God commands us in Exodus 22:25, “If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest.” The KN puts it, “thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” Everyone agrees that usury is a sin; that is, provided that everyone is allowed to define usury for himself. Few, if any, would defend usury no matter how it is defined, but almost everyone would condemn usury according to some definition. However, there is not a universal feeling that “interest” is wrong. When the statute is expressed as prohibiting the charging of “interest”, it generally is supposed that this prohibition must hold only in certain cases. Some define usury so that it may be lawful in certain cases, and define “interest” so that it may be unlawful in certain cases. The controversy over usury has centered on the problem of definition. In order to receive the instruction of Exodus 22:25, and a number of other texts, in their fullest sense, it is necessary that we understand what is meant by “usury” in older translations, and “interest” in newer ones.
Gary North says, “The definition of usury is precise Biblically: any increase taken from the poor in return for having made a loan.”
Actually, “usury” is not defined in the Bible. It might be said that the Bible circumstantially defines “usury”, in the usage of the term in various texts. It would be more true to say that the definition of usury is as precise as is one’s interpretation of certain biblical texts. In the case of obscure, little used words, their usage in context can give a clue as to their meaning. However, the biblical terms which may be translated “usury” are not of this type. In the case of usury, an exegetical problem arises more from the fact that the economic teaching of God’s Word comes to us from a time when men had no discreet economic theories. Economics is a young science. Usury in ancient times was not understood according to discreet economical categories. The writers of the Bible did not have a range of economically defined concepts from which to choose when speaking on the subject. In their time there was nothing like the shades of meaning between “interest” and “usury” that we have today. The modern temptation is to read one’s favorite economic doctrine back into the Scriptures. Therefore, the order of the present discussion shall give a treatment of the pertinent biblical texts only once the definition and history of usury have been treated. This order does not imply a low view of the Scriptures. The present writer holds to the orthodox confession, that the Bible is the very word of God, inerrant in the original
manuscripts, and is man’s only infallible rule for faith and practice. The prior discussion of definition and history is necessary because of the misunderstandings of usury that are introduced by modern “interest theories”. That is, in order to gain an adequate understanding of the requirement of Exodus 22:25, it is necessary that one know what is meant by the terms “usury” or “interest”, and yet the modern, popular understanding of those terms is not sufficient.
It shall be difficult to exhaust the matter of the definition of usury without going into the facts of its history. Indeed, a brief survey of various ways of defining usury provides a general outline for the history of usury. Usury is as ancient as civilization. From earliest records up to the present, it has been understood to be an evil that lenders commit upon borrowers. Variations of meaning occur within this general idea. The popular conception of usury has evolved through the ages. The ancient understanding of usury was largely an emotional one. Ancient thinkers
did not develop economic theories that were distinct from other theoretical disciplines. Consequently, usury was considered not according to definite economic concepts, but according to its character as it impacted the parties to a loan. This is illustrated by the language that was used in ancient documents that treat of usury. There are two Hebrew words that are translated “usury” in the Old Testament. Neshek spoke to the character of usury vis-a-vis the borrower. Its root means literally “a biting”. In this tenn, the oppressive nature of usury was expressed. The other word, Tarbith, has to do with the creditor’s experience; it means “increase” (2). Numerous texts of ancient Mesopotamia, notably the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, deal with usury. The term in the original language is Sibtu. It is related to another word, Asabu, that
means “to enlarge, to add, to increase in size or number”. This parallels the Hebrew Tarbith. Sibtu, however, carries a distinctly negative connotation, as does the Hebrew Neshek. Besides its meaning of “usury”, it also means “attack” or “seizure” as in epilepsy, and also the violent seizure of property by pirates. As well, it means “tax”, “tribute” or “levy”, as a conqueror or lord would impose upon his vanquished. . As these terms suggest, usury in ancient times was known for the hardship and misery that it inevitably meant for borrowers, and the riches and power that it meant for lenders. The difference between ancient Israel and Babylon
__________________
A. Pick, Dictionary of Old Testament Words (1845; Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1977) p.523
. The Assyrian Dictionary, (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1962), Vol.XVI,
p.158-167
was simply that the former got her laws from God, and consequently condemned usury, while the latter derived her laws from pagan men, and accordingly permitted and “regulated” usury. This ethical and emotional conception of usury endured into the medieval era, but near the close of this era economic theories began to emerge into view. The technological advances in transportation and in industry led to the maturation of the partnership in commercial enterprise. Commercial activity stood to gain from loans of capital, but such loans seldom were made because
1) lenders typically wanted usury and
2) usury still had a bad reputation. In this context of developing commerce, economical concepts also began to develop. The medieval English term usury derived from the Latin usuria, and carried the more theoretical idea of selling the use of property. In an attempt to rescue money-lending from the stigma of “usury”, an alternate concept was proposed: what now is known as “interest” (from the Latin interess,meaning a compensatory payment). The ancient, pagan method of government regulation of “interest rates”, rather than the simple censure of usury, came into favor in Western, Christian nations.
The age-old popular aversion to usury was overcome by means of a new science: economics. Economic argumentation convinced the civil powers of the pragmatic benefits of loans at usury to commercial enterprises. The ancient emotional view of usury was undercut because these commercial ventures demonstrated that those who borrow on terms of usury do not always suffer for it. The lender had his “increase”, but the borrower who was successful in his enterprise no longer experienced the “bite”. The proverbial miserable and enslaved debtor gave way to the commercial entrepreneur, who stood to profit from borrowing at usury.
Those in the church, who inherited from their forefathers a distinct disapproval of usury, nevertheless did not inherit any theoretical basis for such disapproval. There was little basis for them to object to usury once it was shown that misery no longer automatically attends borrowers. The civil powers were tempted by the potential lucrativeness of commercial activity that was artificially accelerated by abundant loans at usury. Since the church seemingly was unable to refute what the new “economists” were saying, her strict anti-usury position was abandoned.
The early modern era, therefore saw a push to destigmatize the idea of usury. Through the 19th century “interest” was regarded as “usury without the bite”, and in order to assure that usury was rendered toothless, the maximum rate of such “interest” was set by law throughout Europe and in the United States. The term “usury” still was in popular usage, though it was restricted to mean “interest” which was in excess of that allowed by law. Such laws were designed to allow for enough “interest” to stimulate the economy, but not enough to result in the misery and suffering that attended usury in ancient times. The latest economic theories attempt to explain “interest” as a natural market phenomenon that varies according to the subjective values of men. It is thought of as a “price” of money, which ought to be allowed to fluctuate naturally in the market along with other prices.
All theoretical underpinnings-for “usury laws” have vanished, as have many of those laws themselves. As a result, the term “usury” no longer is in popular use. In fact, it is not uncommon today for otherwise educated people to be without any idea of the meaning of “usury”. However, foes of usury have not vanished. Gary North indicates a weariness over the fact that the problem of usury is an “endlessly repeated question”. At this juncture in human history, the question seems to be complicated by the numerous approaches to the matter that are left in the wake of the past. Originally, the term meant precisely the same thing as now is meant by the term “interest” in connection with loans. William Blackstone saw the terms as synonymous, with only this difference: it “generally is called interest by those who think it lawful, and usury by those who do not so.”It is only semantical horseplay to give “usury” the meaning of “excessive interest”, or some such qualification, yet there are numerous ways in which this is done.
There are those today who would focus the definition of usury on its character. For instance, Messrs Thoren and Warner claim that a charge for the use of an existing asset is “interest”, not usury, but that a similar charge for the use of “money” that a banker creates out of nothing is usury . Such an understanding of usury has no basis in history, nor does it admit any theoretical precision or consistency. The “Truth in Money” thesis is correct in condemning the pretense of some to “creating money out of nothing”, however, it is invalid to use this as a pet concept to distinguish between “interest” and “usury”. Others would focus on a legal definition of usury. According to this notion, a fee for the use of property is “interest” if it is within some limit, and “usury” if it exceeds the limit. While this idea has some pitiful basis in history, the circumstances of its history are questionable. The obvious
_________________
Gary North, “Dominion Strategies” (Tyler: ICE, 1986) YoUI, No.3 5 W.C. Jones, ed., Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1915; Baton Rouge: Claitor’s, 1976) p.1336
Thoren & Warner, The Truth in Money Book (Chagrin Falls: Truth in Money,
1984), p.l00
e.g. Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, (New York: F&W, 1973), “usurythe
act or practice of exacting a rate of interest beyond what is allowed by law” difficulty with this view is the problem of determining the appropriate limit of “interest”. Such mystical limits are tools of power and wealth in the hands of an elite, and arise from no theoretical necessity. Still others – the present author included – insist that “usury” take the meaning that is suggested by its etymology. Usury, as a noun, is a fee charged for the use of property – period. As a verb, it is the practice of charging such a fee. Usury is the same thing as what the modern mind calls “interest”.
Gary North faults the translators of the King James Version of the Bible for translating the Greek Takos as “usury”. He claims, “it doesn’t mean usury in the Greek; it means ‘interest’. This is how modern translations translate it. There is a difference between usury and interest.”
He goes on to suggest that, “Usury referred to interest taken from a poor fellow believer, in other words, interest secured from a charitable loan.” It is curious indeed how anyone can suggest that ancient writers knew anything of modern distinctions between “interest” and “usury”, when in the Greek language there was but a single term -Takas – that was in use. It is even more curious how the otherwise competent Dr. North can seriously suggest that Takos means specifically” interest” .and not “usury”. In fact, its literal meaning is “birth”. Thus, Christ is called the “firstborn” or protatokas (Col.1:15). Would Gary North have us translate this “first-interest”?
Of course, neither would we give it as “first-usury”. Translating Takas as “usury” is interpretative of an ancient Greek metaphor. Our term “usury” is more theoretically descriptive of the practice, whereas the ancient concept was more visual. When more money is repaid than was loaned, it was described by the metaphor that the money gave birth to more money. Indeed, this metaphor was the basis of Aristotle’s argument against usury. His basic point was that money is barren, and thus does not in fact beget more money. The point is that there is nothing in the Greek itself to compel the translator to choose” interest” instead of “usury”.
It is nonsense to suppose that the ancients entertained anything like the modern, tedious distinctions. They had but one concept to refer to the practice of requiring in repayment of a loan a greater quantity than was loaned, no matter how great or small the additional amount, and regardless of who borrowed it. As was noted, in
_______________
Gary North, Honest Money (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press & Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1986), p.70
IBID
the medieval era the term “interest” was brought in as an alternative expression, though it is evident that no real theoretical distinction between “interest” and “usury” was entertained. In the 17th century, substituting “interest” for “usury” was not meant to signify that there was any difference in theory or practice, but only to give the one practice a less offensive appearance. Roger Fenton published his A Treatise of Usurie in London in 1611, the same year as the publication of the KJV. On the issue of terminology, Fenton said of usurers.
They will not call it Usurie, lest the word should be offensive, or make the
thing odious. But it shall be termed Use or Usance in exchange, which are
smooth words as oyle [oil], never a biting letter in them. Or it shall be called
Interest, or Consideration, which are civil and mannerly terms, though by them
they meane indeed nothing else but plaine Usurie .
The King James translators no doubt were acquainted with the term “interest”, which even in their day was still a fairly new term, but as well they would have been acquainted with its intended utility as an escape from the condemnation that was due to usury. “Usury” was the term that had been in vernacular usage for centuries. They cannot be faulted for choosing the common vernacular term (usury) that in its etymology embodied a theoretical description of its meaning, rather than a lately emerged alternate term (interest) whose only use was to avoid just condemnation.
Gary North’s peculiar understanding of the term “usury” was not the understanding of the term held by English speaking people throughout the medieval era. What they meant by “usury” is exactly what North means by “interest”. What North means by “usury” was unknown to the medieval world, and consequently they had no word for it. Thus, the King James translators were not, as Gary North charges, guilty of an “error” in translation, and neither was it common until recently for men
to posit any legal or economical difference between “interest” and “usury”.
Nor will modern day moralizing suffice in a treatment of usury. Modern moralists ignore a careful economic definition of usury in favor of a general concept of uncharitableness. G. K. Chesterton, for instance, included greed, materialism, exploitation, etc. in a broad, ill-defined concept that he called “usury” . The Roger Fenton, A Treatise of Usurie (1611; Norwood: Walter Johnson, inc.,
1975), p.4
G. K. Chesterton,Utopia of Usurers (1917;Freeport:Booksfor LibrariesPress, problem with doing this is that it turns a just opposition to “charging a fee for the use of property” into a socialist opposition to “profit”. A moralistic understanding of usury was possible in ancient times since the oppressive consequences of usury
always were evident in the “natural economy”. That is, usury could be understood simply as a “biting” because the bite of usury always was plainly evident. Today it is not so. In fact, early modern usury apologists commonly based their arguments in favor of usury on the idea that in business loans the bite of usury was gone. Since the borrower stood to gain more in his enterprise than he had to pay in usury, they said, interest on such loans no longer ought to be considered usury. However, usury cannot be so sensuously understood any more than any other point of the
law, for in fact the “bite” of usury did not vanish with the emergence of business borrowing; it merely became more difficult to recognize, since the burden of it was distributed over the economy as a whole. The name given to usury by the ancient Israelites (Neshek – a biting) is not definitional, but a testimony to the calamity which necessarily attends usury.
The only understanding of usury which will serve in a rigorous study of its nature and history is the one which is proposed here: it is a fee that is charged for the use of property; a “use charge”, or as an obsolete Old English term put it, “usance”. Blackstone generally concurs, defining usury as, “. : .when money is lent on a contract to receive not only the principal sum again, but also an increase by way of compensation for the use. ”
The weakness in Blackstone’s definition is that it limits consideration to loans of money. The present thesis goes beyond this to include loans of any sort of property, which Blackstone considers under the head of “hiring”. This touches upon what is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the present thesis, which shall be treated at length in due course. The correctness of treating all manner of loans under a single category is demonstrated in history. The practice of usury was well established in antiquity on loans of all sorts of property, before there was any such thing as money. Also the biblical injunction handles all types of loans together, specifically prohibiting “interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest.” (Deut.23:19) Toward a better understanding of usury, it is helpful to elaborate upon the meaning of the “loan”, from which usury derives. Part of the problem of the modern understanding of usury is a modern misunderstanding of the nature of the loan. A loan sometimes is
Jones, Blackstone,Vo1.I,p.1336 characterized as an exchange, and other times is characterized as an “investment”, In the case when the loan is perceived to be a type of sale, or exchange, “interest” is afforded a pretended legitimacy by means of its characterization as the “price” of the loan. Gary North, for instance, declares, “Operationally, the rate of interest, like all prices, is a product of supply and demand. ” This is a fundamental error, which guarantees an erroneous definition of usury, Several centuries ago Roger Fenton explained the difference between a loan and a sale in this way:
From selling doth this lending also differ, because sale is a perpetual alienation of the propertie for a price. Lending is a free alienation for a time. So that though lending and selling doe agree in this, that both doe alienate the propertie with the use; yet in these two things they differ, that the one is liberall, the other for a price; the one temporall, the other forever.
It [the loan] differeth from exchange. Not only in time, as giving and selling doth; but in the object; because exchange is the giving and taking of one certaine thing for another. But in this kind of loane, only the like in the same kind is required at the time appointed to be restored. Besides, in things exchanged, there is some difference respected, either of kind, quality, or use; which mooveth us to make an exchange. But in simple lending or mutuation, both the same in kind, money for money, oyle for oyle, corne for corne; the same in quantitie, and the like in quality, so much and so good, without respect of difference, is required.
In an exchange, one thing is given in exchange for another thing. In a loan, one thing is given, not in exchange, but on obligation to receive the same thing again after a time. The difference of things exchanged, and the sameness of things lent and repaid is interesting, but the key word here is “obligation”. Proverbs 22:7 plainly tells us that, “the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.” This is the greatest difference between a loan and an exchange. Following an exchange of property, there endures no obligation that one party to the exchange may lay upon the other arising from the nature and terms of the exchange. However, the borrower is bound in contract to specific performance, viz., to repay the lender, by the very nature and terms of the loan .
Some may object that debt, and thus obligation, may also arise from an exchange. If two parties agree on terms of an exchange of property, and one party is delinquent in carrying out his part, then he remains in obligation to the other. This
_________________
Gary North, An Introduction to Christian Economics p 364
Roger Fenton, A Treatise of Usurie, P, 17
is true, however, this debt does not arise from the nature of the exchange. In the first place, until both parties have done their part, there is no exchange. Secondly, one party has an obligation to the other only once title to the property in question has converted to the other party. The delinquent party now “owes” it to the other, and continues to hold it himself under terms that are indistinguishable from a loan. The one party in effect loans it to the other until it is paid. In short, the debt of a delinquent party to an exchange actually arises from a loan. So it remains that the distinguishing feature of the contract of loan is the slavery into which the borrower enters.
The reality of slavery is inescapable to the borrower. The lender is protected from any concern over enslaving his brother by an array of euphemisms, which subtly reinterprets the nature of the loan. This is the utility of attempting to identify a loan as an exchange, and usury as the “price” of the loan. A “price” simply is what one party gives to an exchange of goods. In most modern exchanges, the “price” typically is thought to be the money that one party “pays” to obtain other goods.
However, theoretically, both sides of an exchange have the same significance and
function. Anything given in exchange may be regarded as the “price” of the other thing. The unlawfulness of usury may be seen simply in the fact the payment of usury is not really a “price” of anything, i.e. one does not give it in exchange for anything else. It can only be thought of as a payment that a lender requires a borrower to agree to pay before he will grant him a loan.
Another euphemism which distracts the modern consciousness from the essential slavery of borrowing is to term the loan an “investment”. Not only is the loan distinguished from the exchange, as well it is distinguished from the “investment”. Properly speaking, a loan is not an investment. By means of this euphemism, many today are insulated from the realization that they are lenders. It is common for one to think of Certificates of Deposit, IRAs, Treasury Securities, Municipal Bonds, etc. as “investments”. However, in reality they are loans. One holding such commercial paper actually is a lender to banks and governments. Recently, “investment” opportunities have opened up so that through some Mutual Funds small “investors” may participate in the unsecured credit market, and thus become lenders to their neighbors. By terming such loans “investments”, usury on such loans is afforded a pretense to legitimacy when it is said to be a “return” on the “investment”. If the difference between the loan and the investment were understood, then millions of Christians today, who think of themselves as “investors”, would begin to discern the truth – that they in fact are usurers.
The idea of “investment” derives from the term “vest”, which means “garment”, or “clothing”. Originally, to “invest” meant “to put on clothes.” As this involved a rudimentary concept of “enveloping”, the term eventually took on a military sense of surrounding and conquering an enemy. However, the term also developed in another direction. The medieval era retained from ancient times the custom of using distinctive clothing to symbolize authority. In ceremony, one acquired judicial or executive authority by means of receiving certain symbolic garments,
which were bestowed upon him. This practice has survived to our own day, in the form of black robes worn by United States Judges. Thus “investment” came to mean not only “to bestow clothing upon”, but as well “to bestow dignity, authority, nobility, etc. upon.” From this there derived a commercial meaning, “to bestow property upon.” To invest in a commercial enterprise is to bestow upon it some property that is required in order to enhance the function of the enterprise. Whereas the commercial investment is a type of an exchange, property accrues both to the enterprise and to the investor. In return for the investment, the investor receives a proportional share in ownership of the commercial enterprise. This share increases or decreases in value, as the value of the enterprise as a whole increases or decreases, due to the success Or failure of the enterprise. The difference between the value of one’s share of an enterprise and the value of his initial investment is called the “return” on the investment in the event that the former value is greater than the latter, and is called a “loss” on the investment if the reverse is true. This, of course, is a picture of commercial “stocks”. The important need is for one to see the difference between this and a loan.
The one granting a loan gives what he does not in exchange for anything else, but unilaterally. He receives no equitable share of ownership in anything as a result of giving a loan. The borrower, being bound to the lender, is obligated to return the loan. This obligation is not dependent upon the success Or failure of any of his commercial activity. In antiquity men commonly lapsed into outright slavery just because they were obligated to repay their loans even though their means failed. The obligation to pay usury in addition to the loan only aggravated this situation, and increased the likelihood that slavery would result for the borrower. The loan is not an exchange, nor is it an investment. It remains only to comment positively on the nature of the loan. The loan is a dangerous thing. It has two aspects which, if both are not held in view, can turn the loan into a great calamity among a people. First, as already was mentioned, the loan is a source of bondage from the standpoint of the borrower. While many avenues of freedom remain for the
______________
Eric Partridge, Origins: A SJwrt Etymological Dictionary of Modern English
(New York: Greenwich House, 1983), p.772
borrower, still his future is greatly limited in scope because of the obligation upon him to return to the lender that which he has borrowed. This is why borrowing in order to obtain property (modern American “consumer credit”) is so ridiculous. Surely, the borrower enjoys the property, but eventually the lender must be paid. That is why historically people borrowed only that which they really needed but could not wait to obtain. As it is, the modern American tax structure has made it economically advantageous to “buy now; pay later”. The average borrower has no consciousness of bondage until his debt becomes a problem.
Secondly, from the standpoint of the lender, the loan is an act of charity. The greatest form of charity is the gift, which does not enslave the recipient since there remains no obligation upon him. The loan, however, is a type of charity, because the lender acts upon no profitable motive. The loan may be described as one providing another that which the other lacks on the condition that he give it back after a time. The lender gives out of his abundance; if he did not have the property available, the loan could not be made. If one has property that another needs, and he is not using it, his freely loaning it to the other must be characterized as an act of compassion or charity. Since the borrower enters into bondage to the lender, it is required of the lender, if he is not at enmity with the borrower, to treat him with great care and sensitivity. It is required of God’s people, who are brothers to one another, that they not enslave one another (Lev.25:39-45). Therefore, since the borrower becomes the lender’s slave, it is necessary that one who lends to his
brother exercise extreme care. He must have only charity in his heart toward the borrower. Biblically, the one who loans to his brother properly is characterized by generosity and graciousness. For example, consider Psalm 37:25-26:
I have been young, and now I am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Or his descendants begging bread.
All day long he is gracious and lends;
And his descendants are a blessing.
Biblical lending among the brethren excludes the idea of gain in property to the lender. The gain to the biblical lender is the blessing of God that accrues to the obedient. The biblical loan is not the giving of property in order to acquire property. Compassion for one’s needy brother is demonstrated by “generous lending”, and is subverted by the desire to gain by usury, which only aggravates the debtor’s bondage. The proper means of gain is by “exchange” and “investment”. But these contracts are not examples of acceptable uncharitableness. The difference between the loan on the one hand, and the exchange and the investment on the other, is not that charity is present in the former and missing in the latter. Men always ought to relate to one another with charity. The contracts of “exchange” and “investment” provide that all involved gain the most when all involved are most charitable. When men want to better their lives, they exchange goods with one another. Each party to the exchange considers his situation following the exchange to be better than that prior to the exchange (or that it leaves him in a position that eventually will lead to a better situation), or else he would not agree to the terms of the exchange. The investment has a similar nature. The enterprise in which one invests gains by the investment. If this gain is sufficient to aid in the success of the enterprise, then the investor gains as well, because his share of ownership in the enterprise now is worth more than the original investment. The principals of the enterprise and the investor agree to the terms of the investment because all concerned believe that their respective situations shall be improved by it. Charity is not lacking in the exchange and the investment, for all parties gain the most when their goal is service. However, no one can gain by lending unless he fails to relate to his debtors with charity. It is a devious confusion for one to feign charity by giving property in a contract of loan, and yet to require an increase as though his giving were in fact in terms of a contract of exchange or investment. Neither the exchange nor the investment can ensure a gain to any party. Usury pretends to ensure a gain to the lender, but this is only because it is an evil. No contract that is lawful can guarantee a gain to anyone.
Now the danger of the loan becomes evident. If the aspect of charity is forgotten, the loan becomes a harsh tool of dominion. Uncaring lenders readily may enslave the needy. The lack of charity in the lender’s motive sets the stage for the ruthlessness for which lenders were infamous in ancient times, and as well removes the inherent restraint on usury. Usury obviously exhibits a motive of gain, which betrays the charity that ought to reside in the lender’s heart. The charity of the lender was the missing element in ancient lending, and it is this lack of charity that accounts for the constant calamity that lending on usury caused in ancient times, and also accounts for the numerous and stern warnings of God that His people ought to abstain from usury and lend freely.
Our modern time is quite similar to the ancient era in this respect. The one aspect of the loan – the bondage of the borrower – is given due consideration in our day, but the charity that this bondage requires of the lender is nearly entirely neglected. Christian financial counselors often quote Proverbs 22:7, but tend to do so selectively. To the one who is in debt they declare, “the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.” For example, Larry Burkett has said, “It is important that a Christian understand God’s attitude about debt. Proverbs 22:7 says, ‘The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.’ God says that when someone borrows, he becomes a servant of the lender; the lender is established as an authority over the borrower.” The present writer agrees with Mr. Burkett’s exhortation. The only problem is that Mr. Burkett, and scores of other Christian financial counselors, so exhort only those who are borrowers. When it comes to exhorting lenders, Proverbs 22:7 fades into the background. The text of popularity when addressing lenders (“investors”) is the parable of the stewards in Matthew
25:14-30 and Luke 19:12-24, which nearly always is mishandled. What the popular counsel amounts to is this: do not be enslaved by borrowing, but enslave others by lending. Obviously, if everyone heeded this advice everyone would seek to lend, but no one would agree to borrow. With no one borrowing, there would be no lenders. Implicit in this “lend but do not borrow” counsel is the understanding that some will heed, and others will not; that there will continue to be a population ·of slaves who will provide usury for the other’s “investments”.
Lenders today do not see themselves as usurers; they think they are “investors”, or that they merely are marketing a product. But even if lenders were to regain the perspective of charity, still the loan may become a calamity in the land if borrowers do not take seriously their bondage in debt. Borrowers, especially those who still can afford to make their payments, do not see themselves as slaves; they think they are taking shrewd advantage of “tax breaks”. Also, many borrow fearlessly, knowing that modern bankruptcy laws will save them from indentured servitude. If the proper idea of the loan were held in view, there would not be a great crisis of debt in our land today, and neither would there be rampant usury. If the loan were consistently held by the lender to be an act of charity, then gain from his lending would be ruled out of consideration for two reasons. First, with charity as a self-conscious motive, the lender will not confuse his lending with either an exchange or an investment, and thus will not expect to gain by it. Secondly, his motive of charity will serve to keep him sensitive to the welfare of his debtor. He would be careful not to aggravate the bondage of his debtor, and will work with him to restore his freedom as quickly as possible. Usury does not service such a motive; rather it totally subverts it. And, if the loan were consistently held by the borrower to be a state of bondage for him, then loans would be sought only in those cases where consequences of not borrowing seem worse than the bondage of debt. If both elements were held in view, the loan would be restored to its proper character, and usury would be unthinkable.
_____________
. Larry Burkett, Your Finances in Changing Times (Chicago: Moody Press,
1982), p.55
The foregoing discussion defines usury, and as well provides a rudimentary explanation of why it is wrong. Usury is a fee charged for the use of property; it is wrong primarily because God’s law prohibits it. And it is not difficult for one to understand why it should be prohibited, for usury contradicts the essential charity that lenders must have toward their debtors. This gives a much better understanding of the requirement of Exodus 22:25 (cited at the outset of this discussion) than that which seems immediately to occur to the average modern reader. As soon as one understands the nature of the requirement, the immediate response is a profound sense of the need to repent. It becomes obvious that much that is wrong with our economy today is directly the result of the sin of usury.
But, a powerful inertia that must be overcome is the assumption that usury
itself cannot be the problem. It has been an accepted institution for several hundred years now. A brief survey of the history of usury will help one rightly to esteem the merit of our present economy, and will aid in his gaining a true conviction of God’s law on the matter. The subject shall be taken lip under three headings, viz. the three of – Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. The transitions of economy in particular the evolution of the concept of shall be noted. In this context, the idea, the laws, nature, and the consequences usury shall be examined. Then the biblical texts usury shall be which treatment shall prove conclusively that usury is unlawful.
