Abstract
Many people in the
modern world do not know what usury is. Most have not even heard the term
‘usury’. While it is easy to dismiss the issue as ‘antiquated’ or ‘irrelevant’,
usury and its operation in global finance and banking affects the lives of all
people in the west, whether directly or indirectly. As the global banking
system is financed by debt, it is absolutely important to understand the nature
of usury, as well as its ethics and morality. This article will examine the
nature of usury, its ethics and morality from a Biblical perspective and how to
deal with the challenges usury poses to the modern world.
History of usury
During Christendom in Europe, usury was banned by the
governing powers because it recognised usury as evil. As the laws prohibiting
usury during Christendom became lax, usury become increasing legitimised as a
result, and eventually redefined to mean an unreasonable
interest on a loan rather than interest on a loan per se. Usury is now the cornerstone of the modern banking system. It
is its lifeblood.
It was the redefinition of usury which legitimised it. Owing
to the argument that as long as the parties to a usurious loan agreed, usury
became seen as unethical and immoral on the grounds of the effect it has on the
borrower, rather than unethical because it is interest on a loan. The modern
mind may ask, ‘what is so wrong with usury’? Indeed, it is very hard for the
modern mind to fully understand why usury is wrong because of its existentialist
and naturalistic approach to ethics, in contrast to the essentialist ethic of
the Medieval Era, in particularly, Christendom which approached questions of
ethics and morality from an essentialist and spiritual perspective. From the
existentialist perspective, an act or deed is wrong because of its effects and
consequences suffered. From the essentialist perspective, an act or deed is
wrong because of what the very act itself is,
or what it involves to constitute that act or deed.
Lending money itself is not an immoral or unethical act. Neither
is generating wealth itself. Usury, however, is not merely a means of
generating wealth from money which many people seem to think. Even among the
modern intellectual “elite” is opposition of usury. However, much of this
opposition is based on the effects and consequences of usury, rather than what
usury is. One might also be justified in suspecting that much of this
opposition is also a reaction to the modern upper class of banking “elites”,
stemming from envy.
Nature of Usury
What is usury?
Usury is extraction of interest on a loan per se. It is
essentially extortion, violating the ethic of freely lending and giving. Lending money or land places on the borrower
the moral obligation to return money. Thus, to extract an interest on the loan
is to violate ethic of freely giving others financial needs. This is not at all
to imply that the borrower has a “right” to borrow money. Rather it is to assert
that insisting a lender has a “right” to extract interest on a loan is always
of an ungenerous, unforgiving, miserly spirit. Neither is this to argue that
borrowers who fail to repay their debts in full are acting morally and
responsibility in failing to do so. Rather, it is merely to assert that the
lender, in believing one has a “right” to extract interest on a loan is acting
against a spirit of generosity. This stems from an anxiety over physical needs,
which is of covetousness and greed. The borrowers indeed are morally obliged to
repay one’s debts in full. However, the question that arises is what if the
person cannot repay one’s debts in full, despite whole-heartedly trying to do
so. Such is the question posed to the moral philosopher of usury and debt.
Is usury payment of services?
Some may argue that usury is a payment for services, namely
that of lending money. Many of such people even argue that usury is not only a
“right” but an obligation on behalf of the lender. This shows a complete lack
of understanding as to what usury really is. Despite what most people would
like to think, usury is not merely that taken which people of the black market
extract. It is extracted by banks – the modern day, erudite, civilised
financial black markets which are legitimised by modern law throughout the
whole world.
The essence of usury is extortion. It seeks to gain from
what one did not have in the first place, thereby creating some monetary value
out of thin air. This is precisely the mechanism of fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking is usury because the money loaned to people is not,
nor cannot be backed up. Since the amount of money loaned cannot be backed up,
it cannot be returned to the borrower. The borrower, however, perpetually owes
money to the lender because the lender, in its books, has only a fraction of
the total amount loaned that is backed up. This creates credit expansion, by
virtue of the perpetual debts a borrower owes to the lender.
Usury is not “payment for services” like a payment one makes
for goods that are determined solely by costs required to produce the goods or
services as supplied to the buyer. Selling
goods or services whether for a profit or otherwise, is not usury because it
does not seek to increase credit. Credit, which comes from the word ‘credos’
meaning trust, is that which a person must repay for that which one has taken from another, as opposed to what
one has brought from another.
To buy goods or services from another is to give them a
reward for the goods they provide to the buyer. The seller is slave to the
buyer in a barter system, in the sense that the seller serves the buyer through
his or her efforts in producing the good as supplied to the buyer. Therefore,
the buyer in return, by paying for the stated selling price of goods or
services acknowledges the financial servitude of the seller. Although sellers
certainly do have a profit-making motive in almost all, if not all cases, the
seller still exercises financial servitude by the labour required to sell the
product or service in the way the buyer can consume from. Thus, this is to be distinguished from usury
as the labour required to produce the product in the form presented to the
buyer amounts to financial servitude.
However, usury on the other hand is gain made from another
that which is not laboured for. It is to extort from another. Usury is the charging of ‘interest’ from
another person who is slave to the lender, as opposed to charging money from a
person who is benefiting from another’s labour, like the consumer. The lender is not a person who benefits from
another’s labour which justifies why he or she should pay money to the person
from who labour he is benefiting from. Rather, the lender benefits from another
by being free from obligation to repay another. The lender is a master of the
borrower (Proverbs 22:7).
Lending money to another to expect the amount lent in return
does not amount to labour. Labour occurs when a person has to spend effort into
producing something of benefit to another that is not expendable for him or
herself. This is in contrast to a lender who merely gives money to another out
of one’s own financial capacity which one can expect a return financially.
The roots of usury:
the doctrine of private property
Apart from the redefining of what is usury, the doctrine of
private property has also provided the groundwork for legitimising usury. Private
property is the concept that an individual has a sovereign absolute right to
ownership of what he or she can pay for. This is in contrast to common property, which
is the concept that no particular individual or individuals have a sovereign absolute
right to ownership of any possessions, especially in regards to land and
houses. Since an individual is deemed to have an absolute right to property in
one’s possession, one is deemed to be able to do absolutely what one wants with
what one has, including to make usurious loans.
The very doctrine of private property violates the Word of
God. The
earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof;
the world, and they that dwell therein (Psalm 24:1). This clearly indicates
that God is the owner of all things. Since God is the owner of all things,
humans are merely stewards of the Earth, not owners. Humans are merely managers
of God’s Creation. To claim that humans own what they possess is to deny God’s
Sovereignty over His Creation, and usurp His authority. Unlike what many
Christians claim that the 8th commandment justifies private
property, the same logic can be asked of the 6th commandment.
There
is no “rights” deserved
God is
the Creator and Author of Life, having Sovereignty over the lives of all
humans. It is for this reason that suicide is immoral in the eyes of God
because it violates God’s authority as Giver and Author of Life. However, life
is a free gift from God. No human deserves life, that is, it is not a “right”
as many people of all kinds of worldviews simply assume, (at least where it
concerns their own life). Yet, it is
immoral to commit suicide because it violates the authority of God, not because
life is taken per se. Similarly,
self-harm is wrong because it seeks to subvert the authority of God. It is to
claim that the body one has is one’s own. However, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says
that: Know
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye
have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price:
therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. This
applies equally for both Christians and non-Christians because the body that
God gave to each person is from Him. He Created and loves every single human
being who is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). God, being the
Author of Life is justified in taking away life because He is the Sovereign Creator.
Likewise, all
possessions humans have are given out of God’s grace, not because any person
“deserves” the possessions one has. Despite
what many may believe, no human has a “right” to one’s possessions because such
is that which is given by God’s grace. God, as He did to Job can allow all of
one’s possessions to be taken away. Some may argue that it was not God’s
perfect will, but that God only allowed it so that He could (by using satan)
test Job’s faith. They may argue that God’s restoration of Job’s possessions
shows that this was the case. Even if this was the case, no where does the
Bible state that what humans have, including life, is deserved. In fact, it is
the exact opposite. God destroyed the world during the time of Noah because of
its wickedness (Genesis 6:13). God is righteous in all His ways and faithful in all
He does (Psalm 145:17). He is absolutely justified in taking away life as
occurred throughout the Old Testament. To argue otherwise is not only to
question His very character, but like a murderer being indignant at a civil law
which prohibited murder and telling that judge that he is evil to find him
guilty of murder.
Life is not deserved and not a right. Neither is one’s
possessions deserved which is what the doctrine of private property advocates.
Therefore, usury which essentially claims a right to property is against God.
Does
the doctrine of common property violate the 8th Commandment?
Many Christians have reacted to the doctrine of common
property which purports that there is no private property in the natural sense
in the eyes of God. Their reactions range from a sense of unease as if common
property advocates ‘poverty’ (in their eyes), or anger as if common property
advocates government-sanctioned theft because it confers all property “rights”
to the government. Indeed, it has been frustrating to explain to, of all
people, mammonised Christians who think that God may be the owner of all
things, but that they somewhat ‘deserve’ their “fair share” of what God owns.
Yet, they love to accuse the unsaved, especially the
liberalistic sceptics of capitalism, who they accuse of being ‘socialists’ or ‘communist’, of being envious
by merely being sceptical of capitalism’s morality and ethics. Many of these
liberalistic sceptics of capitalism are not even advocating for change of the
capitalist system! They merely advocate for more government assistance, only to
be met with scorn and cynicism from many of those mammonised Christians.
The doctrine of common property does not violate the 8th
Commandment. Quite the opposite, it validates it. It is the doctrine of private
property, not common property that advocates stealing – stealing from the glory
of God who these mammonised Christians claim to love and serve. Is not stealing
from the glory of God more serious than stealing from other humans?
In no way I am downplaying theft. Rather, this is to note the irony of those who
claim that common property violates the 8th Commandment, and
perhaps, the hypocrisy of these mammonised Christians who seem to love their
property “rights” more than God. Such is the extremely disturbing thinking of
the modern church.
The
(faulty) objection that ‘usury should only be banned for the poor’
Some argue that usury should only be banned for the poor,
implying that taking usury from a person who is not poor is permissible. However,
this statement is one that fails to recognise usury for what it is: extortion
and unjust gain, made out of covetousness. It is often raised in the context of
the effect of usury on the poor and how one should be generous with personal
wealth.
Consequentialist argument
To claim that usury should only be banned on the poor is to
claim that whether usury is moral depends on the consequences of usury on the
individual, rather than what is the motive of the usurer. Usury is immoral, an
unjustifiable for being usury, just as murder is unjustifiable for being murder.
It indicates either ignorance as to what usury is, and more importantly, that
usury is a sin, or a disregard of usury being a sin because of the love of
mammon. Thus, it is analogous to claiming that whether murder is moral is
dependent on whether one physically acts to carry it out.
Generous usury?
The claim that only extracting usury from the poor should be
banned is not only to deny that evil of usury, but to assert that it can be a
moral good. Extracting interest on a loan which is always done for personal
gain is to not lend freely and willingly. How can usury be generous?
Lender is servant to the borrower(?)
Finally, it also claims that extracting usury is an act of
service to the borrower, and therefore that the usurer is entitled to extract
interest on a loan, as long as it does not impact the borrower to a certain
extent, whatever that extent may be. Lending money is not a ‘service’ because
it inherently gives power of the borrower by virtue of the moral obligation on
part of the borrower to repay debt to the lender. Rather, the borrower is
servant to the lender.
Usury: Mammon’s
harlot who has (spiritually) seduced the church
Despite what many in the modern church think, let alone the
unbeliever, usury is a sin. It is a shame to the church that even many unbelievers
are fighting usury. Many in the modern church fail to recognise usury for the
being abominable sin that it is because of a lack of discernment, wisdom and
understanding, and more importantly, succumb to the seduction of mammon without
realising it. When confronted with the truth that usury in a sin (and that
private property is anti-Christian), many Christians react with vehemence and
hostility.
Despite undertaking no study on the subject, or even
knowledge of term ‘mammon’, they attack those within the church who even
question the ethics of usury, private property or capitalism, which is mammon’s
method of control over the world. They ask uninformed questions, and also make
uninformed comments, and even “sophisticated-sounding” Old Testament theology
justifying capitalism and private property, despite having no understanding of
the subject. In their extreme hypocrisy, they say that usury is justifiable
because the Old Testament law is irrelevant, but yet use the Old Testament to
justify private property, capitalism and war.
Jesus Christ declared that the Two Greatest Commandments are
to love God with all one’s heart, mind, soul and spirit, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself
(Matthew 22:37-40). In Matthew 22:40, He states regarding the Two Greatest
Commandments, ‘All the Law and the
Prophets hang on these two commandments’. This is a very significant statement.
The Two Greatest Commandments are not a summary of the Law of God, or that
which encompasses all the Law and Prophets. Rather, they are the fulfilment of the Law.
Romans 13:10 states that “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour:
therefore love is the fulfilling of the law”. Similarly, Galatians 5:14 says “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself”. Love is the fulfilment of the Law of God because God is love. The
Law of God come from His nature, not His Commands. Rather, His Law is the Law of Love because of His nature
as God being love itself. Indeed, whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love (1 John 4:8) (emphasis in
italics).
Usury in the Old Testament
Many Christians
argue that usury laws do not apply anymore (and yet use the Old Testament
Mosaic Laws to justify property and war) because it is only specific to Mosaic
Law. The question that must be asked of such proponents is how that can be
implied from the Bible. A theologian once said that because animal sacrifices
are no longer demanded by God for obedience, usury no longer applies. However,
this is not only a seriously flawed analogy, but a damnable heresy. Indeed, a
damnable heresy.
Matthew 5:16-20
makes it unequivocally clear that the Law of God applied in the Old Testament
as much as it does under the New Covenant:
Do not think that I came to
destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For
assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till
all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one
of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall
be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness
exceeds the righteousness of
the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus
in this passage refers to the Pharisees as ‘righteous’ despite His rebuke of
their hypocrisy. This was because they kept the Law of God which is that which was
to be fulfilled. Those who break the Law of God will be least in the Kingdom of
Heaven, while those who keep and teach
the Law of God will be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. God demands that
the Law of God be fulfilled. While one may retort to this claim that no one is
saved by works, it must be emphasised simply for the sake of such people that
this is not to advocate that one is
saved by the works of the Law. Rather, it is to simply reiterate and make it
clear that the Law of God is to be fulfilled and that every single sin, whether
by thought, word or deed will be judged by God to be deserving of Eternal
punishment.
The
‘Law and the Prophets’ refers to all the teachings of the Law and Prophets
before the coming of Jesus, that is, without exceptions. It is tempting for
anyone to seek to downplay, eradicate or explain away Biblical teachings,
whether in the Old Testament or New Testament, that one feels uncomfortable
with. There are many explicit condemnations of usury throughout the Old
Testament by the Prophets.
Pentateuch
teachings on usury
Many
Christians believe that usury prohibition is an antiquated teaching, just as
many secular people believe. It must be
noted that unlike the other Laws in the Pentateuch regarding property such as
those in Exodus 22, usury appears to the only practice listed in the Exodus 22
that has been widely practiced, and has a long history throughout the world. Many Christians think that usury is only wrong
when extracted from the poor, and think that it can be used for generous acts.
They point to Exodus 22:25 to justify this position, often while ignoring other
verses in the Bible regarding usury:
If thou lend money to any of my people
that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou
lay upon him usury.
These
‘usury ban on poor only’ proponents use Deuteronomy 23:19-20 to further justify
their position, claiming that usury was banned only because it was unloving or
placed a brother in slavery:
Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury
of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend
upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless
thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to
possess it.
It must be noted here that it
that the ban on usury does not distinguish between the poor and the others. Likewise Leviticus 25:35-37 explicitly prohibits usury on the poor.
It makes clear who is meant by ‘brother’:
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay
with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a
sojourner; that he may live with thee.
Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend
him thy victuals for increase.
In Leviticus, which can be called
the book of the Law as it sets out the Mosaic Law, the brother can be a
stranger or sojourner. As long as one was living as part of the chosen nation
of Israel, set aside by God to be Holy and to show the nations His graciousness
and His holiness, it was a sin to extract usury. Therefore, the distinction
between brother and stranger regarding the Law of God is irrelevant with
respect to the Mosaic prohibition on usury. This appears to foreshadow God’s
desire that all be saved through Christ and set apart as holy: “There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ”
(Galatians 3:28).
What matters here is holiness. Thus, the prohibition
on usury in the Pentateuch is one that was to make a nation holy, as opposed to
worldly and earthly like the pagan nations. In Usury: a
Scriptural, ethical and economic view, Calvin Elliott quotes Robinson's
Bible Encyclopedia definition of ‘Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury’:
In this
place God seems to tolerate usury toward strangers: that is the Canaanites and
other people devoted to subjection, but not toward such strangers against whom
the Hebrews had no quarrel. To exact usury is here, according to Ambrose, an
act of hostility. It was a kind
of waging war with the Canaanites and ruining them by means of usury.
Similarly, S.C. Mooney in Usury: Destroyer of Nations explains why
God permitted the Israelites to charge usury:
Who were these "foreigners", and why was Israel
permitted to exact usury from them if usury was unlawful? It was understood
from ancient times that this permission related specifically to the conquest of
the Promised Land. Usury was part of the violence that Israel inflicted upon
the wicked people whom God was driving out before them. God had told Israel
that the conquest would encompass a length of time. Exodus 23:29-30, "I
will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not
become desolate, and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. I
will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and
take possession of the land." The oppression of usury was an effective
means of keeping the Canaanites under check until they had been totally
conquered. In this case, usury was an instrument of God's judgment upon a
wicked people.
The teachings on usury in the Pentateuch were to disciple
the nation of Israel to be generous and merciful. Usury is clearly portrayed in the Pentateuch
as unholy because of the ungenerous spirit behind the extraction of usury.
Teachings of the prophets on usury
The prophets in the Old Testament
were also not silent about usury. In fact, the prophets of the Old Testament expressed
disapproval of usury, implying it was a sin.
In particular, Ezekiel, called usury an abomination and an act punishable
by death (Ezekiel 18:13). It is all too easy to simply ‘contextualise’
teachings that one feels uncomfortable with, and dismiss them as teachings which
are only applicable at the time it was written or written for a different group
of people to justify one’s failure to follow or accept particular teachings. An
example is the New Testament teaching which prohibits women from exercising
authority over men in church which is often questioned or dismissed at applicable
to the Early Church only (1 Timothy 2:12).
During the times of Israel’s rebellion,
they would charge usury. Jeremiah, amid his cries of suffering from
persecution, not only asked why he was born, and also why he was cursed since he
had neither lent usury or has been lent usury:
Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife
and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor
men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me
(Jeremiah 15:10).
Jeremiah was implying that usury
was so evil that those who extracted usury somewhat deserve curses people made
against them. Similarly, Nehemiah, in response to complaints by the poor of usury
which lead to oppression, commanded people to stop charging usury:
And there was a great cry of the people and of their
wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons,
and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may
eat, and live. Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards,
and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for
the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is
as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring
into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our
daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to
redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards. And I was very angry
when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the
nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his
brother. And I set a great assembly against them. And I said unto them, We
after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the
heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us?
Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer. Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not
to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our
enemies? I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them
money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to
them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their
houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and
the oil, that ye exact of them (Nehemiah 5:10-11).
Ezekiel’s condemnation of usury was more
direct and unequivocal. He describes lists it alongside iniquity, indicating that
it was prohibited as duty one owed to others according to the Law of God:
(Ezekiel 18:8).
True
judgment was executed by those who did not extract usury, took no increase or
refrained from being involved in iniquity between humans. Proverbs 28:4 states
that “they that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law
contend with them”. Thus, that true judgment was executed by those who did not
extract usury means that usury against the Law of God. Ezekiel makes this explicit:
Hath given
forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not
live: he hath done all these abominations;
he shall surely die; his blood shall be
upon him
(Ezekiel 18:13).
Isaiah
also mentions usurers explicitly as a group that was under the wrath of God
because of transgression of God’s Law. It must be noted that in the list of
people mentioned in Isaiah 24:1-6, the takers of usury and givers of usury are
the only group defined by an action which was against the Law of God. This is
significant as it indicates that usurers angered God on that ground of being
usurers:
Behold,
the Lord maketh
the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and
scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the
priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her
mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with
the borrower; as with the taker of
usury, so with the giver of usury to him. The land shall be utterly
emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth
away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do
languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they
have transgressed the laws, changed the
ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured
the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants
of the earth are burned, and few men left
(Isaiah 24:1-6).
Isaiah placed much emphasis on
the oppression of the poor and needy (Isaiah 10:2; 14:30; 41:17; 58:7); a
teaching which was to the emphasised by the One who Isaiah prophesised would
come as Messiah – Jesus Christ Himself. Usury often, it not always, oppresses
the poor as shown throughout the Bible and also in the modern world.
Teachings on usury in Psalms and Proverbs
The Psalms and Proverbs describe usury and those who charge
usury. Similarly, both Psalms and Proverbs portray those who charge usury as
unrighteous and unholy.
In Psalm 15:1, the psalmist asks “Lord, who shall abide
in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?” Among those who will
dwell with the Lord is “he
that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the
innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved” (Psalm 15:5).
Proverbs 28:8
classifies usury as gain that will be given to the poor, implying that usury is
illegitimately gained wealth: He that by
usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that
will pity the poor (Proverbs 28:8).
Overall themes of usury in
Old Testament
Usury is
represented in Old Testament as that which is unjust. Those who extract usury
are portrayed as not only covetous, but having callous and perverse disregard
of the poor. Since those who have been extracted usury are treated unjustly,
God will ensure justice is done for such people by giving the proceeds of usury
to the poor as shown in Proverbs.
Breaking the Law of Love: New Testament
teachings about usury
The New Testament documents the teachings of Jesus Christ
who give the Two Greatest Commandments: (1) Love God with all one’s heart,
mind, soul and spirit; and (2) Love your neighbour as oneself. The Law of God
not only hinges on the Law of Love. The Law of God is the Law of Love. Love is the fulfilment of the Law of God
(Romans 13:10).
Approach to dealing with usury
Since the New Covenant is the current one, it is more
applicable for the Christian to think about the issue surrounding usury from
the New Testament perspective, rather than the Old Testament. However, this is
not in any way to discard the Divine Wisdom of the Old Testament Laws regarding
usury.
It must be noted that the New Testament does not explicitly mention
usury. However, this does not make usury
permissible as it is an act that concerns duties between people, and the
Christian is expected by God to responsible in such duties. Usury is not an act
akin to eating certain kinds of food or what one should wear – matters of the
conscience because it is an act concerning how one should treat others. As
such, it is not a matter of liberty in Christ. Rather, it is akin to acts
concerning money such as gambling, another act that is not explicitly mentioned
in the New Testament and not a conscience matter.
Purpose of the Law of God
Whether an act is a sin is determined by whether it breaks
the Law of Love. It is not because an act is an act that makes it sin, but
rather because it breaks the Law of Love. There are certain acts which always
reveal a heart that is not of love. These acts are all the acts that are listed
as sins such as those explicitly covered by the 10 Commandments. Each sin is
one that violates at least one of the 10 Commandments which reveals sin and incite
more sin so as to show that humans cannot be righteous by one’s own natural
flesh or by one’s strength (Galatians 3:19; 5:20). Keeping the Law would not
make one righteous but condemn (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16). Only by trusting
the Jesus Christ will make one justified (Romans 3:24) – salvation from the
just wrath of God comes from Jesus Christ alone.
It is not the acts of a person that makes an act immoral,
which is determined by God alone. Rather the Law of God is one that reveals the
condition of the heart, as to whether it is one of love or one not of love. Thus,
the question the Christian must ask is what does usury reveal about the heart?
More specifically, the question is, does usury show a heart of love or a heart
not of love?
What does extracting usury reveal about the heart?
The issue of gambling which was eluded to previously can
demonstrate how to apply wisdom to moral issues, as opposed to simply doing
things or not doing certain things out of a sense of a feeling that one must
simply follow a set of rules.
Gambling is an act that is not explicitly stated to be a sin
in the Bible. However, it can be known and is known that it is – from both the
moral conscience and by inference from the Bible. The act of gambling always
involves the anxiety for one’s physical earthly needs, namely money. The
physical act of gambling cannot be separated from this anxiety. Jesus commanded
His followers not to be anxious about physical needs as it shows a failure to fully
trust God:
Therefore
I say unto you, Take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of
the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto
his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his
glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field,
which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more
clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying,
What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be
clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles
seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the
morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is
the evil thereof (Matthew 6:25-34).
The very verse before this
famous passage beloved among Christians is the equally famous and often twisted
verse that arouses the unease and discontentment of many Christians is:
No man can serve two masters: for either
he will hate the one, and love the other;
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (Matthew 6:24).
Jesus, in the passage of Matthew 6:25-34 explains what it
means to serve mammon, as opposed to what it means to serve God wholeheartedly.
This verse is as relevant and important for Christians today as it was for
Christians during Jesus’ time. It applies to all humans, whether Christian or
not, for the person from whom such Words come is the Way, the Truth and the
Life. Whether one agrees with it or lives by it is a different matter, and does
not make the Words of Jesus pass away (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).
Whenever a person gambles, the person is doing so out of a
heart that is anxious and does not trust God. It is one that is serving mammon.
To serve mammon is to not serve God, but hate God. To hate God is to have no love because God is
love. The person who serves mammon does not
and cannot love (agape) God or others selflessly. In this
the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever
doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother
(1 John 3:10).
Likewise, usury reveals a covetous idolatrous heart that is
anxious about one’s physical needs. This is to serve mammon. Usury is also a means
of tempting another to serve mammon, just as the adulterous woman in Proverbs
tempts another to sin. Usury is mammon’s harlot. Usury is not an act of
giving animal sacrifices, and thus the argument against usury being a sin on
the grounds the end of animal sacrifice laws is invalid, if not ludicrous.
Rather, it is the opposite of making sacrifices, reveals a covetous and
idolatrous heart.
The
key in applying wisdom to moral issues is looking at the heart for God judges
the heart of each and every single person, not the acts. The acts, deeds and
words of a person are a mere manifestation of the heart. It is the heart that
determines the acts, deeds and words.
Jesus said: “You have heard that it
was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that
whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with
her in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). Could it not be said that ‘You have heard do not extract usury for it is an
abomination. But I say to you whoever
feels anxious about one’s own earthly needs, that people has already committed
covetousness and idolatry in his or her heart?’
It
seems Jesus was indeed saying this in Matthew 6:24-31 by saying ‘No
man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one,
and despise the other. Ye cannot serve
God and mammon’ and
then commanding His followers not to be anxious for one’s earthly needs. He
tells them that by worrying about such things, they had ‘little faith’ in God (Matthew
6:30). He likens them to pagans for doing so (Matthew 6:32).
Jesus also said:
And
if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners
also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do
good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and
ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and
to the evil (Luke 6:34-35).
The Ultimate Question
It is not that when Jesus died and rose again, the Law need
not be followed. Rather, the question for each and every single person is, ‘Do
you accept that you have broken the
Law of God and are deserving of just punishment according to the Law which
condemns?’ not whether you have kept the Law or is following the Law.
Just as usury keeps people in bondage to debt owed to other
people, sin keeps people in bondage to debt owed to God. However, God enabled
cancellation that debt owed to Him through sin by providing Jesus Christ, His
Only begotten Son to pay the debt, by suffering and dying for the sins of the
whole world. To have that debt owed to God cancelled, one needs to turn from
one’s old life of sin and place one’s trust in Jesus Christ alone.
Choose this day whom you will serve: will you turn to Jesus
and serve Him, or will you continue to serve mammon?
Comments
Post a Comment