Does Deuteronomy 23: 20 on the Issue of "Usury" Prove that the Bible Favors Jews over Non-Jews?

" 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."

(Deut. 23: 20, KJV)

 

Tonight I met two middle aged men downtown. We had quite a lively discussion about injustices the government and society at large heap upon those with disabilities, and about why these gentlemen discredit the Bible? According to one of these middle aged men, by the name of Calvin, the Word of God can't be trusted because it was written by a bunch of fascist Jews who own the banks that control everything. Also, The Bible can't be trusted because the Roman Catholic Church were responsible for putting together the Word of God as we have it today and is used to control the masses.  

So naturally, I asked him to prove his point by presenting to me evidence to why I should believe his outrageous claim. So he quoted to me two possible passages of Scripture taken from Deuteronomy 23: 28-29 or 28: 28-29 that speaks about how Jews were allowed to exploit non-Jews by charging them "usury" (interest). Since I had a small Bible on me, I looked up the passages Calvin had cited to me. The first thing I noticed was that verses 28-29 does not even exist in Deuteronomy 23, for it ends at verse 25! The actual verses that speaks about "usury" is verses 19-20. Secondly, he said the Deuteronomy passage is the first mention of "usury" in the Bible. This of course is false. The first mention of "usury" in the Bible is found in Exodus 22: 25. The third thing I noticed was the passage he mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 28: 28-29 had nothing to do with "usury." Actually, from what he shared with me about the hardships he had  endured in life due to his disability and his apparent rebellion and animosity towards God and His Word made me wonder if the Lord was rebuking Calvin through Deuteronomy 28: 28-29 that I had read to him.  

Alexander Cruden, the author of Cruden's Complete Concordance defines "usury" as follows:

 

"By usury is generally understood in the Bible any interest on a loan, whether in money or in wheat or other commodities. Modern usage has confined the meaning of the word to an unlawful interest.  

The law of God prohibits rigorous imposing of interest or exacting it, or a return of a loan without regard to the condition of the borrower; whether poverty occasioned his borrowing, or a visible prospect of gain by employing the borrowed goods. 

The Hebrews were plainly commanded  in Ex. 22: 25, etc., not to receive interest for money from any that borrowed for necessity, as in the case in Neh. 5: 5, 7."[1]

 

The word "usury" is used 17 times throughout the Bible. 15 times in the Old Testament and 2 times in the New Testament according to Cruden's Concordance. (See Ex. 22: 25; Lev. 25: 36-37; Deut. 23: 19-20; Neh. 5: 7, 10; Psalm 15: 5; Prov. 28: 8; Isa. 24: 2; Jer. 15: 10; Ezek. 18: 8, 17, 13; 22: 12; Matt. 25: 27; Luke 19: 23.) The specific verse in question that Calvin quotes to demonize Jews is Deut. 23: 19-20. Verse 20 is the primary passage under question. It reads as follows: "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." (KJV). 

 The Jew was the 'lender' while the stranger was the 'debtor.' The stranger was required in the agreed amount owed to pay interest as well to the Jewish lender for the money or item borrowed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines two words in relation to the lender and the one who borrows as follows. The Jew who is a lender is a usurer, "one that lends money esp. at an exorbitant rate." The Jew was required to charge usury that was only fair and reasonable. He was not to over charge interest to the stranger. By the time the New Testament era came, the infamous tax collectors were notorious for charging outrageous amounts of interest. Therefore they were hated by the people of that day. Now the borrower was charged usury. The term means "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use." 

In Matthew Poole's Commentary, he explains why the Jews were allowed to charge "usury" to strangers. He writes as follows:

 

"Ver. 20.  Unto a stranger, i.e. to a person of any other nation, for so that word is generally used, and therefore they who restrain it to the cursed Canaanitish nations seem to do so without any solid or sufficient grounds. And though the word brother is ofttimes used in a general sense for every man, yet I think I may affirm that wheresoever the words brother and stranger are opposed in the Jewish law, the brother signifies the Israelite only, and the stranger signifies any person of what nation or religion soever, whether proselyted to the Jewish religion or not, and so it seems to be meant here. And the reason why usury is permitted to a stranger, not to an Israelite, may seem to be this, because the Israelites generally employed themselves in the management of land and cattle, and therefore could not make any advantage of borrowed money to balance the use they should pay for it; and consequently it may be presumed that they would not borrow money upon use, but for want and poverty, and in that case, and principally for that reason, usury seems to be forbidden to them, as may be thought from Le 25:35,36. But the strangers made use of their money in way of trade and traffic with the Israelites, which was more gainful, and could much better bear the burden of usury, and reap advantage from money so borrowed; and these strangers here spoken of are supposed to be competently rich, and not poor, as may plainly appear by comparing this place with Le 25:35,36, where they are no less forbidden to take usury of a stranger than of a brother, in case of poverty."[2]

 

Authors Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe puts it this way for why Jews could be exempt from being charged usury, whereas Jews could charge usury to strangers.

 

"Of course, usury was not forbidden with strangers (non-Jews), but only with brothers (other Jews). If this seems partial, it is only because the laws forbidding usury on the poor (or one's brothers) were a divinely enjoined act of benevolence, not strictly a matter of business. When it comes to doing business, one is entitled to a reasonable profit on his investment. Since the risk of loss (from non-payment) must be covered, it is just to pay the investor an appropriate amount for his risk."[3]

 

After reading through all 17 passages of Scripture on "usury" in context with Deuteronomy 23: 20 there is nothing indicating unjust partial treatment of Jews over non-Jews. Unless Calvin is able to present indisputable evidence to support his case against the so called accusation he is leveling Against God's Word, he really doesn't have a valid case at all.   

My heart goes out to Calvin in the struggles he is going through in regards to his disability, but that does not in no way excuse him from attacking God's Word without warrant. The only other argument he tried to present was that the Book of Revelations was full of God's wrath and vengeance. That God was a mean tyrant. He fails to understand why the Book of Revelations speaks of God's judgment and wrath. He doesn't realize that God's judgment and wrath comes upon mankind in the last day because of their sin and rebellion against God.

---

[1] Alexander Cruden, Cruden's Complete Concordance, (Dugan Publishers Inc., Gordonsville, TN, Revised 1986), pg. 717.

[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5. 2), Deut. 23: 20.

[3] Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), pgs. 128-129.