# Your View Of Usury



## Ambrose (Mar 23, 2006)

I'm just curious where most Reformed people fall in regards to their views on usury. 

I was discussing usury with a non-Reformed Pastor recently and he asked me if there were many in the Reformed/Reconstructionist camp that were opposed to usury (including interest). I said "Goodness no." 

The only one of note that I can think of is Dr. Ian Hodge. Any others that I'm missing?

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by Chad Degenhart]


----------



## satz (Mar 23, 2006)

> opposed to usury (including interest).



Chad, different people have different definitions for the terms, but since you seem to be drawing a distinction here could you quickly run though what is the difference between usury and interest?


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> > opposed to usury (including interest).
> ...



I personally don't make a distinction between the two, but some don't equate the terms, so if you talk about being "against usury" it is helpful to understand what is encompassed by your definition of usury - excessive interest, all interest, interest to the poor, interest to poor Christians, etc. 

In my view, all interest is usury, but usury also includes non-monetary additions to the principal (i.e. paying back 11 bushels of grain for a loan of 10).


----------



## satz (Mar 23, 2006)

Thanks.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 23, 2006)

Chad, I think it is unbiblical, but you probably already knew that.

It is interesting that many of the early Reformers had this view. Calvin didn't, though. Of course, I'm hopelessly old-fashioned in my view because of my agrarian upbringing when I paid cash for everything or I didn't buy.

I should disclose, however, that also I don't like it because I had to pay it for my student loans. But a contract is a contract and I signed. 

This is one issue that modern and serious Christians should really come to terms with. Usury drives capitalism. Capitalism, we are taught, is good. So usury must be good.

I'm not convinced of that, but every time I suggest the otherwise, I get bashed as a communist utopian by my conservative friends (not here on the Board, but in my community).

So I tread carefully on this subject, but try to live in a manner that avoids having to rely upon or pay any form of usury.

Vic


----------



## satz (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't see a problem with interest. There is no difference that i can see between charging moderate interest on your money and charging rent on houses, land or for the use of some other item.

The law of moses did forbid israel from charging interest either to fellow israelites or to the poor, but it allowed them to charge interest to strangers Deut 23:20. Israel was similarly forbidden to oppress strangers Ex 22:21 so we see moderate interest is not oppressive.


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 30, 2006)

Thanks for your comments! 



> _Originally posted by satz_
> I don't see a problem with interest. There is no difference that i can see between charging moderate interest on your money and charging rent on houses, land or for the use of some other item.



And how is "moderate" interest defined? Anything more than the 1% that Nehemiah rebuked as sinful usury? Logically, if your assertion that usury is the same as rent, then it would condemn rents rather than jutify usury.

There is no distinction between "interest" and usury. As Rev. Dale Kuiper explains (The Standard Bearer of April 1, 1997:

"The Bible does not make a distinction between usury and interest, a distinction very common in the financial world today. The Bible does make a distinction in regard to the person who is charged the interest or usury, as we will see; but it does not distinguish between a legal rate (interest) and a rate that is in excess of what is legal (usury)."

Per Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Usury -
The sum paid for the use of money, hence interest; not, as in the modern sense, exorbitant interest. The Jews were forbidden to exact usury (Lev_25:36, Lev_25:37), only, however, in their dealings with each other (Deu_23:19, Deu_23:20). The violation of this law was viewed as a great crime (Psa_15:5; Pro_28:8; Jer_15:10). After the Return, and later, this law was much neglected (Neh_5:7, Neh_5:10).

And Smith's Bible Dictionary:

Usury
Usury. (The word usury has come in modern English to mean excessive interest upon money loaned, either formally illegal or at least oppressive. In the Scriptures, however, the word did not bear this sense, but meant simply, interest of any kind upon money. The Jews were forbidden by the law of Moses to take interest from their brethren, but were permitted to take it from foreigners....)

The notes to the Geneva Bible (1599) have this to say:

"Luke 19:23 - Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the (e) bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 

(e) To the bankers and money changers. Usury or loaning money at interest is strictly forbidden by the Bible, (Exo_22:25-27; Deu_23:19-20). Even a rate as low as one per cent interest was disallowed, (Neh_5:11). This servant had already told two lies. First he said the master was an austere or harsh man. This is a lie for the Lord is merciful and gracious. Next he called his master a thief because he reaped where he did not sow. Finally the master said to him that why did you not add insult to injury and loan the money out at interest so you could call your master a "usurer" too! If the servant had done this, his master would have been responsible for his servant's actions and guilty of usury." 




> The law of moses did forbid israel from charging interest either to fellow israelites or to the poor, but it allowed them to charge interest to strangers Deut 23:20. Israel was similarly forbidden to oppress strangers Ex 22:21 so we see moderate interest is not oppressive.



Don't overlook that there were different types of strangers --- and looking into the distinction between the ger and the nokri can add some clarity here. Usury was definitely oppressive, just like killing the Caananite strangers was - they were both forms of warfare. Or do you also make the argument that genocide must not be inherently oppressive, since a)the Israelites were not allowed to oppress strangers and foreigners and b)the Israelites were commanded to kill all the Canaanites, even dashing the little ones? (I'm arguing somewhat tongue-in-cheek, of course.) As Ambrose said: "Who is the stranger but 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." 

Going with your argument that God's law is absolute and non-contradictory, look at this verse: "And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, *though he be a stranger*, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. *Take thou no usury of him, or increase*: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." (Leviticus 25:35-37 KJV) Here we see where God said NOT to take usury of a stranger, which is totally contradictory unless we realize that there are different kinds of strangers. 

Of course, I would be glad if we could only get to the point where we ONLY exacted usury from strangers among us. But the law is clear that no usury is allowed to be taken from a brother: "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)

[Edited on 3-30-2006 by Chad Degenhart]

[Edited on 3-30-2006 by Chad Degenhart]


----------



## CalsFarmer (Mar 30, 2006)

usury - credit card rates....


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2006)

Usuary is normally defined as excessive interest on any type of loan. Interest rate limits are set by the various States. I see no problem charging interest as long as it is within the limits established by the State.


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Usuary is normally defined as excessive interest on any type of loan. Interest rate limits are set by the various States. I see no problem charging interest as long as it is within the limits established by the State.



Thanks, that's a pretty common view I think. 

Usury is a sin, and if the State has the authority to define the rates of interest which consititute sin, then it could theoretically make it "not a sin" by raising the "excessive interest rate" high enough. 

How does God's Law define usury, and should the State's usury legislation reflect God's morality or something else? (Since usury is a sin, we know that God must have defined it somewhere.)

Those that hold this view might have advised the usurers of Nehemiah's time to simply adopt civil legislation which raised the allowable rate of interest above 1%, then Nehemiah would have had no basis for calling them to repentance.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Since I'm not a theonomist, I don't believe charging interest is a sin. In fact I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of Christians do not believe charging interest is a sin. They would say that knowingly charging a usurious rate is against the law, which then would be a sin.


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> ...



Thanks for explaining your rationale. I would think that your guess would be fairly accurate, at least for the last 500 years.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 30, 2006)

On the subject of statutory usury, it is too bad that the Federal Government has pre-empted the field in many ways. Our state has a pretty strong usury law, but, by federal court decision, it can't be applied against banks, credit card companies, or other federally regulated entities.

But it can be used against a private individual lending money to his brother. 

Ah well.

Vic


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 30, 2006)

I believe this is one place where the "theocratic" principle is very evidently distinguished from everyday, New Testament life. The mere fact that God made a separation on this matter between Jewish society and the nations around them makes the issue (in my view) unquestionably one that pertained to the Mosaic economy _per se._ This fact alone means that it is impossible to label "interest" as "sinful" in itself. The Israelites were not encouraged (or allowed) to "sin" toward the outsider. In fact, regarding the covenant people itself, the Jubilee law explicitly contains a permissible "interest principle" regarding the "time value-influenced" price of the land.

So the only questions left are ones of "general equity" and ethical carry-overs into the lives of Christians. We ought to lend "freely" to our needy brethren-in-Christ and the rest of the needy, and willingly and gladly absorb the loss from such uses of this world's goods--because we know God will never let us suffer permanent (eternal) loss. We are the "inheritors of the world" (Rom. 4:13).

I agree with Calvin, North, and others who see even the OT usury regulations as exclusive of loans on business. If money itself is treated as the only commodity that has zero "time value" attached to it (artificially--because by nature it does have it, like everything else), you will inevitably distort whole economies of scale.

Under the Mosaic law, it is evident to see how higher rates of interest were both natural and applicable to strangers--loans outside the covenant community were loans accompanied with higher risk. Within the covenant community, a free-exchange rate would be set at the lowest possible point because of the predictability of law, and greater availability of funds.

When you think "stranger in the land", think of loaning money to a Mexican migrant-worker, i.e. "higher risk" due to subcultural barriers. When you think "stranger in another nation", think of loaning money to an Albanian, i.e. even higher risk. The Israelite money-lender was subject to other law-orders if he sought recovery of his loan, and all the perils of being an outsider. Yet, if you were successful at it, it would be highly lucrative. It would be a tool of dominion. "You shall be the lender," "You shall be the head, and not the tail." Promises of God.

As a related note, even in today's world in societies that formally forbid interest of any kind (like Islam), there are still costs associated with "loans". The monied party becomes a "partner" in the business and reaps an endless profit from his stake/stock in that business. So, his loan functions either as "sunk cost" or as a fraction of ownership. When I think of this economic model, I do not think of positive Agrarianism--I think "sharecropping". It is not a system conducive to fostering independence and initiative, but reinforcing control by the master class.


I'm also not trying to be dogmatic or pugnacious here, either. I am not an economist, merely a generalist, and no expert. My "debt" for my ideas on the subject should be obvious to those familiar with the names I mentioned above, and others.


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 30, 2006)

Thanks Reverend Buchanan! Yes I can see the "debt" you owe in your economic views.  (Just joking... he he). 



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I believe this is one place where the "theocratic" principle is very evidently distinguished from everyday, New Testament life. The mere fact that God made a separation on this matter between Jewish society and the nations around them makes the issue (in my view) unquestionably one that pertained to the Mosaic economy _per se._ This fact alone means that it is impossible to label "interest" as "sinful" in itself. The Israelites were not encouraged (or allowed) to "sin" toward the outsider. In fact, regarding the covenant people itself, the Jubilee law explicitly contains a permissible "interest principle" regarding the "time value-influenced" price of the land.



I can see that if you presuppose that the prohibition on interest was only applicable to the "Mosaic economy", then our conclusions would necessarily be divergent.

However, I think that it is definitely incorrect to suggest that the Jubilee law contained an "interest principle". I think that conclusion results from reading our modern ideas of rents and leases back into the scriptures. Rents as we know them did not exist then. In actuality the variability in price due to the proximity to the year of release was a simple calculation of the number of crops that the purchaser was obtaining rights to, not to an interest in the land itself. The scriptures explicitly say that the price of the land is to be according to the number of harvests, and any reading which suggests implicit interest is superimposed upon the text. 



> So the only questions left are ones of "general equity" and ethical carry-overs into the lives of Christians. We ought to lend "freely" to our needy brethren-in-Christ and the rest of the needy, and willingly and gladly absorb the loss from such uses of this world's goods--because we know God will never let us suffer permanent (eternal) loss. We are the "inheritors of the world" (Rom. 4:13).



So by saying we "ought" to lend freely to those in need, do you at least agree that interest-taking from the needy is sinful? 



> I agree with Calvin, North, and others who see even the OT usury regulations as exclusive of loans on business. If money itself is treated as the only commodity that has zero "time value" attached to it (artificially--because by nature it does have it, like everything else), you will inevitably distort whole economies of scale.



Until Calvin, this was never an accepted interpretation (that commercial business dealings were governed by a separate code of ethics than personal dealings esp. with regard to usury). 

But the assertion that the anti-usury position treats money as "the only commodity with zero-time value is quite erroneous." That sounds like it came straight from the morally-bankrupt Austrian school. Usury was prohibited on all loans of money, grain, wine, and every other form of property. There is no "special pleading" for money as distinct from other forms of property. 

And if you think about it, any argument that asserts that "interest'" is inescapable would make even the OT-only prohibition nonsensical. But it would not have cut the mustard then, and it doesn't make any more sense in the New Covenant. 



> Under the Mosaic law, it is evident to see how higher rates of interest were both natural and applicable to strangers--loans outside the covenant community were loans accompanied with higher risk. Within the covenant community, a free-exchange rate would be set at the lowest possible point because of the predictability of law, and greater availability of funds.
> 
> When you think "stranger in the land", think of loaning money to a Mexican migrant-worker, i.e. "higher risk" due to subcultural barriers. When you think "stranger in another nation", think of loaning money to an Albanian, i.e. even higher risk. The Israelite money-lender was subject to other law-orders if he sought recovery of his loan, and all the perils of being an outsider. Yet, if you were successful at it, it would be highly lucrative. It would be a tool of dominion. "You shall be the lender," "You shall be the head, and not the tail." Promises of God.



I wish that the Church was the head today, instead of being the massively indebted tail. 



> As a related note, even in today's world in societies that formally forbid interest of any kind (like Islam), there are still costs associated with "loans". The monied party becomes a "partner" in the business and reaps an endless profit from his stake/stock in that business. So, his loan functions either as "sunk cost" or as a fraction of ownership. When I think of this economic model, I do not think of positive Agrarianism--I think "sharecropping". It is not a system conducive to fostering independence and initiative, but reinforcing control by the master class.



I accept your opinion. My own opinion is that co-partnerships that share risk/reward are biblically sound as well as more conducive to liberty than the guaranteed return exacted by lenders through usury. In fact that was the nature of the sales of crops you referred to earlier in the Jubilee laws. If I contribute capital, I get a proportionate share of any gain - and also bear the risk of loss. This promotes responsible investing. 



> I'm also not trying to be dogmatic or pugnacious here, either. I am not an economist, merely a generalist, and no expert. My "debt" for my ideas on the subject should be obvious to those familiar with the names I mentioned above, and others.



I appreciate your comments and hope that I was able to share my own thoughts in a non-pugnacious way.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 31, 2006)

probably an inflation premium should be added.

but as for me I see nothing wrong with usury, as long as it is just. and a credit card interest rate of 14% and above is grossly unjust.

[Edited on 3-31-2006 by Slippery]


----------



## Ambrose (Mar 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> probably an inflation premium should be added.



Deflationary too? If I lend you a hundred bucks, and the CPI goes down, do you only owe me $90? 

But that's only an option for those that do not believe that usury is theft - because nothing can justify theft, including inflation. Both the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Heidelberg Catechism condemn usury as violations of the 8th commandment. 



> but as for me I see nothing wrong with usury, as long as it is just. and a credit card interest rate of 14% and above is grossly unjust.
> 
> [Edited on 3-31-2006 by Slippery]



Well I certainly agree that 14% interest is grossly unjust.


----------



## Randall Pederson (Apr 6, 2006)

The majority of Christian history was against usury. Calvin changed all that. Why do you think the Jews were so popular in the middle ages? They were the money-lenders!


----------

