Against Usury — Part 3: Usury in the Bible

Exodus 22:25 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.

Leviticus 25:35-37 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. 36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: 20 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.

Nehemiah 5:7 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.

Nehemiah 5:10I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

Psalm 15:5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

Proverbs 28:8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.

Isaiah 24:2 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.

Jeremiah 15:10 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.

Ezekiel 18:7-8 7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

Ezekiel 18:13 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 18:17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 22:12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD.

WHAT IS USURY?

Listed above are all the verses in the Authorized Version of the Old Testament where the word “usury” appears. There are twenty-two occurrences of the word, and sixteen verses that contain the word. that is it, exactly, that these words of God forbid? Some say it is the charging of excessive interest. Some say it is the charging of any interest on a charity loan. Some say it is the loaning of money at any interest to any brother – rich or poor. Which is it?

Option one, that usury in the Bible means “excessive” interest, is not supported by the lexicons. Besides, Ezekiel’s use of “increase” as a near synonym for usury shows that usury does not mean “excessive” interest. No one will argue that increase means “excessive increase”. Historically, this explanation of the word only arose in the 1600s. Both the Jews and the Christian church understood the word to refer to the practice of charging interest in general until about that time. This change coincided with the early attempts to justify usury, at least on commercial loans.

As a result of all these influences, sometime around 1620, according to the theologian, Ruston, “usury passed from being an offence against public morality which a Christian government was expected to suppress to being a matter of private conscience [and] a new generation of Christian moralists redefined usury as excessive interest” A Short Review of the Historical Critique of Usury, Wayne A.M. Visser and Alastair McIntosh, 1993, pps 173-4.

Option two is more defensible. In nine of the twenty-two occurrences of the word, the context indicates that the poor brother is in view. In the other thirteen occurrences, the word, “brother” appears in two, and the rest give no qualification – merely the taking of usury is mentioned. Now, we can take different approaches to this data. One approach is to say that in every case it must mean charging interest on poor loans, because of those nine times that it explicitly mentions the poor. But this is not conclusive.

A better approach is to ask why, if usury is defined as lending to the poor at interest, it needed to be mentioned nine times that the poor were in view. And if that’s what the word really means, then what is the word for the mere taking of interest? We are left with none. It is at least possible that God wished to forbid the taking of interest from any brother – rich or poor, but especially the poor. This is confirmed by Deuteronomy 23:20, which allows the charging of usury to a “stranger” (foreigner), but not to any “brother” – not even to a resident alien:

Deuteronomy 23:20 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.

Leviticus 25:35-37 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. 36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION

Why were the Jews allowed to charge usury to “the stranger”?

It may seem that the admission just made – that it was permitted to charge interest on loans to “the stranger” (an alien) – destroys any claim that usury is per se immoral. If the Israelites were to treat strangers with justice and compassion, then how could they be allowed to charge them usury unless it was a moral practice?

The answer to this objection turns on the meaning of the word, “stranger”. If it meant the “stranger” or “sojourner” who was resident among the chosen people, then the objection would have some force. But I believe that the “stranger” in this context is not the “stranger” who lived in Israel, but rather a non-resident foreigner, and probably a representative of a heathen nation. Leviticus 25:35-37 tells us who the Israelite were to consider a “brother” with respect to the usury prohibition:

35 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. 36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

It clearly includes the “stranger” and the “sojourner” – that is, the foreigner who had taken up residence among the chosen people. God commanded Israel to receive such into the commonwealth, and to deal kindly with them, remembering that they themselves had been forced to sojourn in Egypt, and how they had suffered there (Exodus 22:21, 23:9).

This law forbids the exemption of such from the usury prohibition on the basis that they are not really Israelites. Therefore, the “stranger” who may be charged usury must be the non-resident foreigner. He is the one alluded to in Deuteronomy 15:6 “Thou shalt lend to many nations, and not borrow” and 28:12. But why would it be alright to charge interest on loans to such?

It may be that it was merely permitted, as divorce was permitted – not because it was right, but because of the hardness of men’s hearts. God’s law, while revealing the perfect way of righteousness, did not legislate sanctions for every minor offense, nor did it aim at a perfectionist utopia in which human beings would never sin. God tolerates immaturity and imperfect knowledge in his people. As Jesus said to his disciples before the pivotal events of his death and resurrection had occurred, “I have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.”

But it is more likely that God had a regard to the spiritual slavery of the surrounding nations. The borrower is slave to the lender. The surrounding nations were either enemies of Israel, or potential enemies. Their false religions marked them as slaves to false gods. To enslave them economically was to bring them within the orbit and influence of the people of the true God, which was a great benefit, as it could lead to conversion. It would not have been lawful or wise to enter into a shared-risk business partnership with a pagan, but the simple lending of money at usury was no more entangling than any other commerce with him, and allowed the lender to profit from the transaction. If this is so, then the principle applies that what is immoral to do to God’s people is not necessarily immoral to do to His enemies. Indeed, just because usury is destructive to society, it is fitting to exact usury on nations that are opposed to the kingdom of God.

When God tells us not to defraud our brother (I Thessalonians 4:6), he is not telling us that we are allowed to defraud everyone else. We are to love all men – even our personal enemies. “Thou shalt not steal.” and “Thou shalt not covet.” do not only apply to our treatment of our brothers. The broader scope of these latter commands controls. It is a sin to defraud anyone, but an even greater sin to defraud our brother. Just so, it is a sin to exact usury of any brother, but especially of a poor brother.

It would seem reasonable to say that even being a usurer is prohibited, since the taking of usury or increase was condemned without limitation or qualification:

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)

He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity … (Ezekiel 18:8)

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… (Ezekiel 18:13)

If a practice is wrong, then engaging in it for a livelihood does not make it acceptable – it makes it worse.

WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL LOANS?

But the defenders of Option two are zealous of the distinction between poor loans and commercial loans. They say that these prohibitions of usury do not apply to loans at interest for commercial purposes. Is that right? Where in the Bible is there an exclusion of the usury prohibition for the sake of commercial loans? Nowhere. The reason why the usury prohibition so often takes the form of forbidding the exaction of usury on the poor is that it is poverty that makes one vulnerable to the usurer. He has nothing of value to secure his loan, so only pity and humanity can motivate someone to take the risk of loaning him money, when he very well may not get his money back. Where usury is permitted, every potential creditor will be tempted to insist upon usury as his right.

But I will be reminded of the words of Jesus in the parable of the talents, where Christ affirms (it is said) the lawfulness of charging “interest” on commercial transactions (Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:28). My response is that there is nothing to indicate that Jesus approved of the practice, or that it is here made normative. He simply uses it for purposes of illustration, which cannot be made to prove anything. Will anyone seriously contend that Matthew 18:34 justifies the handing of debtors over to torture, because the just Lord of the parable did it? The point of the parable of the talents is that God expects a proportionate return on his investment in us, and will accept no excuses.

Since the Bible views indebtedness as a form of slavery, it discourages (though it does not outlaw) the taking out of loans except in extreme need. Our culture of casual indebtedness is a modern development — in biblical culture, it would have been difficult to stay in business as a usurer depending on commercial loans, for there would have been little or no demand for enterprise capital in Israel.

Option three is the only understanding that can take account of all the biblical data: God forbids the charging of interest on any and all loans to our brother, poor or not. There are many reasons for this prohibition, which we will next begin to explore.