I assume most of us here know the story of Jesus and the moneychangers, where he drives them out of the temple in Jerusalem. This story was the basis for the Catholic (and probably also Islamic) prohibition against “usury”. Now “usury” is typically defined simply as “loaning money at interest”. Jesus apparently drove the moneychangers from the temple because they were lending out the money deposited with them and getting interest from the loans. However, I wonder whether he* drove them out because they were not authorized by the depositors to lend their money. In other words, Jesus didn’t drive them out because they were lending money at interest, but because they were doing so fraudulently. Thoughts?
(* Of course, this assumes that the story is true. Although I doubt it’s literally true, I imagine it contains at least a kernel of truth.)
I think he was just banning usury in general, whether it was fraud or not because he praised the poor more than he praised the rich, he never praised the rich for anything… He was also against money in general. the main reason for this is because being rich takes at least 2 things, pride in yourself and greed, both are considered sins according to the Christian faith. Which is why I like the Greeks version of morality, which is we should be proud of how much we can accomplish using virtues such as greed or pride…
I was taught at Sunday School growing up that it was against loaning money at interest, period. I’m not saying their interpretation was correct, but that was just my experience. Now if you want to take that idea and try something revolutionary, try to prove convincingly that Jesus was the worlds first Austrian Economist!
It is true that Jesus did not praise the rich. In Matthew, Chapter 19, Jesus says “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
However, I have been taught (and I agree with) that this statement is not a judgemental one that people must follow simply because Jesus said it. It is rather a statement of fact, explaining that being rich takes a lot of time and focus on your wealth. And when you are spending that much time focusing on becoming rich, staying rich, and using/tracking your wealth, it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to focus on the things that make you a son of God, as was Jesus’s goal for everyone.
And not to throw a huge wrench in this, but we must consider that the statements made by Jesus came at a specific point in history and were made to specific people. And these people at this specific point in history did not live in a capitalist society. The way to acquire wealth then was different than it is today in the US. So for usury, I think it is still in line with logic (and Christian beliefs) to say that it makes far more sense that Jesus would be against lending money fraudulently, rather than lending money through any means.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
I think he was just banning usury in general, whether it was fraud or not because he praised the poor more than he praised the rich, he never praised the rich for anything… He was also against money in general. the main reason for this is because being rich takes at least 2 things, pride in yourself and greed, both are considered sins according to the Christian faith. Which is why I like the Greeks version of morality, which is we should be proud of how much we can accomplish using virtues such as greed or pride…
[/quote]
Perhaps he wasn’t chastizing the rich per se, but rather those of the rich who obtained all or part of their wealth from defrauding and/or aggressing against others. From what I understand, the Judeo-Christian concept of pride denotes the belief that one is inherently superior (including morally) to others, and that he considers it justified to harm others to benefit himself. Greed, as an outgrowth of pride, is thus the belief that one is entitled (morally speaking) to more than he has, based on his position of self-superiority. The belief in this entitlement then justifies using otherwise sinful means to satisfy it. Defined in these ways, the sins of pride and greed are fully compatible with a free-market society.
Given your mention of the Ancient Greeks’ morality, I wonder whether some semantics weren’t lost in translation from Hebrew to Ancient Greek. Perhaps the Ancient Greeks called “desire for (more) wealth” their word for “greed”. They may have also had a different meaning for their word for “pride”, as there are two different meanings for it even in English today: the meaning I gave above, and another denoting self-satisfaction in one’s accomplishments (e.g. “taking pride in one’s work”).
Indeed, I think you have to understand the scriptures not by reading them through a modern twenty-first century lense, but through the period that they were actually in. The rich were not rich from voluntary exchanges involving a double inequality. They were the ones in bed with the state, the ones who benefited from high taxation, and who refused to pay the laborers what they had promised. Essentially, they would use force and fraud to deprive people of what was rightfully theirs.
There is no chastigation of the act of being rich at all. This is simply a misreading. According to the bible, some of God’s most favored were incredibly wealthy. Take Abraham, Job, David, Solomon, etc. who were extremely wealthy. There’s this tendency that I’ve seen around in some Christian circles that has persisted from early on that money and material things are evil, but this is just not the case.
There’s something lost in the English translation of the word ‘pride’, as well. It is not about having self-satisfaction or ‘being happy’ about your accomplishments. Autolykos has it right. Pride was used to denote haughtiness and so-called moral superiority.
Gary North has done some excellent analysis on the concept of usury in the scriptures.
no, Jesus was against lending money at interest in genral because, for one, he was aganist money. Jesus believe that riches, wealth, pride, greed, etc. is a distraction to faith. faith is the only thing you should concern yourself about in this life because you will be rewarded in heaven… The first real Christian to say that this isn’t how one should live life is Soren Kierkegaard, one of the best philosophers in my opinion. Kierkegaard was against the whole idea of this because he believed that looking at faith this way destroyed the whole purpose of the individual. Faith is something that should not be preached, it is not something we get from a book, it is something we find ourselves, according to Kierkegaard. Faith is only subjective truth because only the individual can find faith for himself.
Jesus was against lending money at interest in genral because, for one, he was aganist money. Jesus believe that riches, wealth, pride, greed, etc. is a distraction to faith.
I think it is correct to say that Jesus believes those things are a distraction to faith. However, to make the statement that Jesus is against money is misleading.
Do you mean that Jesus is against money as a basis of exchange? Or that Jesus is against working in order to receive payment of money?
If so, I would disagree. The focus should be on how an individual views money, and what things that individual is willing or ready to do or compromise to receive that money.
Perhaps the temple wasn’t intended to be a market place (I’m pretty sure there is, perhaps, some other reason for having the temple..)? This seems to be the simplest explanation, especially combined with the likely dishonesty of those selling goods or changing money in the temple. I expect Jesus would be rather angry (justifiably) about the holy temple built for the worship of God to have become little more than a (dodgy) place of business.
“Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”
Also, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Timothy 6:10” - There is nothing against money itself, merely against the love of money. See also the examples of rich, and righteous men described in the Bible (I.e. Job or King David).
I think some people would do best to carefully read the passages in question.
If you’re getting this from Kierkegaard, then it’s a bad mistake. He was a fideist and an irrationalist, and certainly in the minority insofar as things like ‘faith’ are concerned. If you’re going to make statements about what Jesus said and did, then you should provide some verses in support.
Here’s a parable told by Jesus: “Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.” Matthew 25:27
Francisco’s money speech, from Atlas Shrugged, is great for this. Money is NOT the root of all evil. The love of money is the root of many evils (as David mentioned).
Yes, it’s interesting how God gave those men great wealth. Or did He let them get it themselves through slavery, (Abraham, Job) usurpation of a monarchy, (David) and obscene taxes and tribute extorted by force and political power (Solomon)?
One thing that must be understood before proceeding any further with Bible studies is that even the canonic texts are rifed with later interpolations and downright inventions. To quote a theologist (Karl-Heinz Deschner) “We don’t know how many of the words exalting poverty and condemning wealth are actually the words of Jesus”.
While the episode is related in all the Four Gospels, it is particularly well detailed in Luke, who says how the people stood in awe of Jesus and how it was this particular incident that convinced the Temple Council that Jesus was to be eliminated. The Gospel of Luke has been regarded by many German theologists as “markedly anti-Capitalist”. Since Luke is believed to have been heavily influenced by the Essenes (or similar schools of thought), this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Tertullian, one of the Fathers of the Church, commented the Temple Incident by saying “Christians should consider trade unworthy”. Basil (another Father of the Church) had similar words. John Chrisostomos went a step further by saying that even the fruits of “honest, hard labor” should be shunned.
Here I must say one thing. By reading this you now probably think the Early Church was nothing more than a hotbed of Communists. Differently from present day Communists, who hate wealth out of simple spite and envy, early Christians (at least the most theologically inclined) had a deeper reason. That reason in theology is called Chiliasm (from the Greek chilioi, one thousand), hinting at the thousand year reign of the returning Messiah. To cut a long story short these Christians really believed Final Judgement was to be on them in a matter of years at the most, so they had no reason to bother themselves with wordly preoccupations, starting with material wealth. Their time was to be wholly devoted to preparing themselves for this coming event. As the years went by, Chiliasm died a slow death and with it the collectivist tendencies of the Early Church.
Real quick; as there really is no “easy” or “quick” way to answer this (ex: Chrysostom seems to think there were two cleanisngs, each Gospel has a different message, etc) however: The coins did have Ceasar’s face on them and there was the buying and selling of live animials to be sacrificed in the Temple; both of these happenings are not unimportant things to consider.
on a nitpick: While Tertullian may be good, I do not think I would consider him a “Church Father” in the technical sense of the word.
“Jesus apparently drove the moneychangers from the temple because they were lending out the money deposited with them and getting interest from the loans.”
Jewish law did not allow offerings to be made using coins bearing a graven image. The moneychangers literally changed Roman money into acceptable local coins that could be taken inside the temple and given as offerings. It was a big racket. The exchange rates were established by the priesthod in collusion with the moneychangers, each one of which had to be licensed by the priesthood to do business at the temple.
well no, its not all from kierkegaard, its from the bible as well. the part about faith is kierkegaard’s philosophy… its meaningless to call kierkegaard an irrationalist because what is rational to one, isn’t necessarly rational to another. An atheist would consider all religion an irrational way of thinking through life, while a religious man would say that it would be irrational to think that there is no God…
Here is a short sermon I came across some time ago that may be of some assistance here. It basically says that it depends on the situation; you shouldn’t loan money at interest to a poor man, or a brother, who is desparate.
However, then there is this, "Deuteronomy 23:19: “Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest.”
So, to a stranger who isn’t desparate, it appears that usury is acceptable.
huerta de soto deals with the temple incident and why jesus might have been so inspired, in money, bank credit and business cycles, 2nd edition. do a search for “Matthew 21:12–16”, and you’ll find his analysis.
hülsmann, in the ethics of money production writes:
"There is some evidence that the “money changers” mentioned in the New Testament (see Matthew 25:27
and Luke 19:23) were in fact fractional-reserve bankers. See Anthony
Hulme, Morals and Money (London: St. Paul Publications, 1957), p. 29
jesus of nazareth - enemy of fractional reserve banking!