LENDING WITH INTEREST

[Tone]

How did we get around the prohibition of usury...and out of Dante's Inferno?

"the Book of Luke advises: ‘[L]ove ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby.’ In the 4th century CE, Christian councils denounced the practice, and by 800, the emperor Charlemagne made the prohibition into law. Accounts of merchants and bankers in the Middle Ages frequently include expressions of anguish over their profits. In his Divine Comedy of the 14th century, the Italian poet Dante Alighieri put the usurers in the seventh circle of Hell; in the case of Reginaldo Scrovegni, one Paduan banker singled out by Dante, his son ended up commissioning a chapel painted with frescoes by Giotto to expiate the family’s sin. Over the ensuing centuries, the philanthropy and patronage of other Italian Renaissance families such as the Medicis was partly inspired by guilt about how they’d profited from charging interest."
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays?

 

[zippy2006]

Good question. There is an informal book on the prohibition of usury that is on my reading list.

 

[Tone]

Good question. There is an informal book on the prohibition of usury that is on my reading list.

"the Catholic Church played its own part in sowing the seeds of a change of attitude. In the 13th century, it developed the concept of Purgatory – a place that had little basis in scripture but did offer some reassurance to anyone committing the sin of usury each day. ‘Purgatory was just one of the complicitous winks that Christianity sent the usurer’s way,’ wrote the historian Jacques Le Goff in Your Money or Your Life: Economy and Religion in the Middle Ages (1990). ‘The hope of escaping Hell, thanks to Purgatory, permitted the usurer to propel the economy and society of the 13th century ahead towards capitalism.’"
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Good question. There is an informal book on the prohibition of usury that is on my reading list.

I think that in every occupation, even with money-lending, the business owner has to have an income. Everything has its price. If you go to the store to buy a pair of pants, you have to pay for them. You don't get them free. In our culture we have professional money-lenders. This is the way people can buy houses, furniture and cars. The bank that lends money has to make a profit to pay for premises, office supplies, staff, etc. Investors lend their money to provide capital for banks and lending institutions, and they expect a return on their investment, otherwise there is no point investing. This is the business world of today.

Of course, we have loan sharks, who are predators who take advantage of poor people and who charge them exorbitant rates of interest. I believe they are evil coveters of other people's money.

But loans of money to family members and friends are usually interest-free and it is right for that to be so.

I think that it is hypocritical for some church organisations to rail against financial institutions charging interest for loans, when they "charge" their members 10% 'tithe" for belonging to their churches, instead of allowing members to give a freewill offering.

 

[Tone]

"One interpretation is that it was simply dogma – just like the belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth – that diminished in force as the Catholic Church splintered and lost political authority. Consider the Church like a business, whose core product was salvation, the economists Robert B Ekelund and Robert F Hébert have argued. When the Catholic Church held a monopoly in Europe, the clergy could ‘sell’ salvation at high prices – including strict prohibitions and purchased ‘indulgences’, which usurious sinners could buy in order to be absolved. But in the 1500s, during the Reformation, theologians such as Martin Luther denounced these practices. They advocated a more direct relationship with God that did not rely on priests as intermediaries, and founded new Christian movements such as Protestantism. The effect was that of a new company undercutting a monopoly. As Christian factions competed for believers, it led to a faith-based ‘race to the bottom’. And to increase their appeal, sects made fewer demands on believers – which meant weakening their stance on usury."
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays

 

[Tone]

"From the 1100s to the 1500s, clergymen known as the Scholastics debated whether lending was truly sinful. The Scholastics were the intellectuals of their day. They studied Roman law, Greek philosophy and Arab science at universities in Paris, Cologne, Vienna and others throughout Europe, and included luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas. They wrote and thought with the nit-picking particularity of lawyers. But despite the dry tone, the Scholastics could sound surprisingly like modern economists"
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays

What...no mention of Torah?

 

[Tone]

"Aquinas argued that money’s ‘natural end’ or purpose was exchange. Using money to make money, rather than to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, therefore violated natural law. It was akin to selling wine or wheat separately from the right to consume these products – that is, like selling the same thing twice. ‘To take usury for the lending of money is in itself unjust, because it is a case of selling what is non-existent; and that is manifestly the setting up of an inequality contrary to justice,’ wrote Aquinas"
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays

 

[Tone]

"The thinking of the Scholastics and other religious leaders was not all admirable. Some clergy refused to budge from the literal words of the Bible, and others appealed to anti-Semitism to denounce usury."
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays

Say it ain't so...

 

[Tone]

"The Scholastics never resolved their disputes. Instead, they were replaced by new authorities on ethics and finance. It wasn’t until the rise of neoclassical economics in the 20th century that economics became the supposedly scientific study of self-interest and individual incentives – a domain in which economists do not pass judgment on actors in the market, any more than biologists would judge the ‘morality’ of bees, or engineers the ‘ethics’ of an aqueduct.

Of course, people today do discuss the ethics of finance. We debate whether bankers deserve lucrative bonuses; we worry about the moral hazard of bank bailouts; we condemn bankers who sell financial instruments that they know will fail. But since so much of the language of economics is amoral, and built on the assumption that everyone acts in their narrow self-interest, demanding just outcomes from finance feels like expecting fair results from war. We’ve lost the instinct that finance and debt are moral affairs all the way down, which is something that the Scholastics understood."
How did usury stop being a sin and become respectable finance? | Aeon Essays

 

[Tone]

We’ve lost the instinct that finance and debt are moral affairs all the way down, which is something that the Scholastics understood

All the way back down to Torah?

 

[Tone]

"Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.

Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

Leviticus 25:37— Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase.

Deuteronomy 23:20 (19)—Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.

Deuteronomy 23:21 (20)—Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

Ezekiel 18:17—that hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed Mine ordinances, hath walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

Psalms 15:5—He that putteth not out his money on interest, nor taketh a bribe against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

Several historical rulings in Jewish law have mitigated the allowances for usury toward non-Jews. For instance, the 15th-century commentator Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel specified that the rubric for allowing interest does not apply to Christians or Muslims, because their faith systems have a common ethical basis originating from Judaism. The medieval commentator Rabbi David Kimchi extended this principle to non-Jews who show consideration for Jews, saying they should be treated with the same consideration when they borrow.[31]"
Usury - Wikipedia

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.

Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

Leviticus 25:37— Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase.

Deuteronomy 23:20 (19)—Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.

Deuteronomy 23:21 (20)—Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

Ezekiel 18:17—that hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed Mine ordinances, hath walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

Psalms 15:5—He that putteth not out his money on interest, nor taketh a bribe against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

Several historical rulings in Jewish law have mitigated the allowances for usury toward non-Jews. For instance, the 15th-century commentator Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel specified that the rubric for allowing interest does not apply to Christians or Muslims, because their faith systems have a common ethical basis originating from Judaism. The medieval commentator Rabbi David Kimchi extended this principle to non-Jews who show consideration for Jews, saying they should be treated with the same consideration when they borrow.[31]"
Usury - Wikipedia

So a person is sinning when they take out a mortgage to buy a home?

 

[Tone]

So a person is sinning when they take out a mortgage to buy a home?

I don't know. I started this thread in hopes of getting some more perspective on this, because I have a lot of questions concerning finances.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't know. I started this thread in hopes of getting some more perspective on this, because I have a lot of questions concerning finances.

Not a problem. It is possible that the original Scriptures were written to ward off predatory lenders who were making a profit out of vulnerable people.

 

[Tone]

Not a problem. It is possible that the original Scriptures were written to ward off predatory lenders who were making a profit out of vulnerable people.

So far, it seems like the prohibition was against charging interest from other brethren, but it would also seem that the Messiah extended this to everybody--the whole, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12). As well as the story about the Parable of the Good Samaritan - Wikipedia. So, I lean towards the prohibition of usury as becoming more established, in the order of:

Matthew 5:20
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

But, it seems, that the clerics and scholars have devised ways to circumvent this, using "Roman law, Greek philosophy and Arab science".

 

[RDKirk]

I think that in every occupation, even with money-lending, the business owner has to have an income. Everything has its price. If you go to the store to buy a pair of pants, you have to pay for them. You don't get them free. In our culture we have professional money-lenders. This is the way people can buy houses, furniture and cars. The bank that lends money has to make a profit to pay for premises, office supplies, staff, etc. Investors lend their money to provide capital for banks and lending institutions, and they expect a return on their investment, otherwise there is no point investing. This is the business world of today.

Of course, we have loan sharks, who are predators who take advantage of poor people and who charge them exorbitant rates of interest. I believe they are evil coveters of other people's money.

But loans of money to family members and friends are usually interest-free and it is right for that to be so.

There was then--and should be now, within the Body of Christ--a difference between a business loan and a loan to individuals who have been hit by catastrophe.

The Mosaic laws against usury did not prohibit mutually beneficial loans between businesses. The implication of the word "usury" is that the greater benefit is to the lender.

I think that it is hypocritical for some church organisations to rail against financial institutions charging interest for loans, when they "charge" their members 10% 'tithe" for belonging to their churches, instead of allowing members to give a freewill offering.

While I don't consider the modern concept of "tithing" to be scriptural in the least, the real problem is that we are generally not getting what we ought to be getting from our congregations. Most of us are being cheated.

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands... -- Mark 10

How is a person supposed to get a hundred brothers and sisters "now in this time?" Is my dead mother going to come back to life and bear a hundred children?

No, that is supposed to be the function of the congregation and the larger Body of Christ. I've been in one congregation in which the pastor had stated, "If you are a member here, you do not ever have to worry about having food to eat or a place to live or clothing to wear."

He proved it by the activities they took to take care of each other, and members contributed gladly to it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tone]

While I don't consider the modern concept of "tithing" to be scriptural in the least, the real problem is that we are generally not getting what we ought to be getting from our congregations. Most of us are being cheated.

Or maybe it's not being distributed properly.

 

[RDKirk]

Or maybe it's not being distributed properly.

One pastor has said, "The worldwide Body of Christ has all the wealth necessary to support the worldwide Body of Christ."

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” -- 2 Corinthians 8

Paul references--as the scriptural basis of the distribution of resources within the Body of Christ--Exodus 16, which is the story of the manna. God explicitly specifies that each person should have exactly the same amount of manna each day.

Because God had stated explicitly that each person should have a specific equal amount, then we know "too much" is more than that specified amount and "too little" is less than that specific amount. But those who gathered much "more than that amount" shared with those who gathered little (less than that amount) so that all were equal.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther was not a fan of making loans at interest, but Calvin argued it was justifiable. So Calvin had a great deal of influence in reconciling Christians to banking. Luther favored something more like a credit union. I think the differences stem partly from different perspectives on the Christian life . Luther saw life as fundamentally tragic and favored social harmony, Calvinists tended to emphasize God would reward faith with success, and reward individual initiative.

 

[Tone]

Luther was not a fan of making loans at interest, but Calvin argued it was justifiable. So Calvin had a great deal of influence in reconciling Christians to banking. Luther favored something more like a credit union. I think the differences stem partly from different perspectives on the Christian life . Luther saw life as fundamentally tragic and favored social harmony, Calvinists tended to emphasize God would reward faith with success, and reward individual initiative.

I think I would have to go with Luther on this one.

A discussion on another thread has led me to consider the money system that we have today...is it based on the scientific method? Is there a relationship between fiat currency and technological advances?