Borrowing and Lending: Is there anything Christian about either?

Borrowing and Lending:

Is there anything Christian

about either?

Carl E.Armerding

Carl E. Armerding is PhD. Senior Research Fellow at Oxford Centre for Mission Studies Keywords: lending

Introduction

Fundamental to Christian development activity is the question of money, and how those who would follow Jesus Christ use it. In recent years, one of the more creative applications of money to needs in the developing world has been the estab-lishment of various capital funds (alternative banks, if you will), from which those marginalized from established banking structures can borrow capital. While the activities of these micro-enter-prise organizations have been widely applauded, even their existence raises questions of a biblical and theological nature. At the heart of such ques-tions lie the ethics of lending and borrowing, a subject about which the Jewish and Christian scriptures have much to say.

Is money lending Christian?

The problem, as has long been recognized, is that the biblical teaching doesn’t fall into neat cat-egories, and at the very least, requires the service of some interpretive principles. It is in this context that I submit the following remarks, specifically addressing questions of money lending.

Is money lending Christian? The question may sound quaint in our own day, but we need only think back to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice

to recall a day when such activities were seen as less than honourable activities for even the nomi-nal Christian. Better to leave these kinds of things to an outside community, in this case the Jew Shy-lock, who had no scruples taking interest.

Which leads to the point of the scruple: it was not simply lending, but taking interest, that

attract-ed mattract-edieval Christian censure. Are not the Scrip-tures of the Old Testament perfectly clear on the matter? Compare, for example, Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36 f., Deuteronomy 23:19 f., where usury, i.e., the lending at interest, is expressly for-bidden, though it should be noted that each cita-tion carries some qualifiers. For example, the Exodus passage limits taking usury from the poor, while the Deuteronomy passage forbids taking interest from ‘your brother’, but permits it from ‘the stranger’. We shall examine these passages in more depth, but note at the outset that any restric-tions in lending in legal texts relate to the exacting of interest, not the act of sharing. That this is a seri-ous prohibition is re-enforced in Ezekiel 18:8,13, where exacting usury appears to be a capital offense, a point to which we must again return. Beyond the question of interest, the wisdom tradi-tion will add words of advice to the lender and the borrower, but this is of a different order.

Back, however, to the point of the article: may a Christian be involved in the business of lending money? If we go to the New Testament, especial-ly the well-known parables in Matthew 25 and Luke 19, the tables appeared to be turned, and lending to gain interest is commended. How, then, does the faithful follower of Christ discern what is appropriate? While this article will, for the sake of space, concentrate on Old Testament texts, the approach will provide a basis for Chris-tian reflection in light of the New Testament.

The question of hermeneutics and

ethics

Two areas of the theological spectrum call for consideration here. First, each passage must be understood in its own context, using the

accept-ed principles of exegesis and hermeneutics. In general, however, this kind of research bears fruit only in illuminating what the text ‘meant’ (a much-criticized distinction, but useful), i.e., let-ting the reader know how the text in question might have spoken to the original readers of the discussion. But such study can only set the stage for the debate.

Second, in the case of Old Testament texts, to say nothing of New Testament teaching, there are a range of further questions related to the broad field of ethics. The literature on the subject is understandably copious, not only because the subject we are considering seems to yield con-trasting (if not contradictory) verses, but because biblical ethics has never been a matter of simply proof-texting, even when the exegesis is sound. As a preface to examining the texts, we do well to consider how ethicists have approached such evidence in recent debate.

In a companion article within this issue of

Transformationwe have a survey of how New Testament ethicists might approach passages of both Old and New Testaments. My colleague, Dr. R. Grams, in the tradition of John Howard Yoder, comes down on the side of a radically Christian ethic, while acknowledging that there are other ways to view biblical texts and teaching from both before and after the cross. As he points out, a somewhat different approach, particularly to Old Testament teaching, was set forth by Stephen Mott and Ronald J. Sider in an earlier issue of this journal,1_{where the search was for normsfrom}

the Old Testament which would define, for all times and contexts, biblical justice. Grams is not entirely happy with where Mott and Sider begin, preferring a system of ethics which takes shape in light of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and works backward to the Old Testament. Other models are given, reflecting the various ways in which Christian ethicists have related the two tes-taments, but one is left with the conclusion that to begin with Old Testament norms is inevitably to come up with an ethic that is sub-Christian.

I must confess to standing more within the tra-dition represented by both Mott/Sider, and Don-ald Bloesch,2_{often associated with a Calvinistic}

model, in which common grace and special reve-lation are seen in continuity rather than contrast. As such, I would like to argue that the norms of biblical justice in the older testament must be seen as alreadyincorporating, in clear, though

admittedly seminal, form, the high standards of Christian ethics revealed in Jesus. I say ‘seminal’, inasmuch as these norms were formulated with-out benefit of the specific example of Jesus’ self-giving at the cross. Equally, as ‘B.C.’ legislation, they can only anticipate the radical teaching of Jesus on the poor and their relation to the king-dom, as outlined in the survey given by Grams. It is certainly true that in the call to Christian disci-pleship, radical commitment to these explicit

ideals is raised to a new height, but surely within Israel’s covenant there is also a call to radical dis-cipleship. Yahweh’s call to Abraham to leave Ur of the Chaldees, to wander as a pilgrim in a land he would never fully possess, and to ‘walk in the ways of the Lord, by doing justice and righteous-ness’ (Gen. 18:19), so that the promise to Abra-ham might be fulfilled, was in essence no less radical than the more complete revelation we have in Christ. One need only contrast Israel’s covenant with the life of the surrounding nations to conclude that Abraham’s family was being set apart as both a redemptive and radical model, the purpose of which was nothing less than the restoration of the creation mandate given prior to the effects of our foreparents’ sin in the Garden of Eden.

My approach, then, will be to attempt an understanding of the context of each of the pas-sages in the Old Testament, primarily from legal and wisdom texts, that address questions of lend-ing and borrowlend-ing, to the end that uslend-ing standard grammatical-historical categories we might find biblical norms that reflect biblical justice and mercy, and thus inform us, as creatures, of God’s ethical will. These norms, from the Old Testa-ment, can be brought to the discussion of the same issues in light of New Testament teaching, particularly but not exclusively the parables of Jesus. They, in turn, need to be seen in their own context, and the specific use Jesus made of these analogical stories, as well as his larger teaching on values that affect our approach to money, whether as borrower, lender, or consumer.

Old Testament legal texts

Admonitions, commandments and prohibitions that form part of Israel’s pentateuchal legal codes are the foundation stones on which other Old Testament texts are built, and thus an appropriate place to begin. At the start, it needs to be recog-nized that Israel had two basic forms of law, one

of which (commonly called by scholars apodictic law) is in the form of a direct command, with wide or general application. The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is the best known example of this genre, though in most ways the pentateuchal admonitions regarding usury (e.g. Deut 23:19) also lean toward this form. In this kind of law, punishments and rewards are either absent, as in most provisions of the Decalogue,3_{or contain} only a general threat of curse or blessing (cf. Deut 23:20). Such laws differ radically from modern codified legislation, which is designed to regulate behaviour rather than, as in ancient Israel’s apod-ictic law, offer moral guidance. The authority of the former is based on the fear of punishment, while the impact of the latter comes from a con-viction that divine guidance reflects for us crea-tures the way the world has been created, and is thus good for one who heeds the divine admoni-tion.

A second form of biblical law, commonly called casuisticlaw is closer to contemporary leg-islation, and consists of rules to regulate social, religious or criminal behaviour. The major distin-guishing mark of this kind of law is its inclusion of specific, legally-binding, consequences atten-dant upon violation. Such laws (e.g., the personal injury laws of Exodus 21:12-36), though frequent-ly expressive of universal norms (e.g., the value of life), because they are case specific to Israel’s national life, cannot be applied directly to life-sit-uations outside of Israel itself. It should be noted that even this distinction is not absolute, and some biblical laws seem to mix the intent of apo-dictic law with the forms of casuistic. This is pre-cisely the case with regard to some of the primary texts dealing with money lending, e.g. Exodus 22:25. The passage occurs in a longer section (the so-called Book of the Covenant) that follows upon the Decalogue of Exodus 20, but breaks into prim-itive case-law, only to return to a mixed form in Exodus 22:21-23:19. Prior to verse 21, the pun-ishments are explicit, and initiated by the com-munity. From 22:21-23:19, the punishments, if present at all, consist of the threat of divine wrath, and the major ethical appeal is based on history (you too suffered these injustices) and jus-tice (as covenant people, you must do what is right and good) rather than punishment. When considering questions of lending and borrowing, it will be important to separate these contexts.

Legal texts that regulate lending and

borrowing

A cluster of texts in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy provide primary guidance to Israel on lending and borrowing. As with other ethical issues (e.g. the death penalty), a first reading is sometimes deceptive. On the surface, many of these texts appear to prohibit taking interest alto-gether. A closer reading, however, reveals a situa-tion where lending and borrowing is understood as part of an agricultural, land-based economy, but where the unique situation of a covenant people calls for regulation of these activities in a manner consistent with Israel’s mission to be a light to the nations. A consideration of some of the key pas-sages will illustrate what I mean.

A first reading is sometimes

deceptive

A note on vocabulary. There is a rich Hebrew vocabulary for lending and borrowing, the nuances of which must of necessity be omitted here. Of particular help to the general reader are standard commentaries, together with specialized articles in the better Bible dictionaries,4_while those who can take advantage of Hebrew studies can access a rich store of word studies.5_Even more accessible to the general reader are the var-ious English-language translations, in which the nuances of particular Hebrew word-groups are sometimes drawn out, usually from the context. Questions like whether ‘interest’ (Hebrew ne_ek) means taking any percentage on a loan, or implies rather an ‘excessive percentage’ are not always easy to answer, even for the skilled interpreter. Modern translations like the New Revised Stan-dard Version (NRV), or the New International Version (NIV) will frequently attempt an explana-tion that goes beyond the literal meaning.6

Exodus 22:25-27 (Hebrew 24-26)

In a section of very ancient laws appended to the Ten Commandments, various aspects of life in an ancient agricultural society are regulated. As noted above, this section combines some general principles with specific case law, in which there is both a regulation and a punishment for viola-tion. The particular passage before us carries no legal threat to one who violates the spirit of the

law, but makes it perfectly clear that a compas-sionate God, who hears the cries of the poor, will take note of the Israelite farmer’s behaviour.

The passage itself begins with a simple prohi-bition of interest, with two qualifications that are familiar to any reader of Old Testament laws. First, the taking of interest is proscribed when the loan is to ‘one of my people’, presumably a fellow Israelite. This is consistent with similar passages, e.g Deuteronomy 23:20-21 (Hebrew 19-20), where the concern is not so much general eco-nomic theory as the nature of covenant commu-nity. Here we are introduced to radical covenant community, where the internal relationship between brothers calls for a different standards. Deuteronomy 23:21 (Hebrew 20) makes this explicit: ‘you may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite’, with the added note that God’s blessing on life in the land is somehow con-tingent upon honouring such relationships.

The second qualification is of equal import; the limitation on interest extends only to ‘one of my people who is needy’ or ‘poor’. The passage assumes the existence of a money lending econo-my, but in verse 25 the individual who is in a posi-tion to lend to his Israelite brother is enjoined not to ‘be as a moneylender’ by charging (NIV exces-sive) interest. Whether NIV is correct to limit the matter to an excess of interest or not, it is clear that behind the whole section lies the relief of poverty in community rather than the normal market activity.

A final note concerns verses 26 and 27, which deal with taking of pledges of security. If, as many commentators believe, the pledge of verses 26-27 is related to verse 25, then we have an illustration of what might be considered inappropriate lend-ing activity within Israel. Behind the passage is the assumption that a farm worker had fallen upon hard times, and needed help. His only secu-rity for the loan was his cloak, in which as we can see, he wraps himself at night to keep warm. Tak-ing interest, or excessive interest, would be illus-trated by the lender keeping the cloak overnight. On the other hand, the picture of a labourer, or tenant farmer, stopping by his rich neighbour to deposit his cloak before arriving at work each morning is almost ludicrous, especially if we think of the process being reversed each evening. Hard-ly the stuff of modern economics, but a powerful picture of basic human concern in society.

Leviticus 25:36-37

These verses, like Exodus 22:24, prohibit the tak-ing of interest from a ‘fellow countryman’ (literal-ly; ‘your brother’), but the context is expanded considerably. The entire chapter deals with the year of jubilee, a custom explicitly mentioned only here, in which every fiftieth year called for the remission of all indebtedness and the return of all land that had been sold. Fundamental to the jubilee concept is the idea that the land, Israel’s primary unit of capital, belonged to Yahweh their God. In the conquest, the land had been appor-tioned by divine lot, and according to this chap-ter it could never be permanently reassigned.

This is no time to take

advantage of a brother’s

misfortune

The chapter deals with a variety of circum-stances in which units of capital are acquired by some and forfeited by others. In some cases, indi-viduals indenture themselves, while in other situ-ations items of property, particularly land, are transferred. This provides the specific context for the proscription of interest in verse 36. Verse 35 cites the case, ‘one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself’. It is of note that he is to be given at least the same con-sideration as the alien or temporary resident, for whom special protection is enjoined throughout. This is no time to take advantage of a brother’s misfortune. This brother, like you, has been brought from slavery in Egypt (verse 38), and he has the right to live among his countrymen with no fear. Interest may be taken at other times and other circumstances, but under these conditions even food is not to be sold at profit (verse 37). Verses 39 ff. continue the story. Under no condi-tions is your brother to be treated as a slave, though you may employ him as a hired worker, but even then only until the year of jubilee. Behind the entire narrative is the Israelite concept of freedom; when Yahweh brought his people out of Egypt, everything related to slavery had to be left behind. These are free people, in a free land, and nothing, including the taking of interest, can be permitted to violate that principle.

Deuteronomy 15:2

This passage has to do with canceling debts, not exacting interest, but the entire chapter is of a piece with much of the legislation already con-sidered. Unlike the jubilee, which deals with land, Deuteronomy 15 is concerned primarily with debts, which here are to be remitted in the sev-enth year. Again, as in most of this ‘legislation’, there is little that can be regulated by a govern-ment or a police force, though from the history of Israel we know that judges and rulers were expected to employ these standards of compas-sion when discerning what constituted ‘justice for the poor’. The basic principle is that although ‘there will always be poor people in the land’ (15:11), by heeding these admonitions ‘there should be no poor among you’ (15:4). The exis-tence of impoverished people provides opportu-nity to be the more openhanded and generous (15:10-11). Lest the lack of a civil enforcement agency be taken lightly, God reminds the reader that the poor can always appeal to Yahweh (verse 9; cf. James 5:4), for whom a grudging or hard-ened attitude to poverty is sin!

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 (Hebrew 20-21)

This text reiterates what has already been noted in Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:36-37, but adds in verse 20 the specific permission to charge interest to a foreigner. Since foreigners who lived among Israelites (the ‘sojourner’) were specifical-ly protected under the law, the permission to charge interest must relate to normal business conducted outside the community. Although the prohibition of interest-taking from an Israelite doesn’t explicitly mention the poor, it can proba-bly be assumed, given the parallel passages and the general import of the section.

Deuteronomy 24:10-13

In this fascinating passage, embedded in a chap-ter marked by what we would today call enlight-ened human social concern, a new and fascinating limitation on usury is added. As in Exo-dus 22:25-27, the scenario is the using of a poor man’s cloak as security for some kind of loan. As in Exodus, the cloak is to be returned each evening, but there is more. Verses 10-11 envisage a situation where the creditor might expect to select from the debtor’s possessions an

appropri-ate item of security. The text expressly prohibits this; instead, the debtor chooses what he will give as a pledge, taking it out of his house to the cred-itor, who is forbidden entrance. When we think of the rights of seizure extended to contemporary creditors, this is an amazing piece of legislation. Whether or not any of our modern laws limiting liability find their source specifically in this piece of ancient biblical teaching, it must be admitted that what we have here constitutes a remarkably high value given to individual dignity and human rights.

Legal texts that provide commentary

Deuteronomy 28:12-13

This passage speaks of lending, but in a com-pletely different context, that of the blessings attendant upon the covenant nation, if she kept faith with the kind of holy commandments we have already seen. Verses 11-12 promise abundant prosperity, consistent with the covenant promises repeated frequently. At the end of verse 11 and into verse 12, the blessing continues, ‘you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none’. The subsequent lines speak of Israel being the head and not the tail, the top and never the bot-tom. Many commentators think this entire pas-sage projects a national existence where Israel would be an exporter and creditor to the nations, but never be dependent on others for basic imports, or capital. Whether this is true or not, it gives an interesting twist to the idea of borrowing and lending. As the wisdom literature (Proverbs 22:7) will point out, the lender is always in a superior position to the borrower. Those experi-encing divine blessing will not expect to incur massive debts.

Do poor nations stand under

God’s judgment?

This is, of course, a powerful contemporary commentary on a world in which scores of poor nations are economically crushed under the bur-den of overwhelming international debt. Is the disparity simply a result of the West having been more faithful to God’s order? Do poor nations stand under God’s judgment? It would be invidi-ous to make such a facile application, for we know today that there are varied and complex

reasons for the disparities, many of which can hardly be traced to the kind of criteria we see given to Israel. But, having said that, I would argue that some application can be made. For the rich nations, the principles of justice to the poor and foreigner must be the norm, and in that con-text we can support the jubilee movement to reduce, or eliminate, Third World debt. But for the poor nations, many of which suffer extreme poverty in the midst of a wealth of natural resources, there is every reason to work toward just and equitable administration, using the Deuteronomic legislation as a model of national righteousness. History has shown that these prin-ciples still work, and any nation ruled by these standards will experience blessing.

Narrative accounts, and prophetic

contexts, usually providing

commentary on Israel’s laws and

their application

In a short paper we lack space to provide a full coverage of the non-legal sections of the Old Tes-tament. Most of these find their inspiration from, or illustrate, some principle we have already observed in the Pentateuch.

In various narrative accounts, it is obvious that indebtedness is one of the curses to be feared, and avoided, though it is often seen as unavoid-able. In 1 Samuel 22:2, the account of David’s fugitive band at the cave of Adullam, the motley collection includes not only those described as ‘in distress’ and ‘discontented’, but also those who were ‘in debt’. Indebtedness is a condition that can drive men to desperation, and many a politi-cal saviour has found allies in those trying to escape debt. Again, we are reminded that in Israel’s ideal society, there would be no poor (Deuteronomy 15), but the grim reality was dif-ferent.

A second graphic example is found in 2 Kings 4:1-7, where a woman is left virtually destitute by the death of her prophet husband. It is clear that, had Israel been marked by the kind of humane legislation we have seen in the Pentateuch, there would have been remission of the dead husband’s debts, as well as communal concern for the widow. But again the reality is different. The well-known story of the miraculous filling of the jars with oil culminates (verse 7) with the payment of the debts, and presumably sufficient reserve to

keep the woman and her children alive and cared for. Indebtedness is a mark of God’s curse, while the removal of the debt is a form of God’s bless-ing, expressed in this case through the prophet.

Finally, in a post-exilic narrative section, we have a poignant commentary on what happened in Israel when the legislation regulating lending and borrowing was ignored. Nehemiah 5:1-13 describes a situation in which the exiles, who are pictured as having been bought back from slav-ery, presumably in Babylon, are now sold into slavery in the post-exilic community. Exactly who was guilty, and how they related to the various social groupings, is not clear, but one can imag-ine a situation where those who had returned from exile found themselves at the mercy of those who had remained in the land. In any case, it was the ‘nobles and officials’ (verse 7) who had eco-nomic power, and a combination of circum-stances gave them opportunity for exploitation. Reference is made to famine, and high levels of taxation, both of which often strike harder at those who are already disadvantaged. Add to that the dislocation of the exiles, and you have an ideal opportunity for unscrupulous but entrenched authority.

Again, it should be noted that there is little in this story that can be seen as commentary on legitimate market economics in contemporary life. The circumstances are unusual, and insofar as they provide any model, it would best be seen in a setting like the emergence of whole nations from communism, and their re-integration into a rich European economy. Normal laws of lending and borrowing, with interest, were suspended in Germany when the entire nation undertook the gargantuan task of recreating a single economy, after years of economic and political disaster. In Israel the principles of brotherhood and common covenant history should have brought out the best, when economic conditions were the worst. Instead, those with power used the moment to raise taxes and impose the harshest of economic conditions on those with no power to pay. The result was a wholesale mortgaging of property, and the sale of their own children into virtual slav-ery.

Nehemiah’s response is swift, and in it we are reminded of the principles governing lending and borrowing in the Torah. The creditors are power-fully reminded that these are their brothers, to whom they have special responsibility. Equally,

they are reminded of the provision that interest is not to be charged, both because of the fraternal tie, but also because the result is inequality and poverty. Finally, Nehemiah himself sets an exam-ple of ‘lending’ without interest, a model which in the end prevails.

Wisdom maxims, including parables

It would require another article to comment in detail, but much of what is said about borrowing and lending, apart from legal texts, is found in some form of what is called wisdom literature. In the Old Testament, this includes specifically the books of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, together with individual psalms (e.g. Ps. 37) that exhibit wisdom thinking in wisdom language. Expanding the search to inter testamental literature (the Apocrypha), the primary resource is the second century Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Eccle-siasticus, or Ben Sirach).

In the New Testament, the parables of Jesus are a form of wisdom saying, built as they are on some form of comparison (‘the kingdom of God is like. . ..’), often appealing to the norms of cre-ated order. This reminds us of what constitutes the appeal of wisdom in any age, that it draws its power from the readers’ recognition of truth, usu-ally presented in the indicative mood. To put it another way, wisdom literature appeals simply to the way things are, which from a biblical point of view goes back to the created order. In such a world, some approaches will work, while others will inevitably fail. Building a house on sand is unsafe in any age; by contrast building on a rock ensures stability. Attempting to serve two masters is not rejected as something morally wrong, but structurally impossible. Or, to move closer to our subject, a borrower always becomes, in some sense, the servant of the lender (cf. Proverbs 22:7). With regard to borrowing and lending, much of what may be learned from the wisdom tradition has less to do with right and wrong than with what works and what doesn’t, or what is wise and what is foolish.

A couple of wisdom principles regarding lend-ing and borrowlend-ing will have to suffice. We have already noted Proverbs 22:7, in which ‘the rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender’ as an example of the kind of pragmat-ic observation whpragmat-ich illustrates the world in which we live. God doesn’t make people to be slaves, and the Old Testament has many

illustra-tions of divine intervention on behalf of equity and equality of opportunity (e.g. Exodus 16, the manna). But the simple fact remains: in a world where economic fortunes vary, there will be bor-rowers and lenders. Israel’s covenant example provides a measure of hope through a radical new kind of community, but the reality remains that even Israelites lived in a less than perfect society. Lending and borrowing is necessary, and may even be the means, as we know from our modern market economics, of increasing capital and build-ing wealth, but let no one be naive as to its dan-gers.

Psalm 37, like Proverbs ‘wisdom literature’, presents the contrast between the borrower and the lender in a moral dimension. This is often overlooked in contemporary economics, but the truths presented have their echo in the experi-ence of many generations. The psalm begins with the contrast between the wicked, who appear to prosper, and the righteous, on whom fortune seems not to have smiled. The entire poem is a poignant commentary on the true nature of wealth and poverty, good and evil, and though it begins with the apparent success of the wicked, it ends with the triumph of God and his purposes. The real point of the psalm is that those who walk in the ways of the Lord need fear no evil. The wicked will in the end not prevail. The righteous may not become rich, but there is a richness in being righteous, and at the end of the day, the two come together. Along the way, the contrast between good and evil is illustrated in terms of borrowing and lending, in contrasting pictures that are both unforgettable and true to experi-ence. Verse 21 contrasts the wicked who borrow but do not repay, with the righteous who give generously. A few lines later (verse 26) we read of the righteous that ‘they are always generous and lend freely’. What a beautiful commentary on the laws of the Pentateuch, which are designed not to regulate behaviour but to set the pattern for a life of blessing. What better picture of bless-ing than a righteous man, with his children around him, enjoying a simple meal.

This is the picture we find throughout Wis-dom. Some very practical advice on lending and borrowing could be added particularly from the book we call Ecclesiasticus (cf. Sirach 8:12; 18:33; 20:15; 29:1,6-7), but they would only round out the picture we have already seen.

Conclusions

In summary, I will draw some conclusions from the study above. Each one, though not developed as much as it might have been, is consistent with a biblical picture, and provides us with some foundations on which to build a contemporary theology of money lending and its use.

1. Borrowing and lending, though morally not neutral, are a natural part of any society. Much of the legislation we have seen presupposes that some people will need to borrow, and others will be in a position to lend. Cf. Exodus 22:14; 2 Kings 4:3; 6:5; Luke 11:5ff. Being able to lend rather than borrow, whether as individuals or as nations, is seen as a mark of God’s favour (Deut. 15:6; 28:12). Even the jubilee laws of Leviticus 25 pre-suppose normal commercial gain and loss, in which property and services are subject to the laws of economics. The fact that these are subject, in Israel, to a higher covenant principle doesn’t change the fact that they exist. In the New Testa-ment, the picture is the same. Jesus had no need to explain the economic or cultural background when he told stories of putting money to work (Luke 19:11-26).

2. The lender, in the Bible, can be seen in both positive and negative light. In a positive sense, the ultimate lender is God, who ‘lends’ his people the land, and gives them prosperity. However, like the positive image of the righteous lender in Israel, God is seen as one whose loans are often indistinguishable from gifts. The biblical ideal of a lender is one who lends freely (Psalm 37:21,26), and with justice (Psalm 112:5). Such a person, in extending kindness to the poor, is seen as ‘lend-ing to the Lord’ (Proverbs 19:17) who, in turn, repays his loan (cf. the ‘hundredfold’ of Jesus’ parables)! This comes to its highest expression in the teaching of Jesus (Luke 6:35), where those who would be ‘sons of the most high’ ‘lend, expecting nothing in return’. Again, there may be little that informs modern banking directly, but the principle of generosity and concern for peo-ple above profit remains powerful.

But the lender can also be seen in less favourable light, though interestingly the only condemnations we have seen of the borrower involve what Scripture would consider unjust use of money or power. This is clearly the situation when, as in Nehemiah 5, the poor are exploited by the rich, either through taxes or usury. Whether Joseph’s example in Egypt should be

seen in the same light is less clear; it was the means God used to preserve both Egypt and the children of Israel. The ‘wicked borrower’ of Psalm 37:21 is seen as one who refuses to repay, so the fault is not in the system but the person.

3. Biblical limitations on lending with interest (usury) are specifically tied to circumstances in Israel which may have parallels in contemporary life, but cannot be applied out of context. We have seen two priorities that limited lending at interest. The first arose when the conditions of the borrowers were such that they had no possi-bility of repayment. This may have a powerful application in contemporary global economics, though even here it seems that the underlying rea-sons for poverty need sober consideration. Sec-ondly, the principle of divine ownership, and covenant brotherhood, as reflected in Israel’s law, removes any absolute right of property and indi-vidualistic application of power. Israel’s covenant life was designed as a model for God’s original creation principles, the keeping of which would become the means of universal blessing (Genesis 18:18-19). A just and equitable society, not indi-vidual acquisition, is the goal, with harmony between God and his creation. The use of money and capital is encouraged to that end, rather than as a means of satisfying greed. We need only think of Jesus’ parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21) to realize the folly of the latter.

4. Through biblical wisdom teaching, built on the experience of the ages, both borrower and the lender can learn practical ways to use money fruitfully. Much of the pain of the modern credit economy could be alleviated if individual bor-rowers were content to live within their present means, rather than yield to the appeal of instant gratification. ‘Feasting with borrowed money’ (Sir-ach 18:33) is the hallmark of the modern con-sumer, and it leads to the same end. Lending, when a friend is in need, is an act of mercy (Sir-ach 29:1), and reflects God’s priorities, whilst earning his blessing. Though it is true that the bor-rower becomes, in some sense, slave to the lender, the righteous lender has, as in Deuteron-omy 15, the option of turning the loan into a gift. Many a follower of Jesus, in view of the mercies of his own master, has blessed the poor in this way.

5. Finally, what has all this to say to modern banking and global commerce? Though it may not provide any neat rules for regulating modern

com-mercial activity, the biblical teaching can inform all that we do, whether as bankers or as those who live in a market economy. While much of what we have observed applies primarily to indi-vidual ethics, there are also principles for society. Our attitudes toward poverty and justice must be those illustrated by God’s own compassion and self-giving. Likewise, for those of us who acquire property, and funds, there is a responsibility for stewardship. We can avoid the fate of the rich fool, and in place of the love of money can be known as those who love God and his people. This may be the motivation for a banker to con-sider a career in community building through micro-enterprise development. Equally, the divine mandate may be the motivation for an equally gift-ed economist to devote a career to global finance, applying biblical principles and values to the mar-ketplace of money. The one option not open to a follower of Jesus Christ is to be conformed to the world and its views, a world which is desperately searching for alternatives to the bankruptcy of ideas and ideals we see around us. Those whose minds are ‘transformed’ by the renewing power of God’s Word and Spirit will always have some-thing to say.

Notes

1. ‘Economic Justice: A biblical paradigm,’ Trans-formation17.2 (April/June, 2000), pp. 50-63.

2. See the reference and full description in R. Grams’ article.

3. An exception is the commandment to honour parents, which adds a blessing, Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16. It should be noted that some scholars have argued that punishments are impliedthough not stated.

4. e.g., Anchor Bible Dictionary(Doubleday), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Eerd-mans), New Bible Dictionary (Intervarsity Press).

5. Of special help to the English reader, who knows some Hebrew is the Dictionary of Old Testa-ment Theology and Exegesis(5 volumes, ed W.A. van Gemeren, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(2 vol-umes, eds. R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer and B.K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody, 1980) is also most accessible.

6. See, for example, the readings of Leviticus 25:36-37, where a combination of Hebrew words yields the thought ‘take interest in advance’, or ‘take excessive interest’, or ‘make a profit’, in a passage dealing with loans to relatives who are poor. It must be kept in mind that the Hebrew words, themselves, do not always give the sense of the passage, which must be discerned from the context.

Visit our website for subscription information and to browse the complete Transformation index