Exodus 22:25 "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. 26 If you take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, 27 because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. (see also Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19-20, and Nehemiah 5).
Reading Sam's posts on Hell reminded me of when I read Dante's Inferno as a Sophomore at Great Lakes Christian College. As Sam pointed out, Dante structured Hell with different levels to reflect the severity of a person's sin. The deeper the ring of Hell, the worse a person's sin was.
What was most surprising to me was what sin Dante reserved the lowest ring of Hell. Was it murder? Was it rape? Was it to "cause one of these little ones to sin"? No, it was none of these.
The sin most deserving to the darkest, most torturous eternity, according to Dante, was collecting interest on money loaned. This was bizarre to me. It had not even occurred to me that collecting interest could be a sin at all, much less the worst there ever was. It was too bizarre. I could not even process it.
But between revisiting Dante (thanks, Sam), reading several texts discussing modern day application of Jubilee (thanks, Regan and others), a personal study of Nehemiah (thank you, Lord) the issue of whether or not lending money with interest is a sin is once again at the forefront of my mind. And this time with some very real-life application (that I can't share just yet).
I understand much better the issue at hand. Interest can be a way for the "haves" to take profit off the "have-nots". It's exploitation.
There's no way to draw a profit without taking it from someone who did not have enough of it from the beginning. It rewards the wealthy for having (not a virtue in and of itself) and punishes the poor for not having (not a moral failure in and of itself).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Borrowers: Don't borrow more than you can pay back by Jubilee.
Lenders: Don't lend to someone who you can't trust to pay it back or so much that it can't be paid back by Jubilee.
Both of those principles are good and true. However, sometimes survival gets more than what a person can afford (this is the state of the people in Nehemiah 5, it seems). In that case what is a borrower to do?
For anyone to profit off a person in that position would be exploitative.
And to the heart of it, what about interest? Should we allow ourselves to benefit from other people's struggles?
If someone is "struggling" then they wouldn't fit the qualifications of someone I should loan money too. I should give to them if they have basic needs that aren't meant.
But, if they aren't struggling and need money for other reasons, then interest is perfectly acceptable.
What is the scriptural basis for that stance?
Just check out OT law on borrowing, lending, and year of Jubilee. Jubilee set limits and controls on borrowing and lending but didn't forbid it. It just forced you to be wise in your dealings.
I do think there is a special place in hell for Credit Card Companies that charge exorbitant interest as well as Cash Now companies that prey on the addictions and difficulties of the lower class.
But that aside, many of the OT laws may have had their origin in surrounding nations (i.e. Code of Hammurabi), but they were tweaked and appropriated to the Israelite context. Thus lending with interest may have been allowed in other cultures, but the Israelites were expected to be a different people, especially in the way they treated one another.
As for the New Testament, there is no mention of interest because the idealized practice in Acts and the expectation from the epistle writers was to meet needs. Thus, if someone needed money, that need was to be met. Period. There is no discussion of lending, borrowing or interest.
Does that make charging interest a sin? Maybe. Or perhaps the indictment is on the church for not rallying together to meet such eneds.
Once again you are not to loan money if to meet someone's need. But, their are plenty of non-needs people could loan and borrow money for. Not everyone wanting a loan is wanting it for life's neccesities. Most aren't.
"Hey, I need an extra sickle for my field this year, cause I think it will help me be more efficent and I'll make more in the long run, but I don't have the cash can I borrow some money from you?" "Sure, but I want 2% interest and we've only got a year until Jubilee so you've got 11 months to pay be back. If you don't no one will ever loan to you again."
Perfectly biblical.
I needed a loan to buy my house, you could even argue it was a need, should someone in the church have given me one with no expectation of pay back or interest? Of course not.
Obviously, we are not to take advantage of a persons situation but we are not commanded to never make money or enter into a business deal. I have no debt but my house. And, I hate to tell people this and Dave Ramsey would send me to hell, but some loans helped me get there. Gasp!
The question is, "Should we loan money to fill people's wants when there are others out there who have needs?"
Sure. Then I'll have more to meet people's needs. It's not either/or. You can do both.
But we aren't doing both. There are still people in need while we enjoy our cable televisions, cushioned church chairs, and Wiis.
The only thing worse than us living selfishly is trying to justify it as all right with God while people suffer.
Amos 5: 22-23
Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!
***
Let us go and sing another song while the poor go hungry.
I'm just in a funky mood. Feel free to ignore me. I've sold a lot of uneccessaries today.
I haven't.
Look, Jesus wasn't poverty stricken. No matter what we'd like to think. It's a matter of how tight you hold on to you things not how many things you have that can be at issue.
We do not know Jesus' economic status. Every side seems to argue that he was financially like them.
If we keep accumulating things, do we not run the risk of indulging in self-gratification at the expense of the needy. What would be the godly reason to keep indulging? What would be the godly reason to stop indulging and begin sharing my income with the poor?
I agree that it is not about how many things I have, but that does not mean that I can use my money willy-nilly from the point I realize what I have. I need to begin using every penny of resources as God would use them.
If one of my children was starving, I would not buy the other one an X-Box 360 and allow the other to continue starving. I would feed my starving kid. God has starving kids, yet we think he would like to use his money for my self-indulgence.
We might not be able to feed every starving person around the world, but that does not give us a license to indulge in selfish things.
Giving a loan to someone so they can enjoy a want while others around the world have needs does not seem like a decision God would make.
"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Mt 5:42)
Sounds like borrowing is acceptable regardless of the place in life. But I don't think interest is acceptable between Christians, ever. Just my take.
Post a Comment