Kevin Montgomery - 03 August 2009 11:57 AM

Karen Younge - 03 August 2009 01:43 AM

Kevin Montgomery - 02 August 2009 03:49 PM

Karen Younge - 02 August 2009 02:25 PM

(snip)Please tell us, what is your basis for stating that an unqualified command of “don’t do it” (“it” being in this case specific sexual acts in the OT passages or any sex other than between husband and wife in Acts 15) really means “these acts are prohibited only in the context of idolatrous worship and/or ritual prostitution—outside that context they may be permissible or even holy”? What sequence of thoughts led you to come to that conclusion?
Karen

Here’s the problem with this line of thought re: “unqualified command[s] of ‘don’t do it’” in the Bible.  There are quite a number of “unqualified commands” in Scripture which we don’t follow but aren’t clearly abrogated in the New Testament.  What then is the method by which we determine which laws are to be obeyed and which aren’t?

Kevin, did you have a specific one in mind?

Karen

How about charging interest?

For example:
Lev. 25:36-37
Deut. 23:19-20
Ps. 15:5
Ezek. 18:13

The Church then prohibited usury, the charging of interest on loans, for some time up through the Middle Ages and even into the Reformation period. (snip)

Again, back to my original question, since Christians do not accept all of the Levitical laws, what kind of method is applied when we decide which ones to keep and which ones to nuance or even lay aside?

I decided to start a new thread in response to Kevin’s question. I think usury is a good one for several reasons
1) I’ve been wondering myself whether it applies to me, and if so, how.
2) I don’t know what arguments, either pro or con, were used in medieval debates (if there were any) over whether charging interest might sometimes be OK.
3) The distinction between the civil, ceremonial and moral parts of the Law (Article VII) might apply here, and I don’t know how to tell them apart.
4) I’m not indifferent to which way it goes. If I get convinced that lending at interest is always wrong, I will have to figure out what to do with the substantial chunk of my retirement savings that is invested in various sorts of bonds. I’m aiming at retiring from my current job and “downshifting” to part time employment at most. “No interest” might well result in a long delay before I can accomplish this eagerly-anticipated goal.

it’s too late tonight to write any more than that, and I have taken on some extra work at my job which may mean I need to work late tomorrow and Wednesday and possibly even Thursday, but after that I will have time to describe what I think so far and why. So even if Dick Wire is right, and asking about usury was a diversionary tactic, have at it! I’d really like to get this settled in my own mind and I’ve been procrastinating for quite some time now. A rip-snorting theological debate will help me clarify my thinking and stop shilly-shallying around.

And after we get this figured out, we can tackle Sabbath observance

Karen

Karen, I did make a post about usury elsewhere, at

http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/forums/viewthread/969/P45/

and there it is post #48. I did not want to duplicate it here.

I don’t think usury is a non-sequiter in these debates, but is one of several conundrums in the ‘how do we interpret and apply Scripture’ dialog. Naturally, any of us would like ‘hard and fast’ answers to these questions, but that either makes us latter-day-Pharisees on one hand, or ‘laissez faire’ universalists on the other; at least to me that is….maybe this is what Paul meant about ‘working out our own salvation with fear and trembling’ 

I think it would really mess with our minds to throw the concept of Jubilee into the usury discussion mix.

Scripture points us to a completely turned upside down world with respect to economics, and our realpolitik sensibilities don’t like it.

Back to Kevin’s question:

since Christians do not accept all of the Levitical laws, what kind of method is applied when we decide which ones to keep and which ones to nuance or even lay aside?

In no particular order, here are the sort of things I would look at to answer this question.

What does the Bible actually say about usury? Under this heading comes checking a concordance or online search to find the verses where usury (or interest) is mentioned, looking up the definition of the Hebrew word in a lexicon, and so on.

Is there a clear statement from Jesus or the apostles that the commandment no longer applies? For example, I would take Jesus’ words re: it isn’t what you eat that defiles you, but what comes out of your heart, and Paul’s criticism of Peter for refusing to eat with the Gentiles (in Galatians) to mean I can eat a ham and cheese sandwich with a clear conscience. I can’t think of any such statement regarding usury.

Is there a clear statement from Jesus or the apostles that the commandment still does apply? Not to the best of my recollection.

Is there a clear command about something else that affects the usury question? One definition of usury is extremely high interest. Charging someone extortionate interest violates commandments to obey the civil laws (Paul’s epistles) since there is usually a legal upper limit on interest rates, and of course it also breaks the Golden Rule, since none of us would want to be forced to pay extremely high rates.

Is there other guidance in the Bible? Dick Wire pointed out on another thread that usury was prohibited only between two Jews, not across the board. I know of at least some Christian teachers about finances who say that it’s wrong for one Christian to charge interest to another, based on this verse. The Parable of the Talents also suggests it may be permissible to charge interest. An argument based on a parable may not be a particularly strong one, especially since the parable isn’t about money, but if the “master” is in some sense a parallel for God, I don’t think Jesus would have depicted him advocating something that is evil in itself. The fact that the Council of Jerusalem didn’t impose this on the Gentile converts also falls in this category. This is not merely an argument from silence, since their letter says “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (emphasis added)—since the usury laws are “beyond” those three things, it could be that they don’t apply to me.

What this all boils down to is that I would try to discover what the Bible says about usury and what it says about how the above applies (if at all) to Christians. If the Bible says that aspect of the law is laid aside, I won’t drag it out again, but if the Bible neither says nor implies that it has been, I would say it is still in effect.

I don’t know the writings of the church fathers or the medieval scholars who argued the other side of the question. If I did, I might check to see whose reasoning I found the most convincing—or least convincing. If I can poke holes in one side’s arguments, I’d be inclined to conclude that the other side was right, on the theory that if an untrained person like myself can see where an argument doesn’t hold up, it must be pretty flimsy.

Karen

Thank you, Karen, for starting this thread.  Maybe this might be a better place to have a constructive discussion about Biblical interpretation that doesn’t bring up as much heated debate as, well, that-other-topic-that-shall-not-be-named. 

Definitions are definitely important here.  Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary has:

1. The fact or practice of lending money at interest; esp. in later use, the practice of charging, taking, or contracting to receive, excessive or illegal rates of interest for money on loan. . . .

2. Premium or interest on money (or goods) given or received on loan; gain made by lending money. Now arch.

It comes from the Latin word usura, literally “use, enjoyment” and metaphorically “interest paid for money borrowed,” from the noun usus, “use,” and the verb utor, “to use, make use of, to employ.”

Now here is what is says in Leviticus and Deuteronomy [using NRSV trans.]:
Lev. 25:35-37 “35If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. 36Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. 37You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit.”

Deut. 23:19-20 “19You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. 20On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess.”

The Leviticus passage only refers to lending to one’s kin.  Deuteronomy, however, says that one should not charge interest for loans to other Israelites, but one can with Gentiles.  How does this apply to Christians?  Taken literally, it might be taken to say that we should not charge interest on loans to Jews.  That, however, is not an interpretation I’ve ever heard.  Now if the wall between Jew and Gentile has been taken down and if the Church is considered to be the New Israel, then one might argue that Christians should lend at interest to other Christians.

Whatever the case, what seems to be lying behind the prohibition.  To me at least it seems like there is definitely the feeling that the charging of interest exploits the poor.  For example, in Nehemiah 5:1-13, the people complain that they are having to borrow in order to get food during a famine and to pay the king’s taxes.  Many are losing their farms and are even being sold into slavery to pay their debts.  Nehemiah then tells the nobles and officials (including himself) to stop taking interest and to return both the interest received and the seized property.  It seems fairly clear that the issue is one of justice regarding those less fortunate and that the charging of interest could be considered tanatamount to theft.

One can also find references in Psalm 5 and Ezekiel 18 and 22. 

In short, the OT, taken on its own, seems to prohibit the charging of interest on loans to other Israelites and especially to one’s own kin.  The question then is this:  How do we as Christians apply these passages to ourselves?

Kevin

Kevin Montgomery - 05 August 2009 04:40 PM

Thank you, Karen, for starting this thread.  Maybe this might be a better place to have a constructive discussion about Biblical interpretation that doesn’t bring up as much heated debate as, well, that-other-topic-that-shall-not-be-named. 
(huge snip)
In short, the OT, taken on its own, seems to prohibit the charging of interest on loans to other Israelites and especially to one’s own kin.  The question then is this:  How do we as Christians apply these passages to ourselves?

Kevin

Well, I would start by not charging interest on a loan made to another Christian or a close relative. I’ve never had occasion to loan money to either except the “forgot my lunch money” kind of loan that is such a small amount and such a short term that even Scrooge wouldn’t charge interest on it. But I have seven nieces ranging in age from mid-twenties to pre-teens. I dare say eventually all of them will need help coming up with a down payment on a house. I know I had to borrow the down payment on my first house (from my parents), and houses are so much more expensive now that I expect I will be asked to help out at least one of them.

I think the other really obvious application is, don’t charge interest that exploits the poor. (I couldn’t for the life of me think of the word “exploit” yesterday.) So, no involvement with payday loans or check-cashing stores. This could be a tough one. I don’t know if any of the companies in any of the mutual funds in my retirement accounts derive any of their income from these kinds of sources (and don’t know how to find out if they do). The choices in my retirement plan at work are so limited that I doubt there would be any way to put a zero-tolerance policy for predatory lending into effect, except to switch it all into non-stock funds. Those are all various sorts of money market funds or CD’s so I would not be eliminating interest altogether. I might possibly be switching from a questionable sort of interest to a less objectionable one if I did that. 

But now it’s time to retire…I mean go to bed.

Karen

I would want to add to Karen’s list this point:

How is the commandment related to a broader subject area present in Scripture?
So for usury, what does Scripture have to say about economics (and justice in general)? While Scripture does not give us an economic system, I think patterns can be discerned (this is central in my thinking about a topic-that-shall-not-be-named).

Scripture certainly isn’t the only ancient source opposed to interest.

Since Aristotle was a major influence on Aquinas and other medieval theologians, let’s see what he has to say:

Politics Book One, Part 10

There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

Drawing from this position then, Aquinas later writes

To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. . . .

Now money, according to the Philosopher was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.

I used an online Bible search engine to find all the occurrences of “usury” in the Bible. Under the Mosaic Law, usury (interest) was forbidden on loans from one Jew to another, particularly if the borrower was poor, but permitted on loans to Gentiles. Interest was prohibited not only on loans of money but also of food or “any thing that is lent upon usury”. All loans to fellow-Jews were to be canceled the seventh year. A blessing was promised as a result of refraining from charging interest (Dt 23:20) and of loaning freely to a needy person even if it was nearly the Sabbath year. In some places (e.g. Lv 25:36) the Bible refers to usury and increase as if they are two different things, and I’m not sure what the difference is between the two or if this is just a bit of parallel language. In the NT, the third servant in the parable was criticized for failing to put his master’s money with the bankers, but I money is the point of that parable so maybe I shouldn’t give much weight to that. Speaking more directly to the point, Jesus said “...if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.” If I don’t expect to be paid back, I call it a gift, not a loan, but this is a mere quibble. I think I can reasonably conclude from this that Jesus would not have favored charging interest on a personal loan, and he is not only talking about friends and relatives but also “enemies”. This might even be considered another of the Lord’s “it is written….but I say…..” amplifications, as if he had said, you have heard that it is written, lend to a brother without charging interest, but I say, lend to your enemies too, and don’t even expect to get the principal back.

The prophets, in describing the wickedness of Israel, listed usury along with such heinous sins as adultery, incest, bribery, extortion and idolatry (see Ezekiel 22). After the return from Exile, the rich people and nobles took advantage of a famine to acquire the land and houses of their fellow-returnees by usury (Nehemiah 5). If I understand correctly the interest rate was only 1% (see Nh 5:11, which nowadays would be considered an extremely low rate; but Nehemiah took the nobles severely to task and made them return the interest and the land. Other Bible passages cite refraining from usury as evidence of righteousness (e.g. Ps 15 or Ezekiel 18).

All in all it looks like the Bible takes a pretty dim view of charging interest, at least on loans from one individual to another individual.

What about loans which are not from one person to another? Is it OK to be paid interest on money loaned to a business, or a governmental entity? The nearest I can find to a verse that directly addresses this question are a few that promise ability to lend to many nations as one of the blessings that would result from following the Law (e.g. Dt 15:6 & 28:12). These particular verses don’t say that the loans either should or should not be made, nor do they mention “interest” or “usury” on such loans. I don’t know if charging interest to a government or business entity is permissible or not.

Knowing what Aristotle said about usury is interesting, and gives relevant background on Aquinas’ thinking, but I don’t consider an argument based on Aristotle binding for Christians. Last time I checked my Bible, there was no Book of Aristotle in it.   

What led to the change in teaching and practice about charging interest? Was it the result of arguments based on the Bible, arguments based on something else, a result of changing circumstances (loans were being made other than between two individuals), or did the Church adopt the values of the surrounding culture instead of sticking to the Apostles’ teaching?

Karen