The Practice of Usury Prohibited
How does God/YHVH rule on the practice of usury or exacting of interest on monetary loans by His elect?
We find in Torah Reading 61 (according to our “triennial reading cycle— Torah Reading 61–Exodus 22:25-31 ) the prohibition against usury (aka exacting interest on monetary loans) from members of our Faith Community (22:25; cf. Deu. 23:19).
When a borrower leaves his/her cloak as collateral with a lender, that cloak must be returned to the borrower before sundown because he/she needs it for his/her body–it is his/her only covering (22:26-27; cf. Deu. 24:13). This is clearly a modern idiom of a lender “taking the shirt off the borrower’s back.”
In most English translations of this Torah passage, the term for “interest” is “usury.” The Hebrew terms for “usury” is “neshek,” and in the Septuagint the Greek term for usury is “tokos.”
Practice Prohibited by Church Father
The Patristic Church Fathers viewed the practice of usury as unlawful. They took Exodus 22:25, Deuteronomy 23:29 and Luke 6:34 as proof verses to this understanding. (Reference First Ecumenical Council–Canons of 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, Bithynia. “Excursus on Usury.”)
Usury, as seen by the Church Fathers, violated natural, divine and human laws. Interestingly, it was considered as “theft” and a dishonest practice.
The Church Fathers, also referred to as the Patristic Church Fathers, span an era from Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-c. 108 A.D.), to John of Damascus, who died in 749 A.D.
The Practice in Pagan Cultures
History suggests that ancient pagan cultures did NOT tolerated the practice of usury. Rejection of usury was universal and consistently observed up to the time of the Patristic Fathers.
Thus, even pagan nations viewed interest exacted upon monetary loans as usury. As stated previously, the receipt of interest on loans was esteemed as a form of theft and dishonesty.
Catholic Church Counsels View
The Council of Carthage (345) the Council of Aix (789) enforced the centuries-old, universal prohibition against usury, declaring it to be a reprehensible practice.
John Calvin-A Reversal
Interestingly, it was John Calvin (1509-1564), church reformer, minister and author, who reversed thinking on the practice of usury in the Christian Faith. He defined the distinction between “interest” and “usury” and was the first Christian church leader to write a defense of interest.
Referencing Luke 6:35, Calvin wrote:
“Christ corrects the world’s vicious custom of lending money [only to those who can repay] and urges us, instead, to lend to those from whom no hope of repayment is possible. Now, we are accustomed to lending money where it will be safe. But we ought to help the poor, where our money will be at risk. For Christ’s words far more emphasize our remembering the poor than our remembering the rich. Nonetheless, we need not conclude that all usury is forbidden.”
Calvin went on to establish 7-rules to distinguish lawful from unlawful usury.
Martin Luther-At Variance with John Calvin
Martin Luther (1483-1546), Catholic friar, priest, theologian, professor, and Father of the so-called Protestant Reformation, on the other hand, violently opposed Calvin’s position on usury.
In 1519 Martin Luther felt compelled to draft a “Treatise on Usury” in response to what he saw as financial wrong doings at the time. The referenced financial wrong doings appeared to be business sector related as opposed the church related.
Some see Luther’s position on business related usury as being unsympathetic to the economic developments taking place around him. The owning of property he saw as medieval. In fact, making money from money, in Luther’s eyes, was sinful. Such would be contrary to the law of nature; a violation of the laws of God according to the Old and the New Testament.
A Loosening on the Practice by the Catholic Church
Others followed Calvin’s lead in the ensuing years as it related to a loosening of perspectives on the practice of usury. Although the Catholic Church officially rejects the general practice of usury, she seemed to turn a blind eye to those who did practice it in the public sector.
In fact, Pope Benedict 14 gave those who chose to exact interest on loans a pass. In Benedict’s view, the practice of usury was more of a justifiable state law. Essentially the Catholic Church felt she had no “dog in the fight” over the subject of usury. Usury was of a secular civil matter best left untouched by the church.
Judaism‘s Stand on the Subject
Judaism forbids usury between fellow Jews. Halakhic Law, which dictates how the observant Jew is to walk out Jewish Law (NOT Torah), encourages making strictly interest-free loans to fellow Jews. However, Halakhic Law does permit Jews exacting interest or usury on monetary loans made to non-Jews.
The Talmud seems to back-up the prohibition against usury amongst members of the Jewish Community. In fact, one sage wrote:
“…he who takes usury will lose all his possessions. But is it not a fact that they who do not take usury are also stricken with poverty? The latter are to be raised again, but those who take money, if they fall will never rise again.”
The Hebraic—Netzari—Messianic Understanding
The main point behind Father’s prohibition against usury appears to be that we who would be lenders or givers must not take advantage of a brother or sister in need by exacting interest or usury (cf. Lev. 24:35; 25:36).
Nevertheless, Father never prohibited usury across-the-board. We find the following mitzvah in Deuteronomy 23:19-20:
“Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals; usury of anything that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that YHVH thy Elohim may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it” (KJV).
According to H. Gamoran, “The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest”:
“In ancient times money was lent primarily for poverty and not for commercial ventures.”
Then, according to S. Stein, “The Laws on Interest in the Old Testament”:
“The lending to the poor was essentially a charity, and so not to be an opportunity to make money from another person’s misfortune. The word “neshekh” may be derived from a verb that means “to bite,” and so the idea of usury or interest was that of putting out one’s money with a bite in it.”
Master’s Clarification on Lending
Master instructs us to go even further than this mitzvah and to give to brethren in need, expecting nothing in return:
“What credit is it to you if you lend only to those who you expect will pay you back. Even sinners lend to each other, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good, and lend expecting nothing back! Your reward will be great, and you will be children of Ha’Elyon; for He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked” (Luk. 6:34, 35; CJB)
In other words, if a brother or sister in our Faith Community; a family member; friend; acquaintance; even a stranger or enemy is in need and we have what he or she needs, we are to freely give to fulfill their need. In return, we are NOT to exact usury/interest on that which we’ve given, NEITHER are we to expect repayment on that which we’ve given.
This is Kingdom economy 101. This clarified instruction of this mitzvah by our Master will of course make no business or common sense to those in the world. But to us, it should make perfect sense. The prohibition against usury within our Faith Community, even when extended and applied over to those outside of community, is clearly the impetus behind loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. The point in prohibiting usury altogether is to (1) not take advantage of someone who is in need; and (2) to tend to the immediate need of someone who may need our help.
Netzari Practicalities
How does this play out in our modern western society with car loans, credit cards and mortgages? Well, it behooves the Netzari to always strive to live within his or her means such that there’d be no need subject one’s self to usury in the first place. However, in situations where usury cannot be avoided, it also behooves the Netzari to employ extreme business sense and wisdom when entering into such an agreement. Father has no desire that His children be indebted, much less burdened by usury. The Netzari should eagerly seek to become and to stay debt-free to the full extent as possible.
Indeed, the secular business-world is under NO obligation to not engage in legally permissible usury practices.
Shalom.