Biblical Ethics and Lending to the Poor

Paul A. Wee
If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, and you shall not exact interest from him (Ex. 22:25). "All things are lawful", but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful", but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbour... So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:23-24, 31).

Introduction: ethical assumptions and the work of EDCS The Ecumenical Development Cooperative Society (EDCS) was created in 1974 by the World Council of Churches and the Council of Churches in the Netherlands for the purpose of investigating the viability of using investment capital of churches as a source of loans to assist poor communities throughout the world. This novel idea was to have two major foci: (1) providing churches with a form of investment more in keeping with their mission to bring "good news to the poor", and (2) providing cooperative industry in poor communities with a source of needed hard currency revenue through loans at reasonable terms. From the very beginning the enterprise has been surrounded by controversy, but of a type which dedicated people both within and without have generally considered to be healthy and constructive. The hardest questions, it might be justifiably claimed, have come from within EDCS itself, from the Board of Directors, the shareholders, the support associations and the WCC member churches. Does the practice of lending to institutions in poor areas of the world provide a means of escape from the vicious circle of poverty, or does it ultimately contribute to greater poverty? In the face of worldwide recession and a growing foreign debt in developing countries, does such a lending practice create independence and self-reliance, or does it contribute to increased levels of dependency on non-indigenous sources of wealth and power? Does such a lending system encourage the creation of new models for the more equitable sharing of the wealth of the earth or does it in fact have the effect, whether intended or
The Rev. Dr Paul A. Wee is assistant general secretary for international affairs and human rights with the Lutheran World Federation, Geneva, Switzerland. This paper is being shared with support associations and shareholders of the Ecumenical Development Cooperative Society as a contribution to the ongoing critical study of the theological and ethical rationale for the work of EDCS.

416

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

not, of supporting and even intensifying a particular form of economic relationship which has contributed to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few? It can be said that nearly all EDCS meetings, whether of the Board of Directors, the annual general meeting of shareholders or of the growing number of support associations, occupy themselves with these questions in one form or another. These questions of course have to do with values, with what is considered right or wrong, beneficial or harmful, constructive or destructive, good or bad, liberating or inhibiting. They in turn stand in a certain relationship to what EDCS people believe, that is, to their commitment to Christ and to the mission of Christ's church. If, for example, the Board of Directors considers making a loan to a peasant cooperative in Peru at 9 percent interest over a 20-year period, it will look carefully at many factors: the Peruvian economy, banking system, foreign debt, history of the cooperative, management system, project goals, involvement of women in leadership, decision-making procedures, long-range prognosis, income distribution system and other elements expressed in the stated EDCS criteria. If one claims that this is a "good" project, values are immediately implied or presupposed, even if not actually stated. Taken together they constitute the prior understanding, the assumptions of value which are implied by and yet influence every particular statement about what, in such and such a situation, is good or bad, right or wrong, constructive or destructive. These in turn, it will be argued, are based finally on what one believes. Because of its realization that policy and project considerations are based on values and that value criteria are based ultimately on what one believes, EDCS is perennially preoccupied with the need to clarify and refine its underlying assumptions. To that end it has intentionally created a number of opportunities for self-critical evaluation, including the EDCS regional working consultations. In addition, the Board of Directors in December 1983 requested that a study be undertaken to examine the biblical-theological rationale for the EDCS enterprise. The assumption of such a study was clearly the recognition that all EDCS activity is based on values which are themselves understood to be consistent with the mission of the church and the scriptural criteria which define that mission. As the following text will indicate, it is not sufficient simply to appeal to holy scriptures in hopes of discovering some clear principles by which to evaluate the viability of EDCS. On the one hand the writers of the scriptures, however inspired, foresaw nothing comparable to what we know as EDCS; on the other hand they were not interested in abstract principles, no matter how ingenious, noble or clearly defined. What we have in the scriptures is rather an account of a drama about God's activity in the history of people centring upon the fulfilment of a creative purpose which finds its focus in the event of Jesus the Christ. It is not primarily a book on ethics, but rather an account of God's actions to redeem fallen humanity and to restore a lost unity. It does not deal with good and evil in the first instance, but with faith and unfaith, with human faithfulness to God's covenant grace in Jesus Christ. It is for reason of the fact that the array of biblical sources cannot simply be identified with the normative centre of the Christian life that the study is arranged in a way which seeks to distinguish between these and yet to show their dynamic interrelationship. 1. "The scriptural witness", which includes a review of the status of laws and ordinances which deal with lending at interest to the poor. References on this 417

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

question are taken from the Old Testament, New Testament and from the history of the church. 2. "The ethical stance of the scriptures: gospel and law", which deals with the normative centre of scripture, that which provides the most fundamental criterion for dealing with ethical issues. 3. "The ethical stance of the gospel and the work of EDCS", which seeks to relate this normative centre to the purpose and work of EDCS. 1. The scriptural witness
A. THE PENULTIMATE STATUS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES

In the context of the Old Testament the supreme act by which Yahweh makes himself known as the bearer of justice is the historical event of the Exodus. It establishes the objective historical fact of deliverance from forms of oppression as the manner in which Yahweh relates to the world, and also defines the terms of the covenant relationship which are to guide Israel's life as a nation. It is through a variety of laws and ordinances, including those dealing with lending and borrowing at interest, that this covenant relationship finds concrete expression in the daily life of society. The great number of laws which guide the life of the community and which occupy a great deal of space in the writings of the Pentateuch cannot therefore properly be understood as moral demands in their own right. For they are linked organically to the Exodus itself and express the modes of behaviour through which Israel is called to respond through obedience and faithfulness to the liberating action of Yahweh. You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel (Ex. 19:4-7 RSV). The Covenant (berith) at Sinai, modelled on the type of social agreement made between unequal partners, a king and his subjects for example, is based upon promise, in this case Yahweh's promise to deal with Israel as the instrument of a special blessing to the world. For its part Israel promises to keep the Covenant agreement by observing laws, statutes and ordinances which are conducive to justice and thus are pleasing to Yahweh. As instruction for fulfilling the Covenant, these laws and ordinances take a variety of forms, among them the Decalogue (Ex. 20:1-17) and the Laws of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22-23:33). The Decalogue deals with general principles, a sort of Bill of Rights which sets down the epitome or inner meaning of the community's life under the Covenant itself. The Covenant code, on the other hand, seeks to regulate all aspects of the civil and religious life of society under general rubrics of behaviour. The laws, statutes and regulations of the Covenant code are frequently changed and expanded to meet new concrete situations. It could be said that the regulations of the Covenant code must be continually tested by reference to the general principles of the Decalogue, and that the principles of the Decalogue must be interpreted in light of the Covenant itself.l
George A. Buttrick, The Interpreter's Bible, 1955 ed., Vol. 1, pp.842-843.

418

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

It was into such a framework that the many forms of social ordering and control borrowed from other peoples of the Near East were assimilated. The code of Hammurabi of ancient Babylon, the Hittite code, the Assyrian code, the Human laws, all contributed moral and ritualistic precepts to the Covenant code or at least indirectly influenced its formation through cultural permeation.2 The point to be made as we consider the ordinances and laws of the Covenant code, especially the law regarding the making of loans with interest, is that we are dealing with a collection of ordinances which sought to relate the Covenant to the prevailing social conditions in such a way as to bring these conditions closer to the model of Yahweh's justice. Thus the laws on slavery, for example, which even allow a father to sell his children into slavery, are not intended to reinforce or justify the institution of slavery from a moral standpoint, but rather to ameliorate the harshness of existing practices of slavery by regulating them according to principles of humaneness and mercy. Even the famous lex talionis, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", which seems so evidently barbaric, is actually an attempt to put limits on retribution (you cannot take two eyes for one eye) and thus to bring existing practice closer to the justice of Yahweh. The Covenant code, like English common and criminal law with which it has been compared, attempts to bring a cruder and more savage form of justice in line with a more humane form of justice. It does this by reference to the higher justice of a God who creates the world to function according to the harmonious ordering of life in all its dimensions (shalom) and who sustains the world for this purpose through acts of deliverance from concrete forms of oppression within the conditions of historical existence.3 The ultimate question which the people of God must ask when seeking to formulate and re-formulate laws and ordinances governing the activities of human society is this: How can laws be re-formulated so as to embody better the community's faithfulness to the justice (shalom) of Yahweh to which it is committed in the promise of the Covenant? It is with this question in mind that we turn to the laws on loans and interest.
B . ON MAKING LOANS AND EXACTING INTEREST

1. The Old Testament There are a number of passages in the Old Testament which concern laws and customs which pertain to the making of loans and the imposition of interest. As noted above, these references seek both to condemn practices considered contrary to the spirit of Yahweh's justice as expressed in the Covenant, and to modify practices more in keeping with that spirit. Among these passages are the following: From the Holiness Code: And if your brother becomes poor, and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall maintain him; as a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or increase, but fear your God; that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God (Lev. 25:35-38).
2 3

Ibid., p.842. Ibid., p.843.

419

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

From the Deuteronomic Code: in which a distinction is made between loans without interest to those inside the community and loans with interest to those outside: You shall not lend upon interest to your brother, interest on money, interest on victuals, interest on anything that is lent for interest. To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest; that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are entering to take possession of it (Deut. 23: ICIO). From the Covenant Code: the prohibition on loans with interest to the poor: If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, and you shall not exact interest from him. Earliest records indicate that the making of loans, with considerable interest added to the principal to be repaid, was common practice among the Semitic peoples. It is this practice, forcing debtors into situations where there was frequently no hope of recovery, which was condemned by the earliest laws of the Pentateuch. 4 It was simply not in keeping with the spirit of the Covenant to help someone in the community with a view to gaining personal profit. While there was no such injunction against demanding reasonable interest on loans made to non-Israelites, that is, to those outside the community, it is evident that both the law and the prophets aim to curtail the abuse of a practice which had escalated into a major social plague affecting alike those within and without the community. 5 Psalm 15 makes it clear that one of the attributes of the righteous is the fact that they will not lend out money at interest: O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent? Who shall dwell on thy holy hill? He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right, and speaks truth from his heart... who does not put out his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent (Ps. 15:1,2,5). Ezekiel's word of judgment, spoken to those within the community, makes it clear that the lending of money for interest is in violation of the law: If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right... does not oppress any but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not lend at interest or take any increase,... executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes and is careful to observe my ordinances he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord God (Ez. 18:5-9). But if he is wicked, oppresses the poor and needy... lends at interest and takes increase... he shall surely die (Ez. 18:12,13). Nehemiah's outrage against the "nobles and the officials" is not because they make loans of money and produce, but because they charge interest: So I said: "The thing you are doing is not good. Ought you not to walk in fear of our God to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies? Moreover, I and my brethren and my servants are lending them money and grain. Let us leave off this interest. Return to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses, and the hundredth of money, grain, wine, and oil which you have been exacting of them" (Neh. 5:9-11).
4 5

George A. Buttrick, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1962 ed., Vol. 1, p.809. Ibid., p.809.

420

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

In spite of suchv admonition the practice of lending at exorbitant interest rates was common. In Babylon the normal rate of interest on produce was one-third of the loan per year; on money the interest rate was only one-fifth per year. In neo-Babylonian culture interest rate for money was as high as 50 percent per year (although percentages as such were not used).6 Similar harsh practices were adopted by the moneylenders of Israel who also took pledges of persons, often related to the debtor, whose services were credited against both the principal and interest of the debt. Here again the law sought to ameliorate the harsher effects of this slavery-for-debts system by calling for a periodic liberation of these slaves held in lieu of insufficient debt payment.7 This was to occur every seven years during what was known as the Sabbatical Year or the Year of Jubilee. In spite of the condemnations on lending at interest to those within the covenant community, the abuses continued throughout the period of Old Testament history. To limit the more extreme abuses a system of guarantees was written into the law as protection for both lenders and creditors against the failure of the debtor to repay. The Talmud and the Mishnah are filled with rules governing a great variety of situations. Yet the primary criterion for regulating the practice of moneylending remained faithfulness to the God of the Covenant. The question asked by the prophets of the scripture and the sages of the Mishnah was the same: Is this practice in contradiction to the spirit of justice which belongs alone to Yahweh? 2. The New Testament The New Testament assumes that money is lent for interest but makes no direct reference to the ethics of interest as such. It can be assumed that the Judaic context of Jesus' ministry was one in which the prohibition of interest on loans to the poor was maintained. The Greek context of Jesus' ministry was not dissimilar, influenced as it was by both Plato and Aristotle, who condemned loaning money at interest because it invariably created a poor class of borrowers and a wealthy class of lenders. Aristotle viewed interest as intrinsically wrong, violating the essence of justice which demands the exchange of equal sums and money or goods.8 The legal context of Jesus' ministry was essentially Roman in which the setting of interest on loans was tolerated but highly regulated with a maximum rate of 12 percent. It can be further assumed that Jesus, while not addressing directly the practice of lending money at interest, shared the disdain of the Old Testament prophets, reflected by both Greek and Roman philosophers, for those who employed the practice to exploit others and to achieve personal gain. This view was maintained by both the pre-Nicean and post-Nicean church fathers who condemned the exploitation of the poor by those who charged exorbitant interest (usury).9 The evil, they claimed, lay both in the greed of the lender and the oppression of the borrower.10
6

/Z?*d.,p.809. Ibid., p.810. *New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 ed., Vol. 14, pp.498-499. 9 Contemporary language identifies the term "usury" with a rate of interest greater than that which the law permits. Since the Mosaic law prohibited all loaning on interest to those within the Covenant community, it can be said that all condemnations were equally against "usury" and "interest", which were identical. So as not to confuse usury as interest (Mosaic law) with usury as exorbitant unlawful interest (contemporary language) the term usury will not be used in the text. 10 New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, p.499.
1

421

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

As for the practice of lending money to others, Jesus appears to accept it. What he does not accept is the kind of transaction which does not include a provision by which the debtor can be released from a complete inability to repay. This is made clear in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-25) who owed the king ten thousand talents (ten million dollars). The king has pity on the servant because of the man's plea for mercy. He not only rescinds his demand that the servant's wife, children and property be sold as payment, but erases the entire debt. The king's wrath is rekindled however when he discovers that his servant does not forgive the hundred denarii debt (twenty dollars) owed him by a fellow-servant, and the king has his servant thrown into prison until repayment can be made. It is obvious that the parable is not about making loans of money, but rather about the nature of God's forgiveness. This is stated succinctly in the prayer which Jesus teaches the disciples, "Forgive us our debts (literally 'loans') as we forgive our debtors" (Matt. 6:12). Yet it is not incidental that Jesus is making a point with respect to all human interactions, including the lending of money, namely that they are to be carried out in a spirit of mercy and forgiveness based on the awareness of God's own merciful action in which the debts of the people, themselves beyond calculation, are forgiven.11 Here we see a striking similarity with the Old Testament in which an unjust human practice is immediately seen against the merciful actions of God. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt (Lev. 25:37-38). The point to be made in both instances is that we are not dealing ultimately with absolute laws and ordinances, but upon that which judges and renews every human law and ordinance, namely the justice of God which is in turn based upon God's loving and merciful acts of deliverance. For both Old and New Testaments the ultimate criterion for judging particular laws and activities (including the lending of money and managing of debts) is whether or not they express faithfulness to the loving justice of God as embodied in the Covenant. Since it has frequently been used to justify a particular form of economic relationship, we should also turn our attention to the so-called "parable of the talents" (Matt. 25:14-30). This parable is similar to the "parable of the pounds" in Luke (19:12-27) wherein the king chastizes his servant for not increasing the value of the single pound given him through wise investment. The king's question points to a course of action for the servant which, though hardly praiseworthy for its ingenuity, would at least have been acceptable: "Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at the coming I should have collected it with interest?" (Luke 19:23). In Matthew's parable of the talents, the servant who received but one talent (about $ 1,000 in silver or gold) buried it in the ground for fear of having ventured and failed, thus inviting the master's wrath. The servant simply assumed that he would have fulfilled his duty by returning the deposit intact to his master. The master's angry response is not because of the servant's inability to make 100 percent profit, as was the case with talents entrusted to the other servants, but because of the servant's refusal to look for opportunities to risk
11

The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 7, pp.476-478.

422

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

an investment of the single talent he possessed. Even to risk the fluctuation of interest rates at the bank would have sufficed: Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest (Matt. 25:27). There are two things which are noteworthy about the parable with respect to the question of the ethics of lending at interest. The first is that the parable is not dealing primarily with banking practices, financial investment policy, speculating in order to make money, nor does it provide scriptural justification for a profit-oriented economic system. Rather, it is dealing with the nature of courageous faith and the good stewardship of all the gifts which God has put in the care of his children. It is a parable of the kingdom. Secondly, the parable obviously includes reference to the wise use of financial resources also. While the squandering of money might be a minor matter when compared to the squandering of other gifts, it is poor stewardship nonetheless. Simply to stand guard over the gifts of the earth, or the law and prophets, or the grace of Christ, is to lose them. The same is true of investing money with hope of securing interest. If the practice were not at least tolerated by Jesus, it is difficult to understand why he would have used such an example to illustrate the larger meaning of venturesome stewardship. Be that as it may, it is clear that for Jesus the essence of discipleship is to love without being loved in return and to lend without any thought of even being repaid. While the medieval church might have been wrong to interpret this passage from Luke as a strict prohibition against the collection of interest on loans, it is clear that the words of Jesus call people to a style of life which did not conform to the prevailing practice. If you love those who love you what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return (Luke 6:32-35). 3. The history of the church We do not attempt a detailed discussion of the manner in which the practice of lending money at interest was viewed throughout the history of the church. It should be noted, however, that the taking of interest by clergy and laity alike was condemned by the great councils of the church, the Council of Aries (314), the Council of Nicea (325), the Council of Carthage (345), the second Council of Lyons (1127), the third Council of Lateran (1179), and the Council of Vienna (1311).12 Based upon the passage in Luke 6:35: "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return", the medieval church condemned outright the practice of receiving any extra return on a loan. Since canon law forbidding loans on interest did not apply to Jews, however, because they were not liable to the punishment of excommunication, Christian rulers found it convenient to have such a class of people who could supply capital for their use. It was for this reason that the money-trade in Western Europe was put in the hands of the Jewish community.
12

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, p.499.

423

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

In fact many kings objected to Jews becoming Christians since this would deny to the kings the money secured by Jews at what were extremely high rates of interest. In England and France, where one-half of the property of Jewish moneylenders would go to the throne on the moneylenders' death, kings demanded financial compensation for every Jew converted to Christianity. It should be noted that Jews gravitated to the money-trade not only because of the insecure tenure of their own property and the use made of Jews by the secular rulers bent on increasing their wealth without incurring the wrath of the popes, but also because of the Deuteronomic law which allowed lending on interest to those outside the Jewish community.13 It is this dualism in the Deuteronomic law, forbidding the exacting of interest to those within the covenant community while allowing the imposition of interest in the case of foreigners (Deut. 23:19,20), which has had such an influential role on twentyfive hundred years of history in both East and West. Some historians view the socalled "Deuteronomic double standard" as having played the most significant role in the development of a system of ethics which ignited what Max Weber called "the spirit of capitalism".14 It is also worthy of note that a number of critical distinctions were made in the medieval church which allowed a break in the condemnation of lending at interest. With the scholastics and reformers a distinction came to be made between "intrinsic grounds" for charging interest for the use of money, namely the loan itself, and "extrinsic grounds", namely actual loss sustained or an opportunity for profit which the lender could not take advantage of because of the loan. While the intrinsic grounds were condemned, the taking of interest was allowed because of such "extrinsic grounds". Interest came to be accepted under certain conditions in practice while it was condemned in theory. More and more the churches came to accept the practice of charging interest as long as the charges were modest and subject to regulation.15 Gradually the increase of commerce led to a situation in which the conditions of supply and demand in the open market tended to create an equilibrium in the price of money which was generally accepted as a common estimate of what was just. In general it can be said that while the churches have come to accept and indeed participate in the practice of borrowing and lending at interest, their concern with abuses of this system continues to be expressed. The criteria on the basis of which such abuses are determined continue to be focused on the greed which motivates profit accumulated on the part of the lender and the degree of exploitation, resultant poverty and loss of hope and dignity experienced by the borrower. At this point we must return to a discussion of the scripturally-based principles of ethics which can be considered normative in evaluating practices of lending at interest. This will in turn provide an ethical basis for the evaluation of the contemporary enterprise sponsored by our churches, namely, the EDCS, in which loans of church funds at interest are made to poor communities around the world. 2. The ethical stance of the scriptures: gospel and law With respect to both the Old and New Testaments (Covenants) it has been maintained that a similar dynamic is at work in regard to the ultimate justification of
13 14 15

The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976 ed., pp.390-391. Benjamin Nelson, The Idea of Usury, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1969. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, p.499.

424

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

ethical pronouncements. In both cases a particular moral injunction must, first, be understood in the contextual situation in which the ethical judgment is made and, second, must be viewed from the perspective of the covenant relationship rooted in the unmerited love of God. Let us take a concrete example. In Exodus 21:24 (see also Deut. 19:21 and Lev. 24:20) we find the well-known law of retribution, lex talionis: If any harm follows [when a woman suffers a miscarriage because two men are fighting] then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, strike for strike. We have already noted that this law, like all other laws, does not stand on its own right, but must be viewed in light of the Covenant relationship. It belongs to a series of prescriptions which are themselves attempts to work out the implication of the relationship between God and God's people at a particular time and place in history. While it looks at first glance to be one of the most vengeful and bloodthirsty of laws, the context makes it clear that it was really an attempt to limit vengeance and retribution. In effect it said that a person who loses an eye through the unjust action of another person cannot simply, for the price of that eye, take the life of that person in revenge. Nor does one have licence to claim two eyes for one. Only take one eye for one eye. Furthermore it said that retribution could never be a private matter but one for the courts. At the time of Jesus, some commentators contend, the law was further softened by the stipulation that the court could exact an equivalent of money as recompense for the injury.16 The principle of "an eye for an eye" remained of course, but every attempt was made to view it in terms of the Covenant, which itself was rooted in God's act of deliverance (grace). In short, it was the unmerited love of Yaweh which was the basis of covenant-love (hesed), which was the heart of the ethos, which served both to create and correct the laws which governed the daily life of the people. Israel was chosen not because of any intrinsic merit on its part, but only because of Yaweh's love. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the Lord loves you...(Deut. 7:6-8). The movement is always from Yahweh's love to the laws and ordinances which seek to give concrete expression to that love. In a word, laws must be understood in terms of the gospel, not the other way around. So the history of laws and regulations is always the history of change, of continuous reinterpretation and readaption to the given situation. This is true of the lex talionis as well as of the laws on making loans for interest. Absolute laws they are not. Only the love of God is absolute. Under the terms of the new covenant the same dynamic is at work with respect to moral injunctions, commands and counsels affecting the life of those who follow the
The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1, pp.999-1000.

425

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus takes on the entire tradition of the Mosiac law, especially its contemporary form in which laws and ordinances, under the corrupting influence of the Pharisees, had taken on nearly absolute status. Yet Jesus' purpose is not simply to reverse this trend by teaching that retaliation and revenge have no place in the behaviour of his followers; his purpose is rather to reduce the law to absurdity, to the point of abrogation. Jesus gives three examples: (i) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!' But I say to you, 'Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on therightcheek, turn to him the other also'" (Matt. 5:38,39). The image is intensified by the fact that being hit by the back of the hand (which is the only way, short of awkward gymnastics, that a right-handed person could slap the right cheek of another person) is, according to the Rabbinic law, twice as insulting as being hit by the flat of the hand.17 One might well claim that the demand of Jesus is, for that reason, twice as difficult. But then he adds this: (ii) "If anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well" (Matt. 5:40). Now a coat, or tunic (chiton), is a sack-like undergarment, while a cloak is a robe which doubled as a blanket at night.18 The law forbade the keeping of another person's cloak overnight. "If you take your neighbour's cloak as a pledge, give it back before sundown because your neighbour needs it for shelter against the cold" (Ex. 22:26). Since a person aways had a right to a cloak, it could never be taken away permanently. Again, Jesus demands more than the law requires. (iii) "If any-one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles" (Matt.5:4). The word for "force" is the Greek aggareuein which means "to be pressed into service by occupation forces". Jews were often compelled by Roman occupation forces to perform some humiliating type of service.19 Along comes Jesus and says in effect, even if you are insulted, even if you have legal rights, even if you are compelled, never think of retaliation or rights or anything but the opportunity to serve others with gladness. For the sake of argument let us add to this list a fourth example. Though hypothetical, it would appear to conform to the argument which Jesus is making in the Sermon on the Mount. (iv) "You have heard it said, 'if you lend money to any of my people who is poor, ye shall not be to him as a creditor, you shall not exact interest from him', but I say unto you, 'share all your goods with the poor and if any of you has two coats, give one to him who has none.'"

Ibid., Vol. 7, p.301. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p.809. The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 7, p.302.

426

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

What point is Jesus making with respect to the ethical norms or values which govern the lives of the disciples? By setting forth a list of impossible demands such as these, one can only imagine that, far from instilling in his hearers a sense of freedom and hope, he would have driven them to a sense of futility and despair. That is precisely what happened and what Jesus no doubt wanted to happen. Why? To demonstrate the fact that, in the final analysis, the law is powerless to bring about the renewal of life and to create hope out of despair. That power comes alone from God's mighty acts in history, from grace, from the new Covenant in Jesus as the Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount we witness what Reinhold Neibuhr has called "the paradoxical extension of the law to the point of its abrogation."20 But if the law is abrogated, what then of the demands of discipleship which Jesus laid on his followers? Are these then to be disregarded? As law, yes, but as the demands of Covenant faithfulness, no. They are destroyed as means through which the redeeming acts of God might be earned; they are upheld as means through which people of the new Covenant might express the freedom and discipline of the gospel. They constitute no new law, but the end of the law's power. They represent no new rules, but stand out as glimpses into the mind of God, as signs of the kingdom, as evidences of "faith working through love" as St Paul said (Gal. 5:6). In stark parallel with the Old Testament is the counsel and admonition and discipline of the Christian life which rests on the good news of God's liberating power in history and not the other way around. They are not absolute; only the love of God is absolute. They exist to answer a single question: what does love (agape) require? What does faithfulness to the new Covenant in Christ constrain us to do? It is, as St Paul says in Galatians 5:16, neither a matter of circumcision or uncircumcision or, one might add, neither a matter of lending with interest or lending without interest, neither a matter of eating food sacrificed to idols or eating food which has not been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8,9), neither a matter of speaking in tongues nor a matter of not speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12); it is a question of a renewed life, a new creation, a new community. The question is not whether you spoke, or ate, or lent or were circumcized according to the law, but whether you live in radical discipleship to Christ through the gospel. In his discussion of the lawfulness of eating food sacrificed to idols, St Paul takes the phrase of the libertarians, "all things are lawful", and puts it into the context of the gospel: "'All things are lawful', but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful' but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbour... so whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:23,24,31). Therein lies the essence of the New Testament response to the question of whether the followers of Christ should eat food sacrificed to idols and to the question of whether they should engage in the practice of making loans with interest to the poor. It is clear that neither ethical legalism nor ethical anarchy has a place in determining the content of the Christian life. The point of reference amid the ambiguities of human history and the sinfulness of human life is to be found only in obedient response to God's mighty acts of redemption. At its heart the ethical question is thus thrown back
The Nature and Destiny of Man, New York, Scribner's Sons, 1949.

427

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

on the question of faith, faith in God who is Lord over all human communities and ethical codes and human relationships, faith in God who is made known in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the life of the world. 3. The ethical stance of the gospel and the work of the Ecumenical Development Cooperative Society
A . THE ARGUMENT

We can briefly recapitulate the main points of the preceding argument as follows: 1. By way of introduction it was noted that values are implied, if not always stated, in every facet of EDCS activity, from the receipt and use of the investment income of churches, church-related groups and congregations in the form of share-capital to the actual lending of hard currency to specific projects in poor communities. It was claimed furthermore that the articulation of implied values in the various facets of EDCS work must be a necessary, ongoing activity of the enterprise itself if EDCS is to be continuously refined and brought into closer harmony with an acceptable understanding of the mission of the church. 2. In the Old Testament section reference was made to the numerous injunctions made against lending with interest to the poor within the community. The Holiness, Deuteronomic and Covenant Codes as well as the psalms and the prophets consistently condemn those lending practices which encourage the accumulation of personal wealth at the expense of the wellbeing of the community. At the same time it was noted that such injunctions and ordinances do not have absolute authority in themselves; they are subject to a more fundamental criterion, namely the extent to which they contribute to or detract from the fulfilling of the Covenant's demands for the harmonious ordering of the social life (shalom) under the creative sovereignty of Yahweh. 3. In the New Testament section reference was made to Jesus' attitude towards the lending of money, namely that it be carried out with the goal of helping others and that it be informed by the same sense of mercy and forgiveness which God has shown to the people. Jesus' concern is not with the legal structures of society as such, but with the stewardship of the gifts of creation and with the maintenance of a style of life in which the lending of money and goods is done without expectation of gain. 4. In the section on the history of the church reference was made to the longstanding injunction against usury (based on Luke 6:35, "lend, expecting nothing in return") and also to the sinister practice in which Christian kings used Jews to lend their money at high interest rates. Jews had the advantage of being able to lend to foreigners at interest while they were at the same time, as Jews, free from the threat of excommunication implied in the violations of Luke 6:35. In certain periods of history the greed of Christian rulers, Jewish lending laws and a pervading attitude of antiSemitism worked together to put vast personal wealth in the hands of a few. 5. In Section 2 we focused on the manner in which Jesus reduces the law, i.e. the law understood legalistically, to absurdity, by showing that no person can possibly fulfill its demands. In itself the law is powerless to effect the renewal of life and to bring about a reflection of the shalom of God within the social order. It is precisely the futility of such an attempt which throws us back on God's free grace in Christ. For those who are part of the community which has been liberated through the death and resurrection of Christ, the question is no longer one of ethics, but strictly one of faith. 428

BIBLICAL ETHICS AND LENDING TO THE POOR

The question is not "what is good or bad?" but rather "what does faith in this God, who frees us from the powers of darkness through Jesus Christ, constrain us to do in the world?" The question is not one of the contraints of the law, but of "faith working through love", not of "circumcision or uncircumcision" but of a "new creation" (Gal. 5,6). If that is in fact the question which those who participate in the EDCS enterprise must ask, what then becomes of the scriptural witness which we have just surveyed, including of course the many references to lending to poor communities with interest? If these demands have no direct legal applicability to our life today, are they not then simply to be rejected as having no relevance for the life of the Christian community today? Not at all! For though such injunctions cannot be taken absolutely or legalistically, they must be taken very seriously. In fact it is precisely at the point of their rejection as law that they can challenge us, through the transformed power of the gospel, as the fruits of the Spirit, the demands of discipleship and hallmarks of the new community in Christ. To be sure the entire breadth of God's revelation in history as recorded in scripture and in the tradition of the church, from creation to the deliverance from Egypt, to the Mosaic covenant, to the prophets, and finally to the characteristics of the new life in Christ, must assist us in our evaluation of the unique activity carried out through EDCS. It returns and challenges, not as a new set of laws but as lampposts along the way, as EDCS members seek to walk in faithfulness to God's grace in the liberating event of Jesus Christ. It is the overwhelming weight of this tradition which demands of us an extreme degree of caution in the carrying out of any practice in which money is lent at interest to anyone, within or outside the Christian community, but especially to the poor. So strong is the tradition's emphasis on the hazards of greed, power and profit on the part of the lender that one could only pursue a programme of lending at interest to the poor with the most acute awareness of the difficulties and dangers involved on every hand. For the new community in Christ, therefore, the ultimate criterion is not what the letter of the law dictates, but what love to God and the neighbour demands. Under the terms of the new covenant, "all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful... not all things build up". This is, in other words, to say that lending money to the poor at interest can only be justified if it can be seen to "build up", that is to contribute to the total wellbeing (shalom) of the community wherein personal gain is outweighed by the good of the neighbour and all is done "to the glory of God".
B. THE CONSEQUENCES

It is against this biblical-theological background that we can turn more specifically to the goals and methods of EDCS. From the preceding, two conclusions would seem to be self-evident: a) The enterprise of EDCS is "lawful", i.e. on the basis of the biblical witness it cannot be ruled out a priori as an instrument of God's love in bringing healing to the world. b) The enterprise of EDCS can only be considered "helpful" in "building up" the community when certain conditions are met. What are these conditions which EDCS must meet in order to contribute to the moulding of human community in appropriate response to God's grace in Christ? The 429

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

fact that all such conditions must be seen within the changing political, economic and cultural circumstances, and continually subjected to review and modification in light of the Spirit's power to lead the church into deeper truth, should not itself lead one to conclude that they are incapable of definition. On the contrary we are under obligation to begin the risky but necessary task of trying to enumerate and clarify them. Therefore, reflecting the new community in Christ (koinonia shalom): 1. Projects should not only seek to contribute to the wellbeing of the community in the present but should anticipate and contribute to the realization of an even more just and happy community in the future. (Thus, for example, a well-drilling project on a South African tribal homeland might not, under normal circumstances, receive an EDCS loan since, though the project might indeed be of present benefit to the local community, it might serve ultimately to reinforce structures of racial discrimination and economic and political oppression.) 2. Although the investment on the part of the lender should not add to the lender's wealth, it should nevertheless be able to generate a level of revenues capable of offsetting reasonable operating costs, contingencies and losses. As a trustee of other people's money EDCS has an obligation to keep the contractual promises it has made by using share capital for loans and not for gifts. 3. To avoid dependency and to encourage self-reliance the rate of interest charged by EDCS should be reasonable and within the borrowers' ability to repay and the conditions of the loan should not interfere with the initiative and creativity of the borrower. 4. EDCS should maintain a degree of flexibility in its lending policy in order to accommodate rescheduling of loans due to reasons based on unforeseen difficulty which are deemed to be justifiable. 5. Understood in the totality of its relationships a project should contribute to developing, multiplying and sharing the wealth of the community. 6. When a loan is forfeited because of project loss, through natural disaster or human error, the borrower should be subjected to appropriate and not debilitating consequences. 7. If the calling of a loan would force project termination and the release of workers, EDCS should do what it can to make sure that they and their families are not left without sufficient access to the the necessities for living.

430

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.