The preceding historical sketch was meant to demonstrate two facts:
1) That money strictly speaking is gold and silver coin; therefore what passes as “money” today in our land (and indeed throughout most of the world) not only is not money, but does not even represent money, and
2) that because of I above usury is given an economic context in which to fester seemingly indefinitely, without the instability of slavery or revolution.
The significance of these facts may be weighed in accordance with one’s convictions on the moral character of usury. In the case that usury is accepted, the present context, which promises to support usury without social upheaval, is welcomed as progress. The contention of the present writing, however, is that usury is wrong, and that this sort of promise actually amounts to simply a self-serving, short-term grasp for momentary riches, while deferring the social upheaval, which must come, to the next generation. Indeed, the horror of abortion is not the only exhibition of our generation’s contempt for posterity. These historical realities provide an understanding of usury which allows one to appreciate God’s word on the subject. But this is not to say that history is autonomous, or that it is a standard by which Scripture may be interpreted. The testimony of Scripture provides the basis for a true interpretation of history. However, a pro-usury idea is inconsistent with an otherwise biblical view of history. Historically, the character of usurers, and the consequences of usury are entirely contrary to the biblical vision of godliness and charity. It is fitting, therefore, that the discussion turn now to a survey of the biblical teaching on the subject of usury.
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.”
Moses had led the people Israel out of bondage in Egypt and the Lord had brought them to Mt. Sinai. While the people waited at the base of the mountain, Moses went up and communed with God. The Lord spoke at length with Moses and delivered unto him the law. The most well known aspect of this body of law is what is known as the Ten Commandments. Rushdoony makes the point that in fact these Ten Commandments form the foundation of law, all other statutes being derived from them as case law. Among these other statutes is the above quoted rule concerning usury. As case law, this may be considered derived from the eighth
commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). Calvin, Rushdoony, and other expositors of God’s law treat of usury under the head of the eighth commandment. The first thing that must be noted in this statement, is that the word
“money” in this verse is given in translation of a word that actually means “silver”. The economic context of this occasion was that which has been termed a “money economy”. Silver and gold, in lumps – not coins, had come into service as media for exchange. Anticipated in this rule was a loan given in media, which still was quite different from current loans. Loans in that case would entail the transfer of some physical substance. This rule, then, was to prohibit charging a fee for the use of the property loaned, which often is manifested by the repayment of an amount of substance that was greater than what was loaned. Before considering in
detail the nature of this prohibition, and to whom it applies, let us first
look briefly at the term which is translated “interest”.
Our word “interest” comes from the Latin “interess”, which means
“compensatory payment”, and originally had this meaning also. Older
English translations, e.g. the King James Version, 1611, gives “usury”
instead of “interest”. Modern translations almost always use “interest”.
Rushdoony points out that since the word has come to mean the same thing
as usury, and that usury now is thought to mean “excessive interest”, then
confusion may be avoided by using “interest” where actually is meant “usury”. The Hebrew word in this verse is Neshek and comes from a related word Nashak, which literally means “bite”. It is used mostly of serpents (Numbers 21:6,9; Proverbs 23:32; Ecclesiastes 10:8,11; Jeremiah 8:17; Amos 5:19;9:3). However, in one instance the NASB translates Nashak differently. Habakkuk 2:7, “Will not your creditors (Nashak) rise up suddenly, and those who collect from you awaken?
Indeed, you will become plunder for them.” The related term Neshek is used only in reference to the practice of usury. It is translated “usury” every time in the KJV and “interest” every time in the NASB.
It is not very difficult to discern the requirement of this law. Clearly, usury, or the charging of “interest” on a loan, is prohibited. Some have said that this applies only in the case of “charitable” loans to the “poor”, because the text specifies “to the poor among you”. While the poor are mentioned specifically as the recipients of a loan, nevertheless the exclusive applicability of this law to loans to the poor is not
______________
R.I. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973), p.1O-12
IBID p.473
shown by any specific contrast of “poor” with “rich”. The real emphasis in this law is not “the poor”, but “My people”. It says, “If you lend money to My people … “, and from there goes on to say” … to the poor among you”. “The poor” are mentioned as a further definition of exactly who among .His people might be in receipt of a loan. Who, indeed, besides a poor man would be borrowing? If a man has what he needs, why (and what) would he borrow? In our modern times, almost everyone is a borrower in some way. In ancient times, men borrowed only because they had an urgent need. The question now becomes: does our modern practice mitigate the requirement of God’s law? God has stated specifically that his people are not to be borrowers (Deuteronomy 15:6; 28:44) and that rather they are to prosper to such an extent that they shall be lenders to others. Any who fall “poor” among His people are to receive assistance from his brethren, and that without usury. A more comprehensive treatment of this question will appear later.
Leviticus 25:35-37
“Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain.”
Both occurrences of “interest” in this passage are rendered from Neshek, the meaning of which the reader will recall from the discussion above. A difference in this passage is the occurrence of the phrase “usurious interest”. “Usurious” is from a word (Tarbith) that literally means “increase”, which indeed is how it is rendered in the KJV, “take thou no usury (Neshek) of him, or increase (Tarbith).” The NASB renders this word “increase” in Ezekiel 18, a passage which shall be examined in turn. Calvin charged ancient Israel with attempting to escape condemnation by calling their usury by a less incriminating name, and contended that in the passage now under consideration God joined Tarbith and Neshek together for a like condemnation. He said, “The name neschec, which is derived from biting, sounded badly; since then no one chose to be likened to a hungry dog, who fed himself by biting others, some escape from the reproach was sought; and they called whatever gain they received beyond the capital, therbith , as being an increase. But God, in order to prevent such deception, unites the two words (Lev. xxxv.36,) and condemns the increase as well as the biting.”
___________________
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Boob of Moses (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1950), VoLIII, p.130
Of particular interest in this passage is the contrast that appears in v.36: “Do not take usurious interest … but revere God” This contrast builds on the moral concern of sustaining one’s brother. The prohibition of usury does not stand alone morally. As the Westminster Catechism indicates, God’s law carries both a requirement and a prohibition. In this case, along with prohibiting usury on loans to one’s brother, there is the requirement to make the loan to one’s brother. Keeping oneself pure
from usury is fairly easy if one does not make loans. However, the fulfillment of the law is not simply to abstain from the negative, but also to embrace the positive. The “people consciousness” that ought to pervade the church would disallow, with an inner moral constraint, any plunder of one brother by another, which results from usury, and in its place this “people consciousness” would have us sustain the unfortunate among us. One must revere our God, and sustain – not plunder – his brother. This further exemplifies the point made above, that the emphasis in the command is “My people”, not “the poor”. The broader context of this text is the law concerning the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee. Some have sought to infer from this that the usury statute has particular reference to the oppression of the poor. The wording of the statute in this case does seem to suggest a particular application to “the poor”. Indeed, if this were the only occurrence of the statute, a limited scope of applicability would be difficult to deny. However, the command occurs with a broader scope in two other places (one just previously examined, and the other to be examined below), and provides that the present text must be taken as a special reemphasis of the law for the sake of the poor. Whereas,
borrowing in ancient times generally was limited to cases of personal need
(Le. “consumer credit” and “commercial loans” were entirely unknown), an emphasis on the poor in the law was actually in reference to most cases of borrowing. But this does not exclude from the proper jurisdiction of the law such cases as one who is not poor borrowing a cup of sugar from his neighbor. The affinity that God’s people are commanded to have with one another is not limited to a particular class. The “poor” brother enjoys a special mention only because he is the one who is most liable to the plunder of usury.
Deuteronomy 23:19-20
“You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countryman you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess.”
In this passage, ‘interest” is rendered from Neshek. To repeat briefly, the reader will recall that Neshek literally is “a bite”, as of a serpent, and in the KJV always is rendered as “usury”.
“Deuteronomy” means “second law”. As the people Israel prepared to cross the river Jordan, to enter the promised land, Moses, who was not going with them, spoke to them at length to remind them of their history, and the law which their God had spoken. The power and blessing of God was reiterated to them, lest they forget how marvelously they were led through the wilderness. In the course of this review, Moses also reminded them at length of God’s law, which once was delivered to them. The rule prohibiting usury was encountered twice before. As a summary and review of the law, this passage may be taken as expressing the sense in which Exodus and Leviticus must be taken. This is the passage which states very clearly what has been said earlier about the affinity of the brethren. The prohibition against usury is not, as many even among conservatives would say, a prohibition specifically against “charitable” loans, or loans to the “poor”, but a prohibition against loans given to our brethren. Usury enslaves. The brethren are not to be enslaved.
Also of interest is the broader statement of the sort of loan which the statute has in view. It prohibits “interest on money [silver], food, or anything that may be loaned at interest.” This inclusive phrase parallels the command that the lender ought to give to the borrower “whatever he lacks” (Deut.15:8). Thus the borrower, who has received in loan any sort of thing, is secure in knowing that brotherly charity, as defined in the law, excludes usury in every case.
Building upon the brother/stranger distinction, this passage contains a unique feature. Though it may be implied in the emphasis that usury is forbidden in the case of the brethren, this is the only passage that explicitly states that it is permitted in the case of the “foreigner”. This introduces one of the most touchy aspects of the usury problem in modern times. If usury is to be considered inherently wrong, then would it not be considered wrong in every case? If this is so, then what of the permission that is granted in v.20 to exact usury from the foreigner? If this permission is taken to mean that usury is not inherently wrong, but is prohibited in the case of brethren on pragmatic grounds, then would it not be expected that there may be some circumstances (e.g. “commercial loans”) in which usury might be permitted even in the case of the brethren? These questions pertain not only to usury, but to morality as a whole, and constitute a problem that would be outside of the present parameters to treat fully. There are other questions regarding the problem of the provision for usury in this passage, and they shall be treated in greater detail in a discussion to follow later. The following remarks shall suffice for the present discussion.
The brother/stranger distinction has nothing to do with the “type” of loan given, i.e. it is not the same thing as the charitable/commercial distinction. Usury was prohibited in loans to a brother because he was a brother, and likewise usury was permitted to the stranger because he was a stranger. Israel was commissioned to conquer the inhabitants of Canaan. Usury already was proven as a very effective technique for conquest, thus it was permitted in this case. That is, this permission to exact usury does not constitute a “qualification” of the law, but a measure of wrath that is to be brought upon lawless ones. It may be likened to carrying out the death penalty upon a murderer. Murder is against the law, and execution is not a
“qualification” of this law, but is wrath that is carried out against the lawless murderer.
Of positive benefit in this text is the reiteration of the godly motivation that is given for faithfulness to this law. Having once again laid upon Israel the prohibition of usury, God adds, “so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess.” It is interesting to contemplate the practical consequences of rampant usury from a theoretical, economical perspective, and likewise to consider the practical benefits of a society that is free from usury. However, it always must be held in view that nothing in economics is left to contingency. All of the calamities or blessings that
come upon us are controlled directly by our God, and are levied upon us according to His own mysterious purposes. Our hope is that His purpose is to bless His people, and He has given us to believe (see Deuteronomy 28) that in case we are faithful to His law, we are secure in the hope of blessing.
Nehemiah 5:7-10
“And I consulted with myself, and contended with the nobles and the rulers and said to them, ‘You are exacting usury, each from his brother!’
Therefore, I held a great assembly against them. And I said to them, ‘…. likewise I, my brothers and my servants, are lending them money and grain. Please, let us leave off this usury.’ ”
This text embodies two of the three occurrences of the word “usury” in the NASB. This version usually gives “usury” for Tarbith. In the present text, “usury” is given for a different word – Mashsha. It has the meaning of “exaction”. Here it speaks of the coldness and indifference with which one brother related to another. Those under usury saw themselves slipping into slavery, while those to whom they were indebted apparently did not care. How did such a distressing situation emerge in Israel? The events which led up to Nehemiah’s exhortation are characteristic of man’s propensity to sin, and the blessings of repentance.
As the history of the people Israel advanced, they proved themselves to be a stubborn and “stiff-necked” people. They ignored God’s laws, intermarried with, an idolatrous people, sacrificed to their idols, and corrupted themselves. God raised up the kingdoms of Babylon and Assyria for the purpose of disciplining His people. Those who dwelt in and around Jerusalem were defeated in battle, and carried off into exile in Babylon. The book of Nehemiah chronicles the close of this period of captivity, and the return of many of the people Israel, under the leadership of Nehemiah, to Jerusalem to rebuild the city. They were not free from the threats and aggression of the pagan people that God had used to discipline them, and there was an inner corruption (the reason for their captivity in the first place) that they needed to overcome. Although there are many aspects to this, however, the concern here is to note the extent to which they required re-instruction in the law.
Famine conditions arose (possibly because of the sudden influx of people returning from captivity). Instead of sustaining the brethren as required by the law, as was seen above, those in need were subjected to usury. “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards, and our homes that we might get grain because of the famine … We have borrowed money for the king’s tax on our fields and our vineyards. And now our flesh is like the flesh of our brothers, our children like their children. Yet behold, we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters are forced into bondage already, and we are helpless because our fields and vineyards belong to others.” (5:3-5) Instead of becoming kings and owners in the land, they were swiftly entering into slavery under usury at the hands of their own brothers. This greatly angered Nehemiah (v.6), and he called not only for the cessation of this usury (see text quoted at the head of this paragraph), but also called for restitution, “Please, give back to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive groves, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money and of the grain, the new wine, and the oil that you are exacting from them” (v.II). The usurers were moved by this plea, and readily agreed to repent and return the property. It is interesting to note that this restitution included “also the hundredth part of the money … ” This dramatically illustrates the fact that the usury prohibition has nothing to do with degree. An “interest rate” of I% is as unacceptable as 40%. This text is a great problem for the notion that usury merely is “excessive interest”, for I% hardly could be considered excessive.
The people had exhibited a great lack of understanding of the law. Their readiness to repent of usury indicated the redemption of their hearts, but their tendency to sin by way of usury indicated an ignorance of the law. All during their captivity they had learned the pagan ways of Babylon. Now it was necessary for them to learn once again the law of God. Ezra, a priest, held a great assembly, and read to the people from the law of God “from early morning until midday” (8:3). This was rich and fulfilling time for Israel. Repentance was complete and sincere. Their whole outlook on the world was altered radically by their new understanding of what God required of them. They took immediate and concrete steps to bring their lives into conformity to the requirement. It appears that a similarity exists between our own generation and Israel in the time of Nehemiah. We likewise have rampant usury among the brethren. We likewise have learned the ways of Babylon, and display either an ignorance of, or indifference to, the law of God. Will there be an Ezra in our day? Is the reader, by reading the present work, in a position that is even remotely similar to those who heard the law read under Ezra? Will he likewise repent?
Psalm 15:5
“He does not put out his money at interest, nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.”
This is a psalm of David, who ruled Israel during their ascension to greatness, prior to the days of defeat and captivity. It is a very brief psalm, the bulk of which is devoted to addressing a question that is posed in the opening verse, “O LORD, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill?” The answer to this, while one that is highly complex and lengthy may be imagined, actually is quite succinct, so much so that it may be quoted it in its entirety:
He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness
And speaks truth in his heart.
He does not slander with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
In whose eyes a reprobate is despised,
But who honors those who fear the LORD;
He swears to his own hurt, and does not change;
He does not put out his money at interest,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things will never be shaken.
Here again, the word given here as “interest” is Neshek , “to bite”. At first one might wonder why such a brief description of the godly man would include such a thing as this. One rightly would expect this comprehensive description to include only necessary elements, with no extraneous comments. But, having noted the extremely debilitating effects of usury, both in our historical account and in the biblical account, one may understand the importance of this issue and its inclusion in this list. Indeed, v.5 is an elaboration of v.4. The righteous man “honors those who fear the LORD”, not “humanity in general”. One very important instance in which this honor is seen is in the case of usury – or the abstinence there from – in relation to the brethren. “He who does these things will never be shaken.” It indeed is comforting to have this assurance, but such assurance is not ours automatically. A prelude to the assurance is “He who does these things”, the list which comprises “these things” having just been given. Modern Evangelicalism does not like being asked to perform. The present age is supposed to be an age of “Grace”. However, Grace too typically is seen to be an end, rather than a means. It seldom is realized that God’s Grace is not only for Redemption, but as well is to empower the redeemed unto good works. Grace is not static; it leads somewhere. It leads the redeemed the same place as it leads the reader of Ephesians chapter 2:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (v.8-10)
If the modern church will not do His good works, and rather would continue in usury in opposition to the requirement of His law, then let her not suppose that she will escape the shaking of His discipline.
Proverbs 28:8
“He who increases his wealth by interest and usury, gathers it for him who is gracious to the poor.”
Here is another juxtaposition of Neshek and Tarbith. Where the NASB translates” interest and usury”, the KN translates “usury and unjust gain”. Recall that Tarbith literally means “increase”.
Regardless, the principle of this proverb comes through clearly. The usurer is not gracious to the poor, for the gains he reaps through his usury may be considered as stolen outright from them. In reality he gathers not for himself and his own pleasures, but for him who is gracious to the poor. The Lord of history is sovereign. Even though the usurer may give all appearance of excelling in riches and power, still none of what he has gathered has been taken out of the hand of God. He will avenge His own purposes and will. There is no future in usury. War, revolution, and overthrow await those involved in unjust gain. The Sovereign Lord will see to it that His own economy and laws rule in the affairs of men. The law of God is both prescriptive and descriptive. In his sin, man experiences the prescriptive character of God’s law. It exposes his sin. However, the function of God’s law does not cease upon the redemption of man. The redeemed continue to experience the function of God’s law, though in its more positive aspect as descriptive of righteousness. It has this quality because it is descriptive of the world as God designed it. No one can choose to ignore God’s law, for the one who would do so sooner or later will be forced to acknowledge it simply because he cannot escape this world. In the matter of usury, scoffing at God’s law may seem
lucrative for the moment, but the sure testimony of His Word is that wealth
eventually will accrue to those who function lawfully.
Isaiah 24:1,2
“Behold, the LORD lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface, and scatters its inhabitants. And the people will be like the priest, the servant like his master, the maid like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the debtor.”
Isaiah the prophet warned Judah (the Southern people of Israel who occupied Jerusalem and the surrounding region) of the impending captivity in Babylon. This was the same captivity out of which Nehemiah and company later emerged, as was discussed above. In graphic terms Isaiah warns the people of the utter destruction which God was about to bring upon them for their unfaithfulness. Verse 1 relates this in imagery involving a geologic catastrophe; v.2 then pictures some of the
sociological consequences of this upheaval. Generally, there is portrayed a leveling, or equalization of all persons under the destruction. Defeat and captivity is no respecter of persons. Nor is hunger or disease. While there is no word in v.2 that may be rendered as “usury”, the KJV gives” as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him”. It shall be left to scholars to debate whether there actually is any usury involved here, however, the flow of images in v.2 tends to reinforce what already has been learned from Proverbs 22:7, “the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.” As enslavement mounted in this fashion among God’s people, this, as well as a host of other sins brought the judgment of God upon them. As is depicted so dramatically, the effects of this judgment, among other
things, was to obliterate this shameful distinction between lender and borrower in Israel. If this distinction is not kept out by keeping God’s law, it will be forced out as borrower and lender alike enter into captivity.
Jeremiah 15:10
“Woe to me, my mother, that you have born me as a man of strife and a man of contention to all the land! I have neither lent, nor have men lent money to me, yet every one curses me.”
Jeremiah was Isaiah’s colleague. Whereas Isaiah prophesied to the so-called “Southern Kingdom” of Judah, Jeremiah warned the ten “Northern” tribes of Israel concerning coming judgment at the hands of Assyria.
The points concerning translation are much the same as in the case of Isaiah above. The KJV puts, “I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury.” Usury is not explicit in the original, however, it may be part of Jeremiah’s commentary that “loan” had come to imply “loan at usury”. In either case, it is telling that Jeremiah would suppose that being either a lender or a borrower would give sufficient cause to incur the curses of others. He expresses some dismay that though he is neither of these, yet” every one curses me.”
Exekiel 18:8, 13, 17
“… if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps
his hand from iniquity, and executes true justice between man and man …
he is righteous and will surely live. . .. [if] he lends money on interest and
takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these
abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own
head. . .. [if} he keeps his hand from the poor, does not take interest or
increase, but executes My ordinances, and walk in My statutes; he will not
die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live.”
Ezekiel was a prophet who ministered to those who were in captivity to Babylon. His message was largely of judgement and righteousness, with a fair portion devoted to an image of restoration. Chapter 18 deals with a false proverb that was common among the exiles in that day. “The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge.” (v.2) It may be supposed that this proverb was built upon the biblical saying, uttered by God in the context of the Third Commandment, “I, the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.” (Exodus 20:5) Indeed, the present generation is devouring the sour grapes of usury, but it is the next generation who will feel the worse affects of it, i.e. economic collapse, social upheaval, and global poverty. This same principle may be seen throughout history. But this must always be seen as a “visitation” of a sovereign God. God’s opposition to the proverb of Ezekiel 18:2 probably was because the people had come to regard it as a mechanistic principle. God declares to them that it is not a mechanism, but it is He who is at work, “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.”
The remainder of the chapter is a very explicit explanation of just what He means. What about a righteous father who has a wicked son? The father lives, and the son dies. Now, suppose this wicked son has a son, and this one observes the wickedness of his father, but does not do likewise, rather he is righteous. This latter one will live, even though his father is wicked. There are a number of questions which might be raised concerning this, which however do not directly concern the present study of usury. Noted specifically is what is said about usury in connection with this discourse on righteousness and wickedness.
In describing the life of a righteous man, the text goes to considerable length. Among his traits are justice, abstention from idolatry, marital fidelity, respect of property, charity, and abstention from usury. Verse 9 acts as a summary of this life when its says, “If he walks in My statutes and My ordinances … ” If this is the righteous life, then what would characterize the wicked life? What is sin but “any lack of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God” (Westminster Shorter Catechism). Verses 10-13 virtually reverses every point mentioned in the righteous
life, in order to provide a description of the wicked life. Therefore, whereas the righteous man will not exact usury, the wicked man will do so. This is very plain in the text, and very forcefully stated. The inclusion of usury in this discussion of righteousness and wickedness reminds one of, and reinforces the effect of, the similar discourse in Psalm 15:5. The wicked man, the usurer, will not live. He shall not dwell on God’s holy hill, for he has taken the life of Babylon, the “earthly city”. It is the one who does righteousness, who looks with compassion on the poor, who
freely loans to his brother, that will live, and live with God.
Ezekiel 22:12
“In you they have taken bribes to shed blood; you have taken interest and profits, and you have injured your neighbors for gain by oppression, and you have forgotten Me,” declares the Lord GOD.
Carrying on from chapter 18, the prophet Ezekiel proclaims the Word of God unto an adulterous generation. He declares the sins of Israel’s leaders, and in chapter 22 he declares the sins of Jerusalem as a whole. The chapter begins: “Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “And you, son of man, will you judge, will you judge the bloody city? Then cause her to know all her abominations” (v.1 & 2). What follows is a list of amazingly disgusting sins, by means of which Israel had
made herself indistinguishable from the surrounding pagan peoples. As in chapter 18, here also, we encounter usury as a feature of a profile of wickedness. The NASB translates, “You have taken interest and profits.” “Interest” is given for Neshek, which is consistent with all other NASB renderings for this word. However, the word for which “profits” is given is Tarbith. The reader will recall that this juxtaposition of Neshek and Tarbith occurs also in Proverbs 28:8. There the NASB rendering is “interest and usury”. Laymen, such as the present writer, can only wonder what scholarly justification there may be for this inconsistency. Whatever explanation may be given, it is to be doubted that “profit” is the best word in this case. The context clearly is an enumeration of Israel’s sins. If “profits” is correct for Tarbith , then what God is telling us is that profit is a sin. However, what must be held in view is that God’s word is telling us that Neshek and Tarbith are sins. From all that is known about the character of these sins, they may be described in modern economical categories as charging a fee for the use of property, or usury.
It is instructive to the modern reader to note that usury takes a place in an array of other disgusting sins, which appear in Israel only when she became worthy of captivity to Babylon, that “earthly city”. When God’s people make themselves indistinguishable from the world, it invariably is the world that rules God’s people. When God’s people obey God’s laws, they become a “peculiar” people, who are ruled only by their God. Usury is a means of bondage and oppression that is the invention of the “earthly city”. The “City of God” is governed by God’s laws, which prohibit usury. Christians who dabble in usury forsake the rule of God and subject themselves to the rule of godless men.
Matthew 25:27
“Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.”
Those in modern times who would like some biblical justification for their own involvement in usury find much comfort in this parable, and a similar one in Luke 19, for they certainly have nothing to comfort them in the Old Testament. (Due to the similarity between Matthew 25 and Luke 19, in-so-far-as this parable, both of them are treated together). But a sensible reading of this text readily will dissolve such comfort, for the character of usury, and the ordinances of God concerning it, have not changed from the beginning.
A certain master was planning a long journey. While preparing to leave, he called to him his servants, and entrusted to them varying amounts of money (talents, minas, Le. a certain weight of silver). Several of his servants went out and “traded” with the money, and earned a profit, but one servant hid away the money for safe-keeping. Upon the master’s return, he called to himself his servants once again, to learn what each had done with the money that was entrusted to them. Having learned of the success of their trade, he praised the thrifty servants and increased their status. However, he became very displeased with the one servant who merely had hidden away the money that was entrusted to him.
In an interpretation of this parable, one usually does not have difficulty identifying the master as Christ, our Lord. Likewise, one readily sees himself as the servant, and the spiritual teaching of this parable is taken as both a warning and an encouragement for one to do his best to utilize the gifts that God has given him for His Kingdom, and His greater glory. So far, so good. But there seems to be an incredible inconsistency that arises when there is a shift of focus onto the popular
economic teaching of this parable. All would agree, apparently, that some
sort of teaching on usury may be gleaned from this account. But, in their attempt to characterize Jesus as approving usury, many commentators also accept without question the evaluation of the master that is given by the wicked slave. That is, in order for an approval of usury to result from this text, the master must be made out to be a harsh and thieving man. Let us examine in what manner this is so.
Here is what the servant who had hidden the money said to the master in the parable, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground … ” (Matthew 25:24,25) In Luke (19:21) this servant calls the master an “exacting” man. The word in Matthew 25:24 translated “hard” (skleros) means hard in the sense of “rough”, and is elsewhere translated “harsh”. The word translated “exacting” in Luke 19:21,22 (austeros) is used only in these
two instances. It is derived from a word meaning to dry or burn, and has the meaning of harsh or severe. This is the testimony of the servant concerning the master. Now what does the master say concerning the servant? “You wicked, lazy slave” (Matthew 25:27), and “You worthless slave” (Luke 19:22). It is evident that these are incompatible evaluations. Is it really a great problem to decide whose words are truth? If it already has been said that the master represents Christ, would it not be inconsistent to doubt the evaluation he gives of that servant? If His evaluation is accepted, and we come also to view this one as a worthless, wicked, and lazy slave, then how much stock would we put in his image of the Master? Not a great deal at all. Does Jesus reap where He has not sown, or take up where he has not laid down (steal)? We know that this is untrue. Then why do some read the remainder of the master’s comments as though he were admitting that the slave was right? He says, “… you knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my
arrival I would have received my money back with interest.” (Matthew 25:26,27). What the master is saying here is something like, “If that really is what you thought of me, then this is what you would have done …” Indeed, the Luke version comes very close to saying it just that way when the master says, “By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave, , ,” (19:22). It is only by the word of the slave that the master is those evil things, never by any admission of the master. The
word of the slave does not determine that the master is evil, rather the slave, by his own words, has proven himself to be evil, for the master is good definitively.
So what is the master really saying when he says “you ought to have put my money in the bank”? Many “investment” counselors today take this as a straightforward recommendation by the master. For instance, Gary North says of this parable, “Jesus was affirming the legitimacy of both profit through trade and the normal rate of return which is secured by lending money The two forms of activity are not the same, as the parable indicates, but both are legitimate.” Also, it is an exceedingly difficult thing to find a commentary on this passage that does not represent Christ as sanctioning usury. Oddly, it is Calvin, who may be regarded as the father of the current evangelical view, who stands virtually alone in his commentary: “For Christ did not intend to … applaud usury”. Also, Calvin Elliot, in his book on usury, gave an interpretation much the same as is offered here. But the popular idea ignores the master’s evaluation of this slave. The statement about what the slave ought to have done is couched in terms of what the slave claimed to believe concerning the master. The fact that the slave did not put the money in the bank showed that he really did not believe that the master was a thief, and was only
_____________________
Gary North, Honest Money (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press & Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, Inc., 1986), p.71
Calvin, A Hamwny of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), p.444
Calvin Elliot, Usury, A Scriptural, Ethical, and Economic View (Millersburg, OR: The Anti-Usury League, 1902)
trying to make excuses when he said those things. If he really thought that the master was a thief, then he should have gone to the banks to get usury (in violation of the eighth commandment, and all of the ordinances that are noted above).
No, there is not much comfort here for the modern dabbler in usury, unless one perceives his Lord to be the harsh and thieving master that the wicked slave tried to make him out to be. Then, like the wicked slave, he shall be judged by his own words, and found wanting.
The summation of this brief survey is a remarkably consistent and integrated principle. Then again, it should not seem too remarkable to us that the law of God is integrated. It is one’s own schizophrenia that renders law and grace – Old and New – as an exceedingly complex
problem.
God has condemned theft in His law. In particular, he has condemned usury – the practice of charging a fee for the use of property, which commonly is manifested as demanding in return for a loan an amount that is greater than what was loaned. His ordinances are clear on this. The modern distinction of “charitable” vs. “commercial” loans may not be read back into these ordinances simply because
1) this is an artificial distinction in the first place, since no economic transaction may be divorced from personal life (is a home mortgage “charitable” or “commercial”?) and,
2) whatever success there may be in establishing some reality to this distinction is of no account since there was nothing like the modern “commercial” enterprise at the time the command was given, i.e. the command does not explicitly cover such a distinction. Rather, the concern in the Pentateuch has been shown to be one of sustaining the brethren. The history of Israel, as given in the prophets bears out the dangers of this sin. As Nehemiah demonstrates, keeping God’s law not only is right (though that is enough) but also there is great utility in doing so. The impotence that is experienced in this generation, and the slavery into which it steadily is sinking, is attributable largely to this very sin. As in antiquity, the current generation faces the watershed of either repentance or judgement.