Why is usury prohibited in Leviticus 25:36? Definition of Usury in Ancient Israel In the Hebrew text the word for “interest” or “usury” is נֶשֶׁךְ (ne shekh), literally “a bite.” The image is of gain that wounds the borrower. Usury in Leviticus 25:36 therefore means any increase demanded on a loan made to a needy fellow Israelite. It is not merely “excessive” interest; it is interest of any size charged to a poor kinsman in distress. Immediate Literary Context of Leviticus 25 Leviticus 25 establishes the Sabbatical Year and Jubilee. Every seventh year the land rests (vv. 1–7); after seven cycles a fiftieth-year Jubilee returns property, frees indentured servants, and cancels debts (vv. 8–55). Verse 36 sits in a paragraph (vv. 35–38) that opens, “If your brother becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, then you are to help him as you would a foreigner or a temporary resident, so that he can continue to live among you” (v. 35). The prohibition of interest is therefore one element of a larger divine strategy to prevent permanent underclass bondage inside the covenant community. Covenantal Theology of Stewardship and Brotherhood 1. God’s ownership. “The land is Mine, for you are foreigners and residents with Me” (v. 23). If God owns everything, the Israelite merely stewards what is on loan from Him; to profit from a brother’s calamity is to deny God’s absolute proprietorship (cf. Psalm 24:1). 2. Family solidarity. Israel is addressed as “brothers” (v. 35). Scripture expects familial loyalty. As one does not charge rent to a child who sleeps on the couch, so one may not charge interest to a brother in crisis. 3. Exodus ethics. Leviticus 25 repeatedly reminds Israel of their redemption: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt” (vv. 38, 55). They were rescued without price; they must extend similar grace (Matthew 18:32-33 parallels the same principle in the New Covenant era). Economic Justice and Protection of the Vulnerable Interest itself is not intrinsically immoral (Deuteronomy 23:20 permits it from foreigners engaging in commerce), but taking advantage of the desperate is. Behavioral economists observe that crises leave people with impaired bargaining power; Scripture anticipates the market’s potential for exploitation and installs a guardrail. Modern micro-lending research (e.g., World Bank case studies, 2007-2020) confirms that zero-interest relief loans spur recovery while high-interest debt often cascades households into deeper poverty—empirical evidence that the Mosaic ideal remains economically sound. Contrast with Ancient Near Eastern Practices Archaeological tablets from Old Babylon (Yale CT No. 190, 19th c. BC) record barley loans at 33 ⅓ % annual interest; the Code of Hammurabi (§§ 88-94) normalizes 20-25 %. Ugaritic contracts (14th c. BC, RS 17.238) show enslaving debtors’ children for unpaid interest. Israel’s law is startlingly humane by comparison, aligning with what Assyriologist A. Leo Oppenheim termed a “moral economy” unique in the region. Connection to the Jubilee Principle Jubilee resets prevent multigenerational poverty. Interest-free loans are a short-term mechanism; Jubilee is the long-term fail-safe. Together they prefigure the gospel: sin-debt forgiven, bondage lifted, inheritance restored (Isaiah 61:1-3; Luke 4:18-19). The theological logic is consistent: grace at the personal, societal, and eschatological levels. Moral and Spiritual Rationale 1. Reflection of divine character: God is generous (James 1:17). His people image Him by generosity. 2. Cultivation of trust in divine providence: refusing interest means relinquishing a profit stream and trusting God to supply (Proverbs 19:17; “He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and He will reward him”). 3. Prevention of idolatry of wealth: interest-bearing loans to the needy transform money into a tool for dominance, breeding covetousness and pride—sins repeatedly condemned (Habakkuk 2:6-9). Typological Significance and Foreshadowing of Christ The interest-free loan anticipates the greater remission accomplished by Jesus. He pays a ransom none could repay (Mark 10:45). The creditor in the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35) echoes Levitical ethics: forgiven servants must forgive others, or face judgment. Paul expands the type: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another” (Romans 13:8), transposing economic debt language into relational covenant obligation. Continuity and Development in the Rest of Scripture Old Testament: • Exodus 22:25—no interest to the poor. • Deuteronomy 23:19—interest-free to a brother. • Nehemiah 5:1-13—Nehemiah rebukes nobles for exacting interest; they repent. • Psalm 15:5—righteous man “does not lend money at interest.” • Ezekiel 18:8, 13; 22:12—usury listed with bloodshed and idolatry. New Testament: While the NT does not legislate civil economies for the church dispersed among nations, it intensifies the ethic of sacrificial generosity (Luke 6:34-35; Acts 4:34-35). The patristic church largely prohibited interest outright (Council of Elvira (AD 305), canon 17). Reformation voices like Calvin distinguished productive commercial interest from exploitative usury, mirroring the Deuteronomic distinction. Practical Implications for Believers Today 1. Church benevolence: local congregations should prioritize interest-free assistance, modeling divine generosity (1 John 3:17). 2. Ethical investing: Christians in finance must scrupulously avoid predatory lending. 3. Advocacy: believers may influence legislation that caps payday-loan rates, echoing Mosaic compassion. 4. Personal stewardship: refuse to profit from a brother’s hardship; structure loans as gifts when possible (Luke 6:30). Conclusion Usury is prohibited in Leviticus 25:36 to preserve covenantal brotherhood, reflect God’s generous character, protect the vulnerable, maintain socio-economic equilibrium, and foreshadow the gospel of debt-forgiving grace fulfilled in Christ. Archaeological, historical, economic, and behavioral evidence corroborate the wisdom and benevolence of this divine ordinance, underscoring the Scripture’s practical and moral coherence from Moses to Messiah. |
    |