were really so afraid of me, and knew that I was such a ‘hard man’ you should at least have put the money out for interest so I would receive _something_ in the end, instead of having done nothing with it.

In the end, I do not believe it is possible to decide 100% either way as teaching financial ethics was not the primary purpose of the parable. 

Regarding usury, I would still maintain the point I made in my first post in this thread that the allowance made for Israel to lend at usury to strangers, combined with the prohibition against oppressing strangers shows that usury is not in itself oppressive or sinful. 



> The fact that money was given to the lord's stewards is not synonymous with lend with interest. They were commanded to occupy, that is, to buy, sell, trade, and to try to net a profit on the money that their master had given to them. There is nothing wrong trying to use what God has given to us and try to make a profit. This is what should be expected by those who are laboring with their hands.



My point has been that lending at usury is in principle no different from what you have described. The lender gives to the borrower a certain sum that the borrower intends to use to make a net profit though some form of enterprise or work. After that, the lender returns the principle plus interest, which is an appropriate payment for the chance to make use of the lender’s assets in order to make a profit. In the parable, both of the first two servants were given by the same reward by the master despite one having made five extra talents and the other two extra talents. Both were rewarded as being good and faithful servants. So the amount a man can produce is dependent on his initial capital or assets. The first servant could make five because he started with five, while the second started with two and could make two extra. So the borrower pays in the form of interest or usury, for the very real benefit of being able to use the lender’s assets or money to make some of his own. 

Usury only becomes unjust when it is off such a high rate that the lender is unable to make anything for himself, or when it is extracted from a poor or needy person – someone who does not intend to use the money to make profit but who needs that extra money simply to survive.



> Do you think that there are any moral principles underscoring the Mosaic commands against lending with usury among the brethren?



I do think there are moral principles underlining those commands. As I mentioned in my first post I believe the application to us today is similar to the prohibition in 1 Cor 6 against suing a brother at law. What is being condemned here is the covetous attitude of trying to make a buck out of your brother in Christ. Because I believe the prohibitions on usury in Moses’ law to be civil regulations for Israel, I would not say lending at usury to a fellow Christian today is necessarily wrong per se, if it is done in the form a true business deal or partnership where both parties have a genuine chance to profit for themselves.


----------

