The Abomination of Usury and Interest, and the Slavery of Debt

[rsr]

"Interest" and "usury" were pretty much synonymous at the time of the writing of the KJV. Interest, of course, has come to have a neutral connotation in modern parlance, while usury is reserved for excessive interest rates.

The ancients distinguished between loans made for consumption — to buy food, or in modern times, for other things that are a necessity of modern life — and loans made to foster business enterprise. Interest on the former was frowned upon, while interest on the latter was not considered to fall under the same strictures.

I think it is wrong to try to superimpose restrictions that made sense in a pre-modern economy to modern practices, although I will mention some caveats. Throughout history, most civilizations have been cash poor. Relatively few people had surplus money; most economic transactions were through barter. In the Old Testament, most transactions were in kind, not through an exchange of money. (The tithe, for example,)

"Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need." Malachi 3:10, ESV.

As to modern application: There is no sin in borrowing money, except in when it is improvident. To borrow money is not inherently sinful. Those who think they can save up for a house — in most areas — are living in a fantasy land. Yes, a hundred years ago it might be possible, or today in a rural area, but it really is not practical for most people. The cost of a college education has ballooned; I think it is often too expensive for the rewards, but nonetheless it is an investment that can pay off in the long run.

There is a case to be made against excessive interest rates. Credit card and payday loans are inordinately expensive. They can easily trap poor people in debt that they can never repay. I can remember when usury laws capped such interest rates at a level that is unthinkable today, but in the name of deregulation they have largely been abandoned.

I receive about 1 percent (or less) on my bank deposits. The banks are charging a dozen or 20 times that for their credit card loans. I say they should charge less; they say they need the the gargantuan interest rates to protect them from people who don't pay. I say they shouldn't extend credit to people who won't pay.

But this is not easy. Poor people need loans to pay their expenses. They should not be bilked in the process.

 

[Eric B]

It can be done. Borrowing money is not a necessity, it is simply what we as Americans are accustomed to doing. My grandparents were dirt poor when they hit married. Never borrowed a dime. Owned four houses when they died. Owned a lot more than that before they got tired of managing them and sold some off.

The thing is, it was much easier to buy without borrowing back then, because the prices of everything have shot up so high, now.

I always used to wonder how Chrstians (who defended capitalism, some even saying it was God's system) squared away with the scriptures against “usury”. I not too long ago saw a rationale somewhere, and I forgot what exactlx what it was, but I think it was a point covered here, like maybe the whole corporations vs. “people” thing.

 

[Salty]

The thing is, it was much easier to buy without borrowing back then, because the prices of everything have shot up so high, now. ...

but keep in mind that wages were much lower: In 1938, the minimum wage was re-established pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, once again at $0.25 per hour ($4.23 in 2015 dollars[9]).

 

[Salty]

Our standard of living has went way up. Many American homes in the 20's and 30's did not have indoors plumbing -(bathrooms, ect) Only three bedrooms were needed - parents, boys, girls ( a prime example was the home of Earl Hammer - there were 4 boys and 4 girls - in their house - which I visited - the kids slept 2 to a bed. Many did not have cars, TV was just in the invention stage - ect, ect.

Stop and think about it - how many things do you have in your home that was not around in 1950.

Life was so much simpler back then. -

 

[Alcott]

Our standard of living has went way up. Many American homes in the 20's and 30's did not have indoors plumbing -(bathrooms, ect) Only three bedrooms were needed - parents, boys, girls ( a prime example was the home of Earl Hammer - there were 4 boys and 4 girls - in their house - which I visited - the kids slept 2 to a bed. Many did not have cars, TV was just in the invention stage - ect, ect.

Stop and think about it - how many things do you have in your home that was not around in 1950.

Life was so much simpler back then. -

While this doesn't have a great deal to do with interest/usary, it is interesting (pun in truth not intended) to consider how, and to what extent, corporate America has changed our views and ideals of home life. I consider it a bit embarrassing to admit now-- although I would not (I think) have felt that way if I had been a kid from the depression-- but our family moved from the little farming town of 250 people to the "city" of 15,000 just 7 miles away where both parents worked, when my mom was expecting her 4th child. The oldest was a girl, then I and a brother next, so they hoped this one would be another girl, so our 3 bedroom house would be equally divided 2-2-2.But it was another brother, and we ended sleeping 3 in one bed for a few years there. It only changed after a grandmother passed away and we got another double bed that way.

In fact, my mom and dad, married in 1954, went their first 2 or 3 years without indoor plumbing, and my dad worked the farm for his parents, until a growing family led him to take advantage of his GI benefits and start working for the Post Office (he said he worked with future pro golfer Lee Trevino at the Dallas annex). My mom worked continuously for the phone company (Southwestern Bell) for 36 years before early retirement. She had started when a lot of women just out of high school did-- in the mid/late 40's, when there was a backlog for years of people and businesses having applied for service. But many retired early when offered, because of having to learn new technologies, and likely long commutes, if they continued. Operators working switchboards, with a 'chief' on roller skates, had become obsolete. But most of those women stayed close, and they had an informal club, "The Dingalings," and had a 'day out' at least once a month, plus shopping and dining out on each of their birthdays.

But our house-- which I now own and live in alone-- and 2 cars, and everything 4 kids 'require' growing up, wouldn't have been there if not for both their jobs and being able to play a mortgage. But I have long regretted refusing their offer to help me go to college because of the expense and likely need to borrow money. Instead, after 2 years of doing little, I started going part time and got a degree over 9 years, only to find that no one would hire me in my field. I have heard others say that 'older' students or graduates are considered 2nd class compared to those 22 or 23 who have never really been on their own. It might be that, and/or that I make a terrible first impression with my reticent nature in person. Anyway, this lousy life is bound to be at least 80% over, I estimate; so interest or not, good background or bad, at least I don't think in terms of 'establishing myself' any more, so... let come what may.

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

The thing is, it was much easier to buy without borrowing back then, because the prices of everything have shot up so high, now.

I always used to wonder how Chrstians (who defended capitalism, some even saying it was God's system) squared away with the scriptures against “usury”. I not too long ago saw a rationale somewhere, and I forgot what exactly what it was, but I think it was a point covered here, like maybe the whole corporations vs. “people” thing.

OK, you're right (easier to buy without borrowing because prices are lower), but you miss the bigger point: The **opposite** is true, and you misapprehend the cause and effect:

The prices are lower because there was not so much borrowing. (I.e., sellers knew their customers could not afford to be price-gouged, since he/she did not have deep-pockets loans: Remember my lesson on the "Bill Bennett Hypothesis," earlier, which states that subsidies -- in this case, loans -- result in cost

And why were there not so many loans (like college loans)? Simply because lenders knew they borrowers could file bankruptcy, and this restricted loan availability. But it was more than the bankruptcy "cure," here, a means of self-defense. The lack of loans was also due to the "prevention" method, namely, the government wasn't stupid like they are now, insofar as how they use tax dollars to make and/or guarantee college, housing, and other types of loans. Stupid: Taxpayer is on the hook for toxic loans that will NEVER be paid off, and students face higher tuition, which is VERY preventable, hello?

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

but keep in mind that wages were much lower: In 1938, the minimum wage was re-established pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, once again at $0.25 per hour ($4.23 in 2015 dollars[9]).

Yes, wages were lower (and increased due to inflation), but you're not seeing the entire picture. Tuition also increased due to Tuition Inflation.

But the ratio of tuition-to-wages has SKYROCKETED.

In other words, "real" cost$$ of college (e.g., when corrected for inflation) have gone WAAAY up. [[I.e., what used to be affordable, back then, is not affordable now.]]

PROOF: “Was college once free in United States, as Bernie Sanders says?,” PolitiFact, RATED “Mostly True” - By Amy Sherman on Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. http://www.PolitiFact.com/florida/statements/2016/feb/09/bernie-s/was-college-once-free-united-states-and-it-oversea

Since "true" costs have gone up, we'd expect quality has gone up, but America, which used to have the BEST Higher Education in the world, now has horrible Higher ed, and stupid students are a result of it. We used to have the smartest children in the world (both in public education and Higher Education), but no more. So, the cost increases are NOT morally justified.

Morals still do count for something. (Or so we, as Bible-believing Baptists so claim; I, for one, am human and do err, but I still believe in absolute rights & wrongs, here.) On that note, see my court filing, listed in my previous post, and see how evil this Predatory Lending (breaking of contracts, illegal monopoly, violation of the US Constitution, etc.) really is.

 

[Salty]

While this doesn't have a great deal to do with interest/usary, it is interesting ....

Actually it does! As new inventions come out - people want them. Sure maybe you had a small B&W TV - but when Stations started to broadcast in Color ( Remember NBC promo - "This program in Living color) We want a color TV - at the time they were higher price - but - we put it on credit for $ 20 a month. Meanwhile - we wanted a new car - with that Automatic xmission and am-fm radio - that only raised the price of the car by $25 a month - Of course we felt we needed some other luxury in our home - so that's another $ 30 a month - We want something before we can really afford it- but everyone provides "E-Z" payments - which spread the payments out- and without realizing it - we end up paying almost as much interest as the product cost.

Lets come to the current day and age - most people have a computer - but they are outdated in 2-4 years.
Even though our present model is acceptable - we feel we must just have the latest model..........

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Actually it does!...

I agree; good point. (And, Alcott raises many relevant points, here, as well.)

 

[christiang]

The Sins of money is the "love of money" not the use of money.

I contend that all usury is interest, but all interest is NOT usury.
Do you agree or disagree?

Interest involves lending, whereas usury involves pooling money.

If you borrow at money at interest, someone is making a profit of interest. Once you pay the money back, your lender would've made money off of you.
If you pay $1 for a lottery ticket, someone is making a profit of usury. Once the person receives $1 tickets from many people, he will pay out a portion to a random winner, and would've made money from a bunch of people. Even in Islamic culture they call this "riba". All forms of insurance are based on usury, inclusive of social security.

Both interest and usury are unrighteous gains of money, and both the parties that give/receive commit an abomination.

 

[MennoSota]

Are Christians expected to follow the Mosaic law prescribed to the nation of Israel?

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Are Christians expected to follow the Mosaic law prescribed to the nation of Israel?

I would think not, since Paul chewed out Peter for trying to make Gentiles follow the Jewish laws:

Paul Opposes Cephas (Galatians 2:11-16, NIV, Holy Bible)
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d.] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Footnote: [d.] Galatians 2:16 Or "but through the faithfulness of … justified on the basis of the faithfulness of"

This (and other things) no doubt led Peter to say THIS in 2 Peter 3:16 (KJV)
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

See also, ACTS 15:1-15a (NIV), where Peter finally "gets it":

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” 12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this...

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Are Christians expected to follow the Mosaic law prescribed to the nation of Israel?

But, we also know that Jesus didn't come to do away with the law, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), and both Jesus and the disciples & apostles continued following the Jewish Old Testament Sabbath. However, did Jesus and Paul do this as a custom, or rather as a commandment? I think that the Sabbath was a gift from God, and that use of it was good stewardship, not unlike proper use of food and water, which are also gifts. So, the answer may be more nuanced or specific to the person. Thanks again for mentioning this - good point to consider.

 

[Alcott]

Interest involves lending, whereas usury involves pooling money.

If you borrow at money at interest, someone is making a profit of interest. Once you pay the money back, your lender would've made money off of you.
...
Both interest and usury are unrighteous gains of money, and both the parties that give/receive commit an abomination.

Alright, it's time for some ?'s here:

Do you own a home? If so, how did you acquire it? If not, do you rent? If you rent, have you always paid your rent before you spent a second in the unit, or did you ever owe someone for a service you took without having paid?

Do you own a car? If so, did you pay full cash for it, and how did you 'haggle' the price thereof (if you did)? Do you take any type of transportation-- such as a taxi-- in which you received the service before you paid for it, and thus "owed a man something," contrary to scripture?

Did you ever charge your lunch at school? Do you pay utility companies money to cover everything you will use during the month so as not to owe them anything. Have you received a repair service you didn't pay for before it was done?

Did you ever agree to do any task for anyone in the future for any reason?-- not just to 'return a favor,' but if you agreed to do something for them, then you owe them, by your own words (or else you lied).

Finally, what type of church/assembly do you attend (if any)? Perhaps you have said somewhere on these boards, but I didn't notice. Does your assembly teach what you are teaching? What is your "position" with such a body? Has this body always followed all the applications that you have stated? Is the primacy about interest (usury) a 'wedge issue' you deliberately use to snare people to convinced them only YOU have the truth [such as blood transfusions with Jehovah's Witnesses, or sabbath observance with the Church of God International]?

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Alright, it's time for some ?'s here:

Do you own a home? If so, how did you acquire it? If not, do you rent? If you rent, have you always paid your rent before you spent a second in the unit, or did you ever owe someone for a service you took without having paid?

Do you own a car? If so, did you pay full cash for it, and how did you 'haggle' the price thereof (if you did)? Do you take any type of transportation-- such as a taxi-- in which you received the service before you paid for it, and thus "owed a man something," contrary to scripture?

Did you ever charge your lunch at school? Do you pay utility companies money to cover everything you will use during the month so as not to owe them anything. Have you received a repair service you didn't pay for before it was done?

Did you ever agree to do any task for anyone in the future for any reason?-- not just to 'return a favor,' but if you agreed to do something for them, then you owe them, by your own words (or else you lied).

Finally, what type of church/assembly do you attend (if any)? Perhaps you have said somewhere on these boards, but I didn't notice. Does your assembly teach what you are teaching? What is your "position" with such a body? Has this body always followed all the applications that you have stated? Is the primacy about interest (usury) a 'wedge issue' you deliberately use to snare people to convinced them only YOU have the truth [such as blood transfusions with Jehovah's Witnesses, or sabbath observance with the Church of God International]?

Like many poor people, I don't own a home. I live with my father, who rents. I've bought cars before in the past, or had them given to me, but right now, I drive one my father owns. (I'm poor.) This is not relevant to the thread (but does offer context of each writer's perspective), and I don't have anything to hide. (I'm human, but not afraid to answer a small personal question or two; Jesus does not want us to be hyper-sensitive, I believe.)

The key question, tho, as I see it, is about church: I go to a Southern Baptist Church, and they do help the poor in many ways (food, clothing, occasional financial help, as needed, etc.), and are generally as theologically-pure as one can get. But, while the elders at my church are "OK" with THEM (their church, that is) being protected by U.S. Bankruptcy Laws if 'borrowing' goes south, they are NOT enthusiastic about defending college students in this manner. (Oddly-enough, liberal denominations seem more inclined to defend the poor and demand fair and equal treatment. But these churches also generally support gay marriages, don't defend the unborn, hate our 2nd Amendment rights, etc. I don't hate gays, but I do oppose so-called Gay Marriage as unbiblical, but I also oppose mistreatment of the poor, as I outline in my court brief, posted in a prior comment, especially since the U.S. Bankruptcy Law violates Art. I Sec 8, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution, e.g., the Uniformity Clause!!)

For those who might view me as a Left-wing "FREE HANDOUT" 'Liberal' in this regard, let me remind you of my prior analogy: The Constitutional 2nd Amendment is not bad (Liberal views notwithstanding) because it is not violence for the sake of violence, but rather a means of self-defense, and a well-armed society is a polite society. (In like manner, when all countries have a nuclear weapon, then nuclear war has a deterrent, namely retaliation or self-defense.)

Second Amendment: GOD seems to think it works
** "Behold, I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves; be wary and wise as serpents, and be innocent (harmless, guileless, and without falsity) as doves." (Words of Jesus in Red; Matthew 10:16,HOLY BIBLE, Amplified Version)
** "Then He said to them, But now let him who has a purse take it, and also [his provision] bag; and let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy a sword." (Words of Jesus in Red; Luke 22:36, HOLY BIBLE, Amplified Version)
** "When the strong man, fully armed, [from his courtyard] guards his own dwelling, his belongings are undisturbed [his property is at peace and is secure]." (Words of Jesus in Red; Luke 11:21, HOLY BIBLE, Amplified Version)

17 Those who built the wall and those who bore burdens loaded themselves so that everyone worked with one hand and held a weapon with the other hand,
18 And every builder had his sword girded by his side, and so worked. And he who sounded the trumpet was at my side.
19 And I said to the nobles and officials and the rest of the people, The work is great and scattered, and we are separated on the wall, one far from another.
20 In whatever place you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us.
21 So we labored at the work while half of them held the spears from dawn until the stars came out.
22 At that time also I said to the people, Let everyone with his servant lodge within Jerusalem, that at night they may be a guard to us and a laborer during the day.
23 So none of us--I, my kinsmen, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me--took off our clothes; each kept his weapon [in his hand for days].
--Nehemiah 4:17-23, HOLY BIBLE, Amplified Version

In like manner, the "Economic 2nd Amendment" is my nickname for Bankruptcy. So, since the elders at my church have this option (i.e., they will not be held personally liable if the church LLC goes under, nor have their wages, their social security, their disability if they have it, or eventually their retirement garnished -- like college student borrowers!!), but they don't advocate for others, then they are guilty of this hypocrisy, below. (Sorry to be so harsh, but i must be honest.) -- Thoughts, feedback??

Proverbs 24 (KJV)
11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

Proverbs 31 (NIV)
8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
Epilogue: The Wife of Noble Character

 

[annsni]

Something I was thinking about today as my daughter and I were talking about her student loans and how she is going to try to get through her 4th year of grad school without taking loans. If we are not to borrow money for school, that would leave some of the more expensive careers only to those who have money. Those who don't and struggle will not be able to become doctors or lawyers or, as in the case of my daughter, audiologists. Now I'm not talking about funding a ton of money to get a useless degree but my daughter will be able to make good money right off of graduation and will be able to pay back those loans quickly. If she had to save up the money first, she would not have been able to do so (and she is going to CUNY - City University of NY - where the entire doctorate will cost her under $40,000, although she did borrow for additional living expenses since she was not able to work enough to be able to pay for her apartment/commuting costs). Student loans are low interest and if you have a good plan to pay them off in a matter of a few years, I don't see that it is a poor decision and instead, it is more like an investment.

 

[christiang]

Are Christians expected to follow the Mosaic law prescribed to the nation of Israel?

Yes, because the Law of God pertains to the entire world,

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (Romans 3:19 [NIV])

Not just the Israelites, hence why even before the Law was given to Moses, the commands of God were already known beforehand even from the times of Abraham,

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(Genesis 26:5 [KJV])

 

[rsr]

I think college expenses are in fact an investment, although I'm not sure they always a good investment.

College costs are ridiculous. The first semester I attended a public university, tuition was $18 an hour, plus some minor fees. That same school now charges tuition and mandatory fees of $292 an hour, and it will be going up next semester, I'm sure.

There may be something to Gordon's assertion about student loans allowing prices to rise so dramatically, but with public schools the main driving factor is reduced state support.

 

[maddog]

OK, after checking, it seems that Ellicot's commentary suggests that 'Usury' as translated here is not necessarily what we think: "Usury.—Better, interest; the word not necessarily implying, as usury does now, anything illegal or exorbitant." Barne's notes seems to agree: "With usury - With interest, increase, or gain. The word "usury," in our language, has a bad signification, meaning unlawful or exorbitant interest. This was contrary to the law, Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36. The original means "gain," increase, or lawful interest." Matthew 25:27 Commentaries: Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.

But, is this correct? Let's look at the actual original Greek: "τόκῳ," which is Strong's # G5110, is better translated as 'interest,' not 'usury': Matthew 25 Interlinear Bible and Strong's Greek: 5110. τόκος (tokos) -- a bringing forth, birth, fig. interest, usury and http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat25.pdf and Tokos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version

Both Messianic Jews (who we would expect to know Hebrew Old Testament Law, which sets the context for this) as well as literal Bible translation (written by Greek scholars) agree that it is interest, not oppressive usury here: Mt 25:27 AMP;ESV;CJB;NASB;OJB - Then you ought to have put my money - Bible Gateway

But thanks for bringing up; Detective Sherlock Homes would be proud of our detective work! As Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, “Eliminate all other [untrue] factors, and the one which remains must be the truth”

But where did the interest come from? Where and how was it generated?

 

[Reformed]

In Romans 13 Paul was writing about how Christians are to act towards government. In verses 6-7 Paul writes, "For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." The main teaching of this passage is not about financial debt. The passage elevates love above all other things. Love is to be viewed as something we always owe to another. We will never be able to have this debt discharged. To bend this passage to teach what it is not teaching is exegetical gymnastics.

Another passage that deserves our attention is Matthew 5:42, which reads, "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." Is our Lord really talking about borrowing? In the immediate preceding verses Jesus is teaching about how Christians are to react to those who treat us unfairly. We are not to resist as the world resists. This requires a lot more explanation than I can adequately offer here, but suffice to say the main point of this passage is not borrowing or lending.

Still more. Leviticus 25:36-38 does not teach that a brother cannot lend to another brother. It teaches that interest (usury) shall not be charged.

So, is borrowing ever sinful? Yes. Having the ability to repay, and not repaying, is theft. If debt is causing anxiousness or worry, that is a lack of faith, and is sin. If debt prevents you from supporting the Lord's work, it is sin. If debt causes you to do anything that is contrary to sound judgment, it is sin. Is it better to purchase without borrowing? Of course. Delayed gratification can be a virtue, but we live in a society where debt is celebrated, so it is a challenge not to be in debt.

I counsel to avoid debt as much as possible, but I will not label all debt as sin; nor will I accuse someone of taking the mark of the beast because they borrow. Such a charge is putting someone under the debt of guilt, which is worse than any financial debt.