Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 59:4 (Dec 2016)
Article: Lending And Interest In The OT: Examining Three Interpretations To Explain The Deuteronomy 23:19–20 Distinction In Light Of The Historical Usury Debate
Author: Klaus D. Issler

JETS 59:4 (December 2016) p. 761

Lending And Interest In The OT:
Examining Three Interpretations To Explain The Deuteronomy 23:19–20 Distinction
In Light Of The Historical Usury Debate

Klaus Issler*

* Klaus Issler is professor of discipleship and theology, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Avenue, La Mirada, CA 90639. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: Four issues are identified in a study of the three Torah “usury” passages, Exod 22:25, Lev 25:35–37, and mainly Deut 23:19–20 in which there is no specific reference to the poor: (1) the relationship among these three passages; (2) the morality of usury; (3) the scope of the usury ban; and (4) the type of contrast intended in Deut 23:19–20. Furthermore, regarding this fourth issue, three interpretive options are presented representing differing decisions about the other three issues: (a) ethnic status/total usury ban, (b) ethnic status/two-tiered ethic, and (c) economic status/poor-merchant contrast. Then, an argument is offered for the economic status/poor-merchant distinction that the three Torah usury passages make the same point. Assessments of the other positions are offered, including a survey of the church history usury debate, concluding with some contemporary applications.

Key Words: usury, interest, lending, economics, poor, business, commerce, Deut 23:19–20, Exod 22:25, Lev 25:35–37, Nehemiah 5,  נֶשֶׁךְ (nešek), נָכְרִי (nokrî)

Extending credit with interest has been a commercial practice from ancient times. An early example of a loan of silver and barley comes from Sumerian cuneiform documentation in southern Mesopotamia around 2350 BC.1 Moreover, a significant OT ethical commonplace to protect the poor and needy is evident in the prohibition against interest on their loans, a particular norm differing from legal codes of the ancient Near East:

The [biblical] laws prohibiting the charging of interest recognize the potentialities of human need and human callousness and promote genuine assistance, thereby expressing God’s demand for justice and social responsibility…. This sort of religiously based valuation of human beings is in marked contrast to the main concern of ancient Near E...