" 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment