Interest, From A Bible Perspective, Is So Detestable that It’s Cause For Execution


Ezekiel 18:1313 He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

Leviticus 25:37 — You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.

Ezekiel 18:1717 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
    and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

Exodus 22:25 — If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.

Leviticus 25:35-38 — 35 If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

Ezekiel 22:12 — In you are people who accept bribes to shed blood; you take interest and make a profit from the poor. You extort unjust gain from your neighbors. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign Lord.

How often do we hear, in church, an outcry against banks, mortgage companies, credit card companies, payday lenders, and the rich who profit from them?

Categories: Unfiltered Literal Bible InformationTags:

20 comments

  1. So right now the Fed is honorable and the banks the scum?

    Like

  2. You have to remember that the OT code is a tribal compact between Jews — i.e., it only prohibits charging interest on money lent to fellow Jews. And the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-29 and Luke 19:11-27) indicates that Jesus not only permitted collecting interest on loans, but actually commanded it. (see Mat 25:27 and Luke 19:23)

    So from a biblical perspective, Jews are permitted to lend money for interest to non-Jews, and Christians can do so for everyone.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You Stated — “You have to remember that the OT code is a tribal compact between Jews — i.e., it only prohibits charging interest on money lent to fellow Jews”

      My Response — That can be anyone.

      Romans 2:29
      29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

      You Stated — “So from a biblical perspective, Jews are permitted to lend money for interest to non-Jews, and Christians can do so for everyone.”

      My Response — The bible disagrees with you.

      Leviticus 25:35-38
      35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

      You Stated — And the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-29 and Luke 19:11-27) indicates that Jesus not only permitted collecting interest on loans, but actually commanded it. (see Mat 25:27 and Luke 19:23)

      My Response — The bible disagrees with you.

      https://realitydecoded.blog/2021/12/26/the-bible-states-that-evil-springs-from-one-source-but-isnt-that-the-same-source-that-the-world-runs-on-and-churches-claim-as-a-blessing/

      Like

      • How so? The tribalistic nature of the prohibition against usury is can be clearly seen in the opening words of the passage you quoted (“If any of your fellow Israelites . . .” )

        Nor is that passage a one-off occurrence. In Deuteronomy 23:19-20 (NIV) we read:

        “Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not your brother . . .”

        And Paul’s views on circumcision would have zero impact on Jewish beliefs because they don’t follow the NT.

        As for the parable, Jesus used it to illustrate what the coming kingdom of Heaven would be like. In fact, Matthew 25 contains two parables: The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, and the Parable of the Talents. The first parable opens with the following words:

        “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to . . .” (NKJ)

        while the second begins with:

        “For the kingdom of heaven is like . . .” (NKJ)

        And Luke 19:11 (NKJV) states pretty much the exact same thing:

        “He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.”

        So given the context, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus was against usury or slavery.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You Stated — “So given the context, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus was against usury or slavery.”

          My Response — That’s because you don’t know that Jesus is the kingdom.

          As for Jesus being for or against usury we can only go with what was said.

          Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV)
          13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

          There is no getting past that verse.

          Your only argument is if it’s just for a select few people BUT those people can be anyone by faith.

          Romans 2:29
          29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

          There is nothing in the bible that opposes these two verses.

          Like

          • Only if you ignore the ones I posted in my previous comments. 🙂

            Like

            • They don’t oppose the verses I posted. Each verse states what should be done. One to a group of people in a location the other to those outside of it.

              Seems simple enough.

              Like

              • It seems simple, but I find it odd that God would institute separate sets of laws for Jews and non-Jews. I mean, why create codes of conduct based on group membership? Shouldn’t logical consistency dictate that a moral code be universal and unchanging?

                Liked by 1 person

                • You Stated — ‘…i find it odd that God would institute separate sets of laws for Jews and non-Jews.”

                  My Response — Your finding something odd does not provide a valid reason to change it’s meaning. From my perspective it seems normal. There are many differences between rules going from one group to another. Perhaps I’m more used to it since I study the bible.

                  On a side note: Everywhere I go there are separate rules. First class seating on flights, rank in the military, Brexit border restrictions, water vs heavy water. One rule fits all would seem unjust or even hazardous.

                  You Asked — “I mean, why create codes of conduct based on group membership? Shouldn’t logical consistency dictate that a moral code be universal and unchanging?”

                  My Response — It depends. First things first, what is the moral code you are refencing? I would like to review it first to see what the best answer to your question is.

                  Like

                  • The reason I find it odd is because Romans 2:11-12 informs us that God does not show favoritism. So a moral code that states charging interest is an abomination for one group (Jews) but not another (non-Jews) seems highly inconsistent for a divine law-giver.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • You Stated — “The reason I find it odd is because Romans 2:11-12 informs us that God does not show favoritism.”

                      My Response — But it’s not favoritism, it’s a restriction. Before the command they could do what they wanted to everyone but then after the command they were restricted. Everyone who was not them could continue doing as they pleased.

                      It’s the opposite of what you are saying.

                      Like

                    • Really? How so? Because I contend that the very act of calling a select group your “chosen people” constitutes a display of favoritism. As for usury, deeming it “detestable” for one group but not for another constitutes a lack of moral consistency because it violates the principle that moral codes are universal (i.e. apply equally to all).

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You Stated — “Really? How so? Because I contend that the very act of calling a select group your “chosen people” constitutes a display of favoritism. ”

                      My Response — Because Math:

                      Group A = AKA the chosen who you think can do more (but clearly can’t)

                      Group B = Everyone else who you think have been wronged somehow because they are charged interest.

                      Math:

                      Group A can charge Group B interest but not Group A

                      Group B can charge Group A interest and Group B.

                      Group A doesn’t have favoritism as you stated they have a limitation due to an agreement (aka covenant). They are restricted in a way that people not in an agreement are not restricted.

                      This is true for many things they may want to do but can’t. Also keep in mind they can leave anytime they want.

                      Don’t you remember your parents? “As long as you live in this house you will abide by our rules?”

                      You Stated — “a lack of moral consistency because it violates the principle that moral codes are universal”

                      My Response — Morality is relative and the bible isn’t a book of morals it’s a book of commands.

                      Like

                    • Deuteronomy 7:6 has God proclaiming that the Israelites are his chosen peeps. So stated in sets and subsets, where:

                      J = {Jews}
                      N = {non-Jews}
                      U= J U N = {Jews, non-Jews}

                      it’s fairly clear that the authors of the Hebrew texts think that God favors a subset (J) over the whole (U).

                      “Morality is relative”

                      Does that also include codes of conduct you might find objectionable (slavery, murder, torture, child abuse, rape, etc.)? If so, and the bible is just a book of commands, then why call usury — or any other violation of the rules — “detestable”?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You Stated — “Deuteronomy 7:6 has God proclaiming that the Israelites are his chosen peeps.”

                      You Then Stated — “it’s fairly clear that the authors of the Hebrew texts think that God favors a subset (Jews) over the whole (non-Jews).”

                      My Response — God can favor anyone God wants to favor.

                      BUT

                      You are conflating two words and trying to give them the same meaning. You are also persistently ignoring that anyone can be a Jew per Romans 2:29

                      cho·sen
                      “a person or thing that has been picked out or decided upon.”

                      fa·vor
                      “an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual.”

                      Romans 2:29
                      29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

                      What you are also ignoring is the fact that it’s a two way choice selection. You must be chosen by god and then you must also choose god.

                      If you are chosen then you are restricted from doing things that unchosen people can do anytime they want. Unchosen people can charge interest to everyone (Jews cannot) and thus, have less people to make money from using ursury.

                      As for “Morality”… it is relative by nature and has no other way of being relevant. There is no way to use morality that is not relative in respect to thinking beings since they individually decide what is moral.

                      You Asked — “then why call usury — or any other violation of the rules — “detestable”?”

                      My Response — I didn’t, the bible did but to be clear, I agree it’s detestable because it causes me to lose money. (I find that detestable because I don’t like to lose money but not morally wrong.)

                      de·test·a·ble
                      “deserving intense dislike.”

                      mo·ral·i·ty
                      “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”

                      From my perspective it’s not wrong to charge usury but it is detestable.

                      Like

                    • “God can favor anyone God wants to favor.”

                      Sure, but that directly contradicts Paul’s assertion that God does not engage in favoritism and that all will be judged the same (see Romans 2:11-14).

                      And in this case, I’m using Strong’s translation (i.e. partiality) of the Greek word prosōpolēmpsia used in verse 11:

                      https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4382/kjv/tr/0-1/

                      “You must be chosen by god and then you must also choose god.”

                      Yes, that’s the gospel according to Paul: God has mercy upon some but not upon others (See Romans 9:14-15 and onward). But again, it negates Paul’s previous statement concerning God’s impartiality.

                      On morality, I think you are conflating relative (depending on the circumstances) and absolute (regardless of the circumstances) with subjective (based on personal opinion) and objective (independent of personal opinion).

                      Which brings me back to the question you left unanswered: [If morality is relative] does that also include codes of conduct you might find objectionable (slavery, murder, torture, child abuse, rape, etc.)? In other words, can you think of circumstances where those things might be deemed morally acceptable?

                      “I agree it’s detestable because it causes me to lose money.”

                      Perhaps. But how is paying for the use of borrowed money any different than paying for the use of other items rented on a temporary basis (like tools, autos, motorhomes, boats, storage lockers, halls, etc.)?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You Started — “Sure, but that directly contradicts Paul’s assertion that God does not engage in favoritism”

                      Because I stated — “God can favor anyone God wants to favor.”

                      My Response — You are incorrect. If I say, “I will never lie” and I also state, “I can lie anytime I want”, they are not in conflict with each other.

                      If I then do in fact say a lie then I will at that point be in conflict with my first statement.

                      Having the ability to do something is not the same as having done it.

                      With that aside you still haven’t shown me any favoritism since the people you are pointing to are in fact more restricted and not obligated to participate.

                      You haven’t even convinced me that someone is in fact be favored.

                      You Stated — “God has mercy upon some but not upon others”

                      My Response — God can have mercy on anyone god wants to have mercy on. It doesn’t indicate favoritism. The reason for mercy is unknown. I could do the same for someone on a whim or out of obligation due to a promise… it doesn’t mean I’m showing favoritism. You’re jumping to a conclusion without a trail for me to follow you there.

                      You Stated — “On morality, I think you are conflating relative (depending on the circumstances) and absolute (regardless of the circumstances) with subjective (based on personal opinion) and objective (independent of personal opinion).”

                      My Response — That’s an interesting viewpoint but not true in this case. Morality is simply relative, it has no other way to be.

                      EX: https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/07/02/the-loved-slave-ship-jesus-of-lubeck/

                      All morality is relative.

                      You Stated — “…how is paying for the use of borrowed money any different than paying for the use of other items rented on a temporary basis”

                      My Response — It’s not, they are both detestable since I lose money.

                      Like

Leave a Reply to Ron Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: