Biblical Prohibition Against Usury!

8/13/2019 Biblical Prohibition Against Usury!

1/12

The Biblical ProhibitionAgainst UsuryMARK E. BIDDLE

Professorof Old Testament

BaptistTheologicalSeminary atRichmond

Afull consideration ofsocialand economic justicewouldinvolveeconomics, socio-

logy, political science, andlegaltheory,inaddition to questions related to biblical

hermeneutics and biblical ethics.Thisarticlewilladdresswhatmust be the funda-

mental question for anyChristianapproach,whatdoes the Biblesay?

"Adecentprovision for thepoor is thetrue test of civilization."

, _ i . ^ ^ SamuelJohnson1

M ecentupheavalsin theeconomyhave forcefully raisedquestionsconcerningthe structure

I ^% of a vital and justfinancialsystem. Specifically, thecurrenteconomicdistress manifestsm m^ptobetns in the credit market In the fall of 2008, a senes of investment bank failures and

near-failures brought the wodd to the brink of financial collapse. Risky speculation by investors and

predatory practices by lenders, all compounded by the effects of a system too complex to be managed

or even fully comprehended, moved governments around the world to intervene. Meanwhile, the pop

ular perception that the United States government's financial rescue of Wall Street came at the ex

pense (and the continued neglect) of Main Street has taken root throughout society. While those re

sponsible for the cnsis received multi-million dollar governmental loans at 5% interest rates, average

citizens were paying an average of over 13% on credit cards issued by the same banks,2small business

es could not get loans to operate, and layoffs throughout the economy left neady 10% still unemployed

two years later.3

This economic mayhem has also rekindled a controversy over the nature of the gospel. In March,

2010, well over a year into the aftermath of the near-collapse, media personality Glenn Beck sparked a

firestorm of commentary on the role of the church in the quest for a just economic system with his

claim that "the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice'... are code words" for socialism.4Reactions

to Beck demonstrated the extent of the disagreement in the Amencan church concerning whether the

biblical message includes a call to social and economic justice. For example, Jim Walks, founder ofSojourners, responded with a letter to Beck asserting that

Chnstians can have different views of the role of government but still agree that social justice

is crucial Very few who believe that are "Marxists"And while we all preach empowerment to

live out the gospel, we don't think the meaning of social justice should be reduced to just pnvate

chanty Biblical justice also involves changing structures, institutions, systems, and policies, as well

as changing hearts to be more generous5

At the other end of the spectrum, in strong support of Beck's position, Jerry Falwell, Jr. commented

1 James Boswell, The Ijfe of SamuelJohnson (London John Sharpe, 1830), 194


2/12

118 Interpretation APRIL 2011

that "Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he never said that we

should elect a government that would take money from our neighbor's hand and give it to the poor."6

The credit market lies at the core of the current situation. Consequendy, any Christian proposal

concerning the propriety and nature of social and economic justice must address the central feature of

this market, namely lending/borrowing at interest Of course, a full consideration would involve eco

nomics, sociology, political science, and legal theory, in addition to questions related to biblical herme-

neutics and biblical ethics. Other contributions to this issue of Interpretationexamine many of the for

mer aspects of the topic; this article will address what must be the fundamental question for any Chris

tian approach to social and economic justice: what does the Bible say?

In fact, the HB explidy prohibits some form of lending at interest in all three major legal codes

in the Pentateuch:"li you lend (M)7

money to any of my people, the poor among you, you shall notbe to him as a creditor(nsB),and you shall not charge him interest(nsk,"bite")"

8(Exod 22:24[25

Eng]CovenantCode;see also Lev 25:3537PnesdyCode; Deut23:2021 [1920Eng]Deut

eronomicCode;cf.Deut15:610;Deut28:12,44).TheprophetEzekiel (18:8,13,18; cf. 22:12)con-

sideredlendingatinterestone of thecharacteristicsthatdifferentiates betweenonewho "is righteous

anddoes what is lawful and right" (18:5) andonewho has "doneabominablethings"(18:13).In the

Persian period,duringafamine,when thepoorwere forced to selltheirchildrenintoslavery in order

tosustain themselves and meet taxobligations,Nehemiahbrought charges againstthenobles and the

officials" callingupon themto ceaselendingatinterest(Neh5:311). Psalm15,one of the"entrance

liturgies"thatstates the qualifications for accessingthesacredtemple precincts,specifies lendingat

interestas a disqualification (v.5).Finally,Prov 28:8 warnsthatthosewhoaccruewealth bylendingat

interestwillultimatelyforfeit theirgain to one 'Vho is kind to the poor."

On theirface, the legal texts seem to express anidealistic,some might sayunrealistic, proscription.

Howcould even anancient economyfunctionwithoutcreditand who would take the risk involved in

lending withoutsome assurance of beingrepaidor some hope of reapinga benefit?Indeed,the law

codesof Israel'sneighbors,whichrestrictedinterest,bothincurrencyand inkind, althoughrates were

ratherexorbitant(ranging from 20% perannumto a high of 50% for grain in Assyria),indicatethat,fromEgypttoMesopotamia, creditplayed animportantrole inancientNearEastern economies.

9

Biblicalevidence confirmsthatIsrael did not differ entirelyinpractice andwas certainlyno egalitarian

utopia(cf. 1 Sam22:2,which reportsthatmany of David's followers were debtors fleeingtheirobliga-

tions).The Bible attests loans backed bycollateral(Ps109:11,"maythecreditorsehe everything he

has")andrestrictscreditors frompredatoryabuses (Exod22:26[27];Deut24:6).Indeed,the debtors

themselves,ormembersof theirfamilies, could serve as a form of t u r n a n collateral"intheinstitu-

tionoften described as "debtslavery"(2 Kgs4:1;cf. the absurdhypothetical situationinvolvingGod

6 Seehttp://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/beck.boycott/?hpt=C2, accessed March 17, 2010.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/beck.boycott/?hpt=C2http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/beck.boycott/?hpt=C2


3/12

USURY Interpretation 119

sellingZion to God's creditors in Isa 50:1).Whilethe law codes also sought to regulate it (Exod 21:2

11,Deut 15:1218; Lev25:2943,4755)and prophets such as Amos decried its abuse (2:6, 8:6), it

was not prohibited outright. An absolute ban on lending at interest seems inconsistent with a tolera-

tion of debtslavery.Notingthat,in fact, Exod 22:24 and Lev 25:35 explicidy limit the prohibition only

to casesinvolvingthe poor in the community, many scholars conclude that lending at interest was not

forbidden se}

What, then,was the thrust of these prohibitions^ Fortunately, the three versions of the regulation

in the Torah and Ezelael's discussion all exhibit particular nuances and appear in contexts that shedsig-

nificant light on the parameters of the proscription and on the theological and ethical rationale for it

Furthermore,die Nehemiah account illustrates the application of the prohibition in a concrete situa-

tion, Persian penodJudah,confirming the essential emphases of the Torah's ban.

"LEND HOPING NOTHING THEREBY" (LUKE 6 :3s)1 1

The prohibition in Exod 22:24[25] contemplates a straightforward situation. Taking the second

element of the compound indirect object as a clarification of thefirst(iCWhen you lend money to my

people, that is to the poor among you, do n ot . . ."),12this text does not seem to forbid all commercial

transactionsinvolvinginterest, but only interest on loans made to the needy. Although by form an ex-

ample of "case law," in substance, it more closely resembles apoacticstatements of principle. It does

not firstdefine a transgression and then prescnbe a penalty or remedy ("if a man steals an ox . . . then

he shall payfiveoxen for an ox " Exod 22:1). Instead, it proscribes a behavior (lending at interest)

in certain cases (when the borrower is a poor communitymember).In this regard, it resembles other

regulations in its literary context, Exod22:2026[2127], none of which prescnbe penalties since each

states a fundamental value instead of legislatingon a criminalmatter.Like the prohibition against

charging interestitself,its companion commandments contemplate situations that cannot be precisely

defined ("You shall not wrong a stranger," 22:20[21]; "You shall notafflict awidow"22:21 [22]).

What constitutes a 'Vrong" in this context^ Even though imprecise with respect to the definition

10 John Durh am observes, for example, that the biblical prohibition asserts that "the one who advances the money is

not to do so as a businessman, but as afellow member of Yahweh's family" (Exodus [WBC 3, Waco Word, 1987], 329), seealso E Neufeld, "Th e Prohibition against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws," HUCA 26 (1966), 356, Julian Mor

genstern, "The Book of the Covenant (Concluded) Part IVThe Mismt" HUCA 33 (1962), 71, Samuel Loewenstamm,

"nsk andm/trbyt"JBL 88 (1969) 7880, Cornelius Houtman,Exodus, Vol 3 Chapters2040 (Histoncal Commentary onthe Old Testament, Leuven Peeters, 200), 218, and Duane Chnstensen,Deuteronomy21 1034 12(WBC 6b, Nashville Nel-

son, 2002), 355, among others For theview that theBibleintends to prohibit commercial lending aswell,see H Gamoran,"The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest,"JNES 30 (1977) 12734

11 Even less than the HB, the NT does no t propose a divinely ordered economic system, and demonstrates no interest

in regulating commercial and financial transactions In many respects, the N T reflects a social setting much closer to the sit

uation of the church in contemporary Western society In both contexts, thebelievingcommunityeither as a minonty living under foreign domination or as an already diverse religious community livingamong others in a pluralistic societydoes no t have the authority to regulate the economic system of its culture As the headings to the sections of this article

mean to suggest,the NT, and the Jesus of the Gospels in particular, spoke overdy to theissues of poverty and debt in consonance with the HB's interest in community and compassion Often, Jesus' statements essentially restate the provisions of

Torah (cf Luke 6 35 and Exod 22 24[25], John 12 l and Deut 15 11, etc) or assume their continued validity (cf Matt 6 12and Deu t 152 etc) References to economic circumstances in Jesus' parables appear in a narrative world that operates in


4/12


of the parties involved and the actions prohibited, these prohibitions do not fall into the category of

moral platitude. Indeed, perhaps the most obvious feature of the fourmiswtmExod 22:20-26[21-

27] is their shared focus on very specific, real wodd financial transactions with the potential to disad

vantage and defraud the weak As the unit unfolds, the principle of protection for the vulnerable assumes increasingly concrete form in relation to "oppressing" the "stranger" (v. 20[21]), "afflicting"

widows and orphans (w. 21-23) , lending to the poor (v. 24(25]), and the abuse of collateral (w. 25 -26

[26-27]). The first two provisions employ general terms to denote the wrongdoing prohibited. Instead

of verbs that denote "oppression" generally, however, the second pair specifies two acts, perhaps

among the most egregious, that exemplify wrongdoing, oppression, and affliction. Undoubtedly,

others could also have been listed.

The commandment against "oppressing"(ynh) the stranger{gei)echoes throughout the Torah and

the prophetic literature,13but the usage in Ezek 18:5-17, especially, informs an understanding of the

connotations of the termynk In the course of refuting the notion, apparendy current among the exilic

audience of the book of Ezekiel, that the innocent exilic generation was suffering the consequences of

ancestral guilt, this unit considers the hypothetical case of the consequences of the behaviors of three

generations in a family. The discussions of the three cases each begin with a statement of the hypo

thetical case: a righteous person (v.5);his violent son, whose behavior is theantipodeof his father's (w.

10-1la);the first man's just grandson, who rejects the example set by his father (v. 14). Each closes

with a reassertion that the evidence of the hypothesized behaviors supports the finding that the indi

vidual in question is just or (w. 9b, 17a) unjust (v. 13a-b) and a pronouncement of the appropnate verdict (w. 9b, 13b, 17b). Uniquely, in the first case, a summary assessment of the behaviors of the hypo

thetical individual (v. 8a-b) precedes the finding and verdict This summary characterizes the behaviors

in question both negatively (the individual has done no wrong) and positively (he has dealt jusdy with

people).

All three cases focus attention on central sections specifying the behaviors that typify righteous

ness and unrighteousness, respectively (w. 6-8a, ll b- 13 a, 15-17a).14All three deal with substantially

the same behaviors, although the order vanes and the second and third lists omit a few items found in

the first15In the first case, Ezekiel characterizes the behaviors of a righteous person who "does what

is lawful(mispal)and just(seaaqd)" (v.5),who


5/12


oppression. Wim the exception of w. 78a, the text exhibits the parallel structure that characterizes

Hebrewpoetry.One pair of clauses delineates what might be termed elicitcukicacts(v. 6a) and a sec-

ond,sexualmisdeeds (v. 6b).

Thediscussion of the durd category,economicoffenses, departs from the establishedpatternin a

numberof respects. The seven clauses dealing with this category of offenses cannotbe grouped in

pairs.The superfluous clause seems to be the initial clause in the sequence.

Hedoes not oppress anyone

hereturns the pledge to the debtor,

anddoes not steal,

hegiveshis bread to the hungry,

andclothes the naked,

heneither lends at interestnor takes increase (Ezek 18 78a)

Indeed,the syntax of the conjunctions in 7suggeststhat the last four clauses of theversedefine the

firstclause ("a man who does not oppress: who restores the debtor his pledge, who robsnothing,who

giveshis bread to the hungry, who covers the naked withclothing").Like Exod 22:20[21], the first

clause inv.7 refers to an act ("oppression") diat requires further definition to envision a specific act

Further,the subsequent clausefollowswithoutconjunction.Apparendy,then,the initial clause inv.7

functionsas a heading for the six clauses thatfollow,16

a conclusion supported by the observations that

thethird exhibits a similar structure inv.16(fiveclauses introducedby the same general statement).

Thefull form of thelistof economic misdeeds in w. 78a defines "oppression,"then,in terms of

propertycrimes (the misappropnation of collateral equated with robbery), lack of compassion (the

failure to feed the hungry and clothe thenaked),and the exercise of usury. The thirdlistunderscores

thisdefinition of "oppression" by employing forms of the tern "oppression" twice, once as theintro-

ductionto thelistof economic transgressions (v. 16) and a second time,emphatically,in a clause

pairedwith a statementconcerningusury (v. 17): "He does n o t . . . oppress anyone .. . he restrains his

handfrom oppression: he does not take interest or increase."

Theprohibition does not stand alone in either the second or the third lists, but as a specific exam-

ple of actions thatconstituteoppression. Given itsprominencein all three lists, the text apparendy re-

garded charging the poor interest a despicable act Indeed,the Ezekielpassageplaces the larger cate-

gory of oppression and the specific acts that exemplify it on a par with adultery and idolatry.

Inlikefashion, the editors of theDeuteronomicCode placed the prohibition against usury in a

section(23:1924:7) diat explicates the Decalogue'scommandmentagainst stealing.17

Seven cases ar-

ranged chiasticallyculminatein two prohibitions against "stealing a life" (gnb,24:6,7),suggesting

thatthe editors of theDeuteronomicCode understood all seven of the situations treated here to ln


6/12


volve theft: of life in some form: usury diminishes the debtor's means (23:19[20]), just as holding a

millstone as collateral robs a householder of the means to grind Hfe-sustaining flour(24:6).Both are

related, if not tantamount, to selling a fellow Israelite into slavery (24:7).

"AND WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?" (LUKE 10:29)

The biblical injunction against usury, then, cleady does not address the issue primarily from the

standpoint of the needs of commerce, financial policy, or a coherent economic theory, but with an in

terest in social justice. It intends not to regulate a market economy but to nurture the health of a com

munity by protecting its weakest members. Furthermore, the injunction does not stand alone, but as an

illustration of the behaviors that constitute "oppression," the exploitation of the disadvantaged, the

exacerbation of their situation. Obviously, such a principle hinges on a definition of the community to

which it pertains. Who are the weak it means to protect?

Th e HB manifests countervailing tendencies with regard to the precise delineation of the seg

ment of the community protected by usurylegislation.In some texts, protection seems to extend

broadly to any who find themselves in economic distress while other texts attend to a careful delinea

tion of the boundaries of the community. Some passages manifest the tension internally. For example,

in contrast to the movement from general (wrongdoing, affliction) to specific (lending at interest, seiz

ing the pledge) with regard to the nature of the oppressive acts prohibited in Exod 22:20-26 [21-27],

the second pair of prohibitions employs the general term "poor" throughout, presumably as an um

brella term encompassing strangers, widows, and orphans, and representing the destitute generally. In

ancient Israelite society, widows and orphans obviously would have benefited from protection against

exploitation. The classification of "sojourner/stranger/foreigner/immigrant" (get)along with the or

phan and the widow (Exod 22:20[21]) merits closer attention.

The prohibitions against usury in the Torah refer to t h e ^ either direcdy (Lev 25:35) or in the

immediate context (Exod 22:20[21]), or to the "foreigner" (nkr,Deut23:21[20]). Whereas /fcz/bi regu

larly denotes an individual who differs in ethnicity or nationality (Exod21:8;Deut 17:15;29:22,etc),gr

can refer either to a foreigner resident abroad (Ruth 1:1) or to someone living away from home but still

in his or her native county, such as the Ephraimite resident in Benjamite territory mentioned in Judg

19:16. As an example of the latter usage, Leviticus envisions a circumstance in which a fellow Israelite

(hik,"your brother'7) falls upon hard times and must live asagr inthe community (Lev 25:35). It

does no t address the question of the permissibility of lending at interest to non-Israelites, although

its silence may imply permission.

Deuteronomy, which distinguishes between the Israelite( hko)and the "foreigner"{nkr),

explicidy endorses charging non-Israelites interest (23:20-21[1920]). This iDeuteronomic double

18 21 23: Weitere Beobacht ngen " Bib 69 [1988]: 63 92) ha e caref ll b tantiated the earlier ie See al o Denni


7/12


standard"18is perplexing given Deuteronomy's normal stance with regard to the sojourner. Typically,

Deuteronomy demands equal justice for t h e ^ (1:16;27:19) and calls for including thegerin religious

celebrations (14:29; 16:11,14; 26:11-13). Indeed, the reaffirmation of the covenant in the land of

Moab (29:10; 31:12) warns against oppressing theger(24:14,17), grants thegerthe right to glean (24:19-21),and even calls for Israelites to "love" the^rin need by providing food and clothing (10:18

19).Deuteronomy 14:21,which differentiates between treatment of thegerand thenakrwith regard

to the disposal of animals that "die of themselves," suggests that, in Deuteronomy, the criterion of

residence distinguishes between the two categories of "strangers." Purity requirements do no t permit

Israelites to eat the flesh of animals no t ritually slaughtered so that the Hfe-containing blood is han

dled properly. Deuteronomy 14:21 does not address food safety. Israelites may^k such an animal to

a resident alien, who is part of the community; they maysell suchan animal to anakr,who presum

ably is not. While membership in the community demarcates thegh,the distinction between charityand profit differentiates the appropriate actions. Israelites may not profit from the needy in the com

munity under such unusual circumstances. By analogy, then, Deut 23:20-22[19-20] contemplates

commercial transactions involving Israelites and foreigners outside the community and says nothing

about loans for needy residentaliens.19The latter category of "foreigners" falls under the general pro

tections afforded elsewhere in Deuteronomy.

Exodus 22:20 [21] explicidy describes Israelites during their stay in Egypt zsgerim,which can be

translated "resident aliens" in this instance. Therefore, it unmistakably includes "alien workers," non-

Israelites, among those who deserve protection from economic exploitation.20Conversely, the prohi

bition against usury proper (Exod 22:24[25]) apparendy identifies the group it intends to protect as

"my people, the poor among you(V-*amm ^et-hn cimmak)"suggesting a focus on poor Israelites.21

Are sojourners, who deserve protection from exploitation generally according to Exod 22:20[21],

excluded from the usury protection afforded by Exod 22:24[25]? Two interpretations are possible:

1) Exodus embraces even "resident aHens/immigrant workers" among those protected from exploita

tion in its various forms, including usury. The general protection encompasses the specific. 2) Exodus

extends a level of protection togerm,but prohibits usury for Israelites only. With a view to the princi

ple of "one law" for the Israelite and the immigrant announced several times in the Exodus/Sinai tradition (Exod 12:49;Num 9:14; 15:15), Exodus likely expresses the claim that any of the "poor among

[Israel],"including the needy immigrant, falls underYHWH'sprotection.

18 On the role of this "double standard"in the develo pmen t of Western capitalism, see Paul W Wee, "Biblical Ethics

and Lending to the Poor,"The Ecumenical Review38 (1986), 424.19Houtman (Exodus, Volume 3:Chapters20-40, 218) commen ts o n the distinction between the "so-called consump tion

loan, not the commercial loan to build a commercial capital" and concludes that the Deuter ono mic law, which is silent withregard to commercial loans to fellow Israelites, deals with the permissibility o f commercial loans to non-Israelites. See also

Chnstensen, Deuteronomy21:10-34:12, 355 and Jeffrey Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 1996), 218.20 "Thi s is the non-Israelite wh o has found a hom e in Israel. Unlike widows and orphan s, then , the sojourners h ad often

made a voluntary choice to live as they did, and they would usually be member s of a family headed by an able-bodied, adultl h h d i i d i d id d h b h i i ld b i i h


8/12


Theprohibition against charging afellowIsraelite interest found in Lev 25 appears in the context

of a series of lawsdealing with the proper treatment of the destitute. As Mignon Jacobs has demon-

strated, theselawsclassify situations according the nature of the economic transaction (thesaleof

property; loans, either of money or in kind; and thesaleof persons), the ethnic identities of thoseinvolved (whetherfellowIsraelite [I] or nonIsraelite p]) , and the question of status in the relationship

(anIsraelite dependent on [>] another Israelite, a nonIsraelite dependent on an Israelite, an Israelite

dependenton anonIsraelite).This nexus of criteria definesfiveparticular cases in which "group iden-

tity is the decisive factor in determining the treatment parameters of the destitute."22

Notably, thesys-

tem omits cases involving transactions between nonIsraelite parties and cases involving Israelites and

nonIsraelites except where thesaleof persons is involved. As the extreme possibility, the latter case

merits full treatment and reveals most cleady the force of group identity. Israelites, whether sold to

otherIsraelites or nonIsraelites, may not be treated as permanentslaves.Instead, Israelite "owners"must free Israelite servants intheJubilee year and Israelite servants may be redeemed at any time from

nonIsraelite "owners." In contrast, Israelites may truly "own" nonIsraelites, the "others" in this

scheme of identity. Land, the essential source of prosperity in agrarian societies, in contrast to houses

inwalled cities (w. 2930), could also be redeemed any time prior to the jubilee when it was to return

toits original owner in any case.

I> I F > I I > F

Property 25:2534

Loans 25:3538

Persons 25:3943 25:4446 25:4755

In the absence of any discussion of how foreigners should be treated with regard to thesaleof

property and lending, the permissiongivenIsraelites to "own" foreigners as permanentslaves,who

even become part of the estate of a deceased master (v 46), seems tosuggestthat Leviticus does not

envision extending economic protections to foreigners. The language of w. 3538, which charges an

Israelite with "maintaining"(h%ghi,literally "to strengthen") afellowIsraelite in economic distress

and permitting him tolive"as a stranger (tosai?)and sojourner {gei)" introduces an interesting possibili-

ty. As with theger,it is unclear atfirstreading whether the text employs tomb,which appears only inlate,predominandy priesdy texts, to denote a"visiting"Israelite or a true foreigner. Otiierusages sug-

gestthe latter, however, and seem toassignthetombto a rather specific social andlegalniche.Abra-

hamdescribes himself to "the children of Heth"as atomb(Gen 23:4), a true foreigner, and Lev 25:

4546indicates that,unlike an Israelite, thetombcan be bought Both Exod 12:4348and Lev 22:-

1carefully delineate those who may eat sacred food,classifyingthetombwith the "stranger/foreigner"

(ben-nekr,Exod 12:43;9Lev 22:10; cf. , 12) and the "hired servant" (skr,Exod12:45; Lev22:10)

asthose prohibited (contrastNum 9:14; 15:15-16). Incomparison,the slave purchasedorborn into

22 i b f i d l i l h ll di d i i i i


9/12


the household of an Israelite qualified to consume the sacred may participate (Exod 12:48; Lev 22:11).

Onthe otherhand,thetomb,likethe^ r, enjoys the protections offered by the cities of refuge

(Num35:15) and the SabbathYear(Lev 25:6). Indeed, the usury text,itself (Lev 25:3538), charges

Israelites to treat afellowIsraelite as atombwith regard to lending; such individuals fallunder the spe-

cial protection of the deity (Exod22:21[22],26[27]); Deut 10:18; Ps 9:13[12]). In effect, the disadvan-

taged Israelite and thetombstand on an equal footing; both depend on God's patronage and Israel's

benevolence.

Cleady,then,the thrust of these prohibitions against usury, in particular, and the regulations that

accompanythem in their immediate contextsinvolvesthe protection of the poor and the disadvan-

taged23

wimout regard for ethnicity or nationality. Anyone living"among" Israel was considered part of

thecommunity.

24

"FORGIVEUS OURDEBTSAS WEFORGIVEOURDEBTORS''(MATT 6:12)

Thetensions evident in these texts concerning the population protected by the biblical prohibi-

tion against usury ariselargelyfrom a conflict inherentin the encounter between the impulse to identi-

fy the boundaries of community and the theological ideal that motivates and shapes the prohibition.

Onthe onehand,Israel's selfunderstanding as a covenant community necessarily involved boundaries

as expressed, inpart,in its understanding of purity. On theother,however, the more fundamental

conviction that the foundation of Israel's existence as a covenantcommunityconsisted in God's act ofliberatingslavesfrom Egyptian bondage represented an enduring impetus for Israel to express its iden-

tity with its God by extending liberation to those at the margins.

Whemer stated explicidy or implied in the context, each of the Torah's prohibitions situates lend-

ing practices in relation to Israel's experience of liberation from servitude. The memory of Egypt's

harshexploitation of Israel's ancestors pervades the entire discussion of thetreatmentof the disad-

vantaged in theHB.Theverbs"to wrong" (cnh)and "to oppress" (/Ar) inv.20[21], references to the

forced labor Israel endured while in Egypt (Exod 3:9; 23:9; Deut 26:7; 1 Sam 10:18, respectively), in-

troducethis bondage as the motivation for Israel's treatment of strangers in its midst 25It joins a num-

ber of such reminders as rationales for social and economic relations (cf. Exod 23:9; Deut 10:19;

15:15; 23:7; Lev 19:34). The unit concerning the oppression of the disadvantaged, in general, which

includes the prohibition against usury, in particular, concludes with the warning of the consequences

should someone nonetheless do so and should the victim of oppression "cry out"(s q)to God

(Exod 22:22[23]; cf. 22:26[27j). In reference to the disadvantaged, it employs language regularly used of

2 3 " It was simply no t in keeping with the spirit of the covenant to help someone in the community with aview togaining personal profit" (Wee, "Biblical Ethics," 420)

2 4John Calvin (Commentaryon theBookof Psalms,vol. 1 (Edinburgh Constable, 1850],21314 [as cited in


10/12


God'sresponse to Israel's cries of distress (Exod 8:12; 14:10,15; 15:25; 17:4; Nu m 11:2; 12:13; Judg

4:3;10:12; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 19:20; Ps 34:18;77:1;88:1; 107:6,28; Neh 5:1; 9:27; cf. Israel's "groaning" in

Exod 2:24;6:5;Judg 2:28) and, specifically, in statements concerning the exodus (Exod 3:7, 9; Num 20:

16; Deut26:7;Josh 24:7). Motivational clauses in Lev 25:42, 55 also cite the tradition of the exodus lib-erationas grounds for the humanitarian treatment of indentured servants. In these texts, God asserts,

ineffect, that God did not liberate Israeliteslavesfrom Egypt only to see them reenslaved by theirfel-

low Israelites: "They are my servants whom I brought from Egypt; they shall not be sold asslaves"

(25:42; cf. 55).

These direct references and allusions to God's act of liberation incorporate the prohibition

against usury intoa nexus of theological corollaries to Israel's exodus experience. Israel's experience of

Go das liberator from Egypt servedas the lens through which Israelviewedsubsequent events. Not

only did Israel continue toviewGod as liberator, but also it described its dependence on God's liberat-

ing activity sometimes in terms of its own continuing sojourner status (Lev 25:23; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:

12[13]).Because the exodus was not only central in Israel's memory, but was also understood as a reve-

lationof YHWH's character (Ps 146:9), Israel could assert that,justas YHWH had once responded to

Israel's cries, YHWH can be expected to respond when poor and disadvantaged individuals cry out

(Exod22:21[22],26[27]); Deut 10:18; Ps 9:13[12]). Furthermore,since Israel has known both oppres-

sion and deliverance, and since Israel's God liberates the oppressed as an expression of character,Is-

raelites must not become oppressors themselves (Deut 24:14,17;27:19;Jer 7:6; 22:3; Ezek 22:7,29;

Zech7:10; Mai 3:5; Ps 94:6). To the contrary, they should emulate and cooperate with YHWH in theprogram of liberation (Deut 10:19; 24:1921; 26:1113; Ezek 47:2223). Even servants and sojourners

must be afforded the benefits of theweeklySabbath commemoration of YHWH's deliverance (Exod

20:10; 23:12; Lev 16:29; Deut 14:29; cf. Deut 16:11,14). Israelites certainly must not become Pharaoh

to the sojourners in its midst Significantiy, the Ezekielpassageso values the proper treatment of the

disadvantaged and poor that it finds evennitfailuretoextendchantyobjectionable (18:7b; cf. Deut 15:8

10). The upright member of the communitywillendeavor to aid the needy. Upright behavior certainly

cannotmake the poor poorer or the weak weaker.26

Thedistinctive element of the biblical proscription against taking interest on loans to the disad-

vantaged does not derive from egalitarian political theory, ethical notions of justice or fairness, or the

natural law arguments propounded by medieval theologians.27

Instead, it extrapolates Israel's insight

intothe redemptive character of Israel's God expressed in Israel's constitutive exodus experience.

Israel's God liberated the exploited, demonstrating favor toward the downtrodden. To exploit,then,is

tofailto reflect God's character as God's people; it is to align with those who oppose God's purposes;

it is to become Pharaoh.

26 "Righte ousness . does not mean that he is sinless, or that he has shown his virtue by conforming perfectly to a

comprehensive legal system, but that he is awillingmembe r of the cultic community who conforms with the ordi-nances of community life and thus show toward the covenant relationship" (Walther Eichrodt Ezekiel: A Commentary


11/12


"GO. SELL. . . AND GIVE TO THE POOR"? (MARK 10:21)

Any effort to utilize biblical economic rules in the development of an ethical approach to struc

turing contemporary society must cope with substantial obstacles. In many cases, a simple appropria

tion of the Bible's requirements is frankly impossible. The Bible, a product of ancient cultures, does

not anticipate many of the issues that have arisen millennia later. The Bible's regulations concerning

economic matters such as lending at interest pose a range of issues regarding their normative status.

Were such Utopiancalls,like the call for the forgiveness of all debts in the Sabbath year, for example,

ever enforced in practice or did they function primarily as a statement of values? In either case, given

the differences between modern and ancient Israelite cultural contexts, do biblical prescriptions contin

ue to have normative force, and if so, for whom, and to what extent? If one adopts the position,

arguably the most reasonable stance, that contemporary readers must view these regulations as expres

sions of biblical values "only," does this perspective deprive the biblical text of authority, of normative

force, or can one disentangle die theologically significant elements of biblical legislation from conces

sions to Israel's cultural milieu? If so, how?

At this point, one must acknowledge, of course, that, unlike ancient Israel, in which the religious

community and the political community were coterminous, contemporary Western societies separate

church and state. Political institutions regulate economies; the church does n ot The difficulties in

volved in tracing the history of biblical economic legislation and the thorny hermeneutical considera

tions involved in the transition from description to prescription notwithstanding, one can sketch a gen

eral but substantially cohesive portrayal of the Bible's approach to economic practice as the context for

the Bible's prohibition against usury. Moreover, one can discern a nuanced but powerful theological

rationale underlying it.

Although these brief and concise texts contain only hints to this effect, a strong argument can be

made that the prohibition against lending at interest was not meant to apply to primarily commercial

transactions. Rather, the biblical prohibition represents the fundamental convictions that lending prac

tices can be a tool of oppression and exploitation and that an economic system should be measured

not just by the standard of the overall wealth it creates, but also, even primarily, by its impact on thoseat the fringes of the economy. Most essentially, the biblical prohibition against usury rests on the con

viction that if the people of God, whose debts have been forgiven, are truly to reflect God's image in

the world, they must actively seek to do God's work of liberation in the world in every arena of life.

The ongoing financial crisis once again confronts the church with the question as to whether it can

"relate the covenant to the prevailing social conditions in such a way as to bring these conditions closer

to the model of Yahweh's justice."28

Wee "Biblical Ethics and Lending to the Poor " 419


12/12

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Biblical Prohibition Against Usury!

Documents

Transcript of Biblical Prohibition Against Usury!