Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The Bible Usury and Debt

Since this blog deals with how Christian morality impacts American law I'll touch on this story. There is debate as to who -- the Christian Left or the Christian Right (or even Christian libertarians) -- best represents the Bible's politics. These aren't easy questions and I'm not convinced any of the sides are "right." I'm certainly not convinced that Jesus' admonishment to feed the poor demands socialized medicine or redistributionist economics.

There are a couple modest positions I've concluded are so clear that they are beyond debate. One is the Bible is anti-usury and arguably teaches, like Islam, the charging of ANY interest (even a "good" rate for borrowers) is a sin. Therefore, if it's a good idea to write biblical teachings into the law or otherwise have the law reflect and not seem inconsistent with biblical morality, high interest loans are immoral and ought to be illegal. Arguably there should be no interest charged on loans. That represents a huge tension between free market capitalism and what the Bible teaches.

The second non-debatable point is that the Bible is radically pro-debtor. David Skeel, law professor at Penn and whom I had at Temple, seems one of the few notable right of center Christian academics who consistently trumpets a pro-debtor tune (to the chagrin of bondholders everywhere).

The anti-usury, pro-debtor stance of the Bible, it seems to me, are two areas where the Christian Left is more biblical than the Christian Right.

Though, I have concluded that the Bible/Christian religion is, at its heart, a-political and compatible with virtually any political system. It's not just Romans 13 (which we've discussed at great length), but also -- and more importantly -- Mark 12:17. When Jesus said "Render Unto Caesar" he didn't refer to the noble Stoic Roman republicans, but rather to the ignoble imperial Roman tyrants.

12 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Jon,
It seems a futile attempt to get at "Biblical".....whatever! That is why we have denominations and liberty of conscience. So, those that want to "stick to the Bible" and aren't prone to deter from it, need to find another place to live!

Phil Johnson said...

.
One is the Bible is anti-usury and arguably teaches, like Islam, the charging of ANY interest (even a "good" rate for borrowers) is a sin.
.
What if--by law--no Christian or Mohamet could be involved in any business of lending money to make any profit? Who would we go to in order to borrow money for our capital needs?
.
Wasn't that the situation that created major wealth during the Middle Ages for non-Christians and non-Islamists?
.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Phil,
I'm not certain about the historical background, but I am certain about human nature and power. And the Founders were, too. No one is beyond corruption given certain opportunities. This is where the "rule of law" should apply equally between the Church and State, because there should not be special priviledges regarding "equality under law", otherwise, the State sanctions the feudal system....not the modern business contract. But, it seems that Churches do have a right to discriminate based on their particular doctrines. This means the Church is unaccountable to the State? then, when do citizens have protections in their Churches? Certainly, we believe that citizens should be protected from the STATE!

That being said, both the Church and the State have been guilty at times in taking advantage of others, or using monopolistic manuevering to make for profit.

The issue is NOT profit, but whether there was transparency, accountability and a contract that protected interests. Non-Profits should not be allowed to subvert "fair play", should they? Equal means that there is respect toward those that are committing to certain endeavors, and not a "slave trade" that hides behind religious garb, or "good ole boy systems" that hides behind secular garb...Church and State are dangerous bedfellows in this regard, so how do we manuever?

Tom Van Dyke said...

By the 1200s, intelligent people figured out "opportunity cost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

In the 13th century Cardinal Hostiensis enumerated thirteen situations in which charging interest was not immoral.[30] The most important of these was lucrum cessans (profits given up) which allowed for the lender to charge interest "to compensate him for profit foregone in investing the money himself." (Rothbard 1995, p. 46) This idea is very similar to Opportunity Cost. Many scholastic thinkers who argued for a ban on interest charges also argued for the legitimacy of lucrum cessans profits (e.g. Pierre Jean Olivi and St. Bernardino of Siena).

See also the Wiki article, where usury is not explicitly condemned by the New Testament, and in the Old Testament, only in Jew lending to Jew.

Ray Soller said...

Saying that the Bible (Mosaic Law) is pro-debtor is an over-simplification. Usury in terms of goods or services was acceptable. The most pro-debtor part of the Law related to debt forgiveness every shemittah (Seventh-year/Year of Release/Sabbatical Year). That too, was mitigated by the Prosbul as officially insituted by Hillel sometime between 30 BCE and 10 CE. The Prosbul, in its own day, reflected what was the "tension between free market capitalism and what the Bible [the Law] teaches."

I've indicated this before, but the typical interpretation of Mark 12:17 is totally out of context in the sense that during a Sabbatical Year all pasture, farm land, and seventh-year produce belonged to the God of Israel. It didn't belong to Rome. This pronouncement, either in preparation for or during a Sabbatical Year, was a call to withhold agricultural taxes that had been levied by Rome. It was this call to resistance, more than any other factor, that finally led to the Jewish War that broke out in 67 CE.

Brian said...

I am pretty sure that the biblical law against interest applied only to charitable loans, that is loans to your neighbor. IE, don't make a buck off your family or friend in need.

If the Bible were categorically against charging interest, it would practically be against all profit making whatever, as charging interest is the only way to make any money by lending money. Both lending money and making a profit being as foundational as they are to civilization, if you were right that the Bible forbids these, then the Bible would have some pretty big problems ain't no one talking about.

I know you like to comment on Gary North sometimes. He wrote a great book on biblical law applied to money and banking, called "Honest Money". Of course I already agreed with his views, so I found it to be a great book. ;)

Phil Johnson said...

.
Angie, I found that James Wilson link I mentioned before to be healpful in gaining a little understanding about the different systems of law. I recommend you read it.
.

Naum said...

Early Christians believed New Testament (and also SotM) to forbid charging of interest. And that has been the stance of the church for most of Christian history…

Second, the concept of "jubilee" is woven into words of Jesus and the Gospel -- forgiveness of debt/sin (and in the ANE world, sin and debt were almost synonymous terms)…

Jonathan Rowe said...

Interesting comments all. Thanks. Perhaps I was wrong when I stated the conclusions as "beyond debate" as you seem to be debating them.

Ray Soller said...

Here are two books to read on the Jubilee: 1) Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee (1954) by Robert Grady North, and 2) The jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: a history of interpretation (1997) by John Sietze Bergsma. This is what Bergsma said about Robert North's book, "The classic work on the jubilee is Robert North's monograph Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee."

Phil Johnson said...

.
How about the inscription on the Liberty Bell?

Leviticus 25:10

.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Ray: One quite point re Mark 12:17, that I think we should explore more in the future: The problem of general v. particulars. This is a HUGE in terms of correct interpretation of the Bible and other texts. Indeed, this issue arguable renders the notion of a "correct" interpretation impossible.

If someone is concerned about the implications of a principle they can try to use "context" to limit it to its particulars. Certainly no one wants to defend slavery or genocide and the texts that suggest these may be okay with the biblical God or even demanded by Him are limited, using this method to the greatest extent possible. On the other hand, seeking a "good" interpretation of the Bible (or any text), we'll take principles that were enunciated in specific context and "extend" them in a more general sense.

Mark 12:17 has certainly been "extended" more than your limited context implies.