PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Neither a borrower . . . .



billwald
June 26th, 2004, 10:06 AM
OK, no one has the time of the inclination or the guts to classify the 613 statements, but for all of you who think that gentile Christians are bound by the "Law of Moses," please someone convince me that the prohabition against lending money at interest should be classified as "administrative" or "ceremonial," not "moral."

For the first 1500 years of Christianity, lending and borrowing money was a sin. What declassified it? If not declassified, the is not anyone who has a mortgage, is buying a car on credit, or uses credit cards committing a sin by violating the Law of Moses?

Turbo
June 26th, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by billwald

OK, no one has the time of the inclination or the guts to classify the 613 statements, You keep saying that, but you don't seem to be willing to meet us halfway. Why don't you start a thread in which you list all 613 laws?


but for all of you who think that gentile Christians are bound by the "Law of Moses,"Well, I don't fall into that group. But I suspect that you don't know the difference between being saved by grace and freed from the Law, and establishing a government with a Godly criminal justice system.

And once again, you preach a message similar to Paul's gospel to the Gentiles (that believers are not under the Law), yet you reject Paul's writings and ministry, even though Peter and the twelve and Luke endorsed him. Also, your version is somewhat twisted, since Paul made it clear that governments are to enforce criminal justice on believers and unbelievers alike.


please someone convince me that the prohabition against lending money at interest should be classified as "administrative" or "ceremonial," not "moral."
What prohibition? Cite a verse.

"And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. Exodus 22:14
Obviously it was not unlawful for a man to borrow from his neighbor.

If I had to guess what you are alluding to, I'd guess:
For the LORD your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you. Deuteronomy 15:6

The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. Deuteronomy 28:12
If it were inherently immoral for a nation to borrow from another nation, why would God permit Israel to lend to other nations? In doing so, they would be causing the borrowing nation to sin!

But the symbolic laws were intended (among other things) to separate Israel as a people from other nations, and they were imposed only upon Israelites (and proselytes). If it were inherently wrong to borrow from another nation, it would also be inherently wrong to lend to another nation.

The specific symbol of this law is clearly stated in Deuteronomy 15:6. "[other nations] shall not reign over you." A borrower is subservient to his lender.

Zakath
June 26th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Turbo,

Do you really want a list of the 613 mitzvot?

If so we could post them, say 33 at a time and you could indicate which ones you think apply today for you Christians and which ones do not...

That would only take about 19 posts...

I'm game if billwald doesn't have the time... :D

Turbo
June 26th, 2004, 12:43 PM
billwald doesn't even quote a law he's referring to when there is only one. (Take this thread for example: He cited no verse.) He makes assertions, but almost never backs them up. My point is that if he wants to accuse us of being unable to categorize the laws, he should at least be willing to give us "column A" of the chart.

I really don't know what the point would be. I've given him example of moral laws (do not murder, do not rape) and symbolic laws (circumcise, keep the sabbath) and some methods for making the distinction. If someone can't understand these simplest and most basic examples, then why dive into the details and attempt to debate all 613 laws at once?


Zakath, do you agree that I have demonstrated that Deuteronomy 15:6 was a law that was specifically and exclusively for Israel, and that it is therefore not inherently immoral to borrow money according to Scripture?

Zakath
June 26th, 2004, 01:03 PM
I think you merely set up a straw man and then proceeded to demolish it. :doh:



The Jews were proscribed from lending to other Jews (their "brothers") but no such scriptural proscription exists for non-Jews.

Which of the following scriptures, specifically mentioning lending money for gain, would you say apply to you as a modern Christian?


Gen. 22:25
And if thou shouldest lend money to thy poor brother who is by thee, thou shalt not be hard upon him thou shalt not exact usury of him.

Lev. 25:36-37
Thou shalt not receive from him interest, nor increase: and thou shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord: and thy brother shall live with thee. Thou shalt not lend thy money to him at interest, and thou shalt not lend thy meat to him to be returned with increase.

Dt 23:19-20
Thou shalt not lend to thy brother on usury of silver, or usury of meat, or usury of any thing which thou mayest lend out. Thou mayest lend on usury to a stranger, but to thy brother thou shalt not lend on usury; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works upon the land, into which thou art entering to inherit it.

Ps. 15:5
He has not lent his money on usury, and has not received bribes against the innocent. He that does these things shall never be moved.

Pr. 30:8
He that increases his wealth by usuries and unjust gains, gathers it for him that pities the poor.

Ezek. 18:11-13
...who has not walked in the way of his righteous father, but has even eaten upon the mountains, and has defiled his neighbor’s wife, and has oppressed the poor and needy, and has committed robbery, and not restored a pledge, and has set his eyes upon idols, has wrought iniquities, has lent upon usury, and taken usurious increase; he shall by no means live: he has wrought all these iniquities; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

And if you're Orthodox Jewish, there's this one...
Sirach 21:8
He that buildeth his house with other men’s money is like one that gathereth himself stones for the tomb of his burial.


Public loans and the humane spirit of the law in Christian nations have taught us to draw a clear line between lawful and usurious interest; but in the ancient world, as it is in the East at this day, interest was always usurious. The Egyptian law contented itself with prohibiting interest which was more than 30 per cent (Diodor. Sic. i. 79); the laws of Menu permitted an interest of 18 or even 24 per cent (see the reference in Smith's Bible Dictionary, article Usury), and 12 per cent is, or was till quite lately, a minimum rate in the East. Partly, no doubt, for this reason, partly because in an agricultural nation like Israel loans were only asked by those whose need put them at the creditor's mercy, partly to encourage kindness towards the poor, the Mosaic law prohibits lending at interest. The most ancient code (Exod. xxi.-xxviii.) prohibits lending at interest to poor Hebrews. Deut. xxiii, 20 forbids interest to be taken from Hebrews generally; Levit. xxv. 35-37 repeats the precept of Exodus, forbidding also interest in kind.
- Catholic Dictionary - Usury

Turbo
June 26th, 2004, 01:29 PM
Zakath, you should be able to figure out how I would answer based on post #2 of this thread. Do you want to take a stab at it?

Zakath
June 26th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Zakath, you should be able to figure out how I would answer based on post #2 of this thread. Do you want to take a stab at it? Perhaps, or instead of dancing around the issue, why not just answer yourself? :think:

You can do it. ;)

Turbo
June 26th, 2004, 01:50 PM
I thought not. :rolleyes:


Dt 23:19-20
Thou shalt not lend to thy brother on usury of silver, or usury of meat, or usury of any thing which thou mayest lend out. Thou mayest lend on usury to a stranger, but to thy brother thou shalt not lend on usury; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works upon the land, into which thou art entering to inherit it.

Since it was not unlawful for the Israelites to charge interest to foreign borrowers, we can see that that charging interest is not inherently immoral. But it was immoral for the Israelites (just as not keeping the Sabbath was immoral), because disobeying God is immoral, and he gave Israel that commandment.

Turbo
June 26th, 2004, 01:51 PM
Zakath, do you agree that I have demonstrated that Deuteronomy 15:6 was a law that was specifically and exclusively for Israel, and that it is therefore not inherently immoral to borrow money according to Scripture?

Big Finn
June 26th, 2004, 02:16 PM
The Jews were proscribed from lending to other Jews (their "brothers") but no such scriptural proscription exists for non-Jews.

Untrue.

The Hebrew laws prohibited usery, not lending.

Exo 22:25 "If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest.


Deu 15:7 "If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother;
Deu 15:8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.


Eze 18:5 "But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,
Eze 18:6 and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period--
Eze 18:7 if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,
Eze 18:8 if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice

That is sufficient to show that lending was not proscribed. It was the practice of lending at interest, or usury, that was proscribed.

Zakath
June 26th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I thought not. :rolleyes:Thank you for your concise description of your position on the matter.

But boards like this are supposed to get you to think. That's part of the fun. :D


Since it was not unlawful for the Israelites to charge interest to foreign borrowers, we can see that that charging interest is not inherently immoral.
So let me see if I am following your reasoning here.

If an act is not unlawful for the Israelites, then it is not inherently immoral. Is that correct?

Unfotunately for our discussion, that begs the question of whether when an act is unlawful for the Hebrews, is it also unlawful for Christians?

That is the very question we are trying to address here.



But it was immoral for the Israelites (just as not keeping the Sabbath was immoral), because disobeying God is immoral, and he gave Israel that commandment. I would agree that charging interest to foreigners (apiru) is not specifically prohibited to Hebrews...

...but you have not answered whether that specific mitzvah applies to you as a Christian in this day and age.



Zakath, do you agree that I have demonstrated that Deuteronomy 15:6 was a law that was specifically and exclusively for Israel, and that it is therefore not inherently immoral to borrow money according to Scripture?No, I find your demonstration vague and unconvincing.

You're beginning to sound annoyingly like Enyart when you phrase your questions in such a manner. ;)

Turbo
June 26th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Big Finn. :up:

I had also cited Exodus 22:14 back in post 2.

"And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good.

*shrug*

Zakath
June 26th, 2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Untrue.

The Hebrew laws prohibited usery, not lending. Lending at interest is the point of discusion. The amount of interest is not at issue here.


That is sufficient to show that lending was not proscribed. It was the practice of lending at interest, or usury, that was proscribed.

As you so kindly pointed out, Ex. 22:25 specifically forbids the charging of interest by one Hebrew to another.

"If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest."

Dt. 23:20 reiterates the point this way:

"You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. "

According to Jewish tradition, described in the Mishnah, charging foreigners interest was not only permitted, but mandatory.


While some verses specifically use the term rendered "usury", those two do not and even a single verse in the Pentateuch is sufficient to establish the point in Hebrew Law.

Big Finn
June 26th, 2004, 04:01 PM
Zakath,


The Hebrew nation was a theocracy when it was first established. Thus their whole government was based upon laws given by God.

I agree that lending money at interest to each other was not allowed by their civil law. And that is what it is, a civil law. While it's foundation is built upon the same principles that underly the ten commandments it is separate from the that law.

Everything in the Hebrew economy had a point. God taught a lesson in each and every law He gave, and in each and every symbol in thier system of worship. In that system of worship the Ten Commandments were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, underneath the mercy seat which symbolizes the mercy of God in forgiving sin. On the outside of the Ark of the Covenant, on each side of the Ark were place to pockets, if you will, and in those pockets were placed the copy of the civil law that was given to Moses by God. This was done at God's instruction.

Now, it's clear that by doing this that God is making a distinction between the two laws, for everything in the sanctuary was symbolic of something. Everything that was placed in the sanctuary had specfic meaning, and even the placement of each object within the two rooms had specific meaning. From this we see that God did indeed have separate purposes and goals for the ten commandments and the civil laws.

Paul said that the law of ordinances that was against us was set aside by Christ, and that now the wall between the Jew and Gentile was broken down. Now, how could that have included the ten commandments as they had always been shown to have been covered by God's mercy by the symbolism of the sanctuary? The Ten Commandments do not create a separation between Jew and Gentile. They address the heart condition of all mankind. They are the schoolteacher that brings us to a knowledge of our need of a Savior. Thus the law of ordinances set aside is the civil law.

Notice what Jesus said at the beginning of His ministry in relation to the temple.
Joh 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

Compare that with the statement he made concerning the temple at the end of His ministry.
Luk 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Thus we see a change being made. God is saying, this time, the time of the Jews, is past, and then we see Paul speaking of the time of the Gentiles. What had once defined and shown the presence of God, the temple and all it stood for, was no longer blessed by His presence. It had become an empty shell. God's grace and mercy hadn't changed, but He left behind those who would not follow Him.

The Jewish/Hebrew nation had been created/organized for the purpose of showing the world who God is. When the Jews finally rejected Christ they were set aside as that organization, and the Christian church became the organization to be used of God to spread the Gospel and the knowledge of Himself. Thus, as the nation of Isreal was no longer the organization that one needed to join to become a part of God's organization here on earth the authority of it's civil laws no longer applied to those joining God's organization.

However, that does not set aside the 10 commandments as they were always covered by the mercy of God and speak to the condition of the human heart. They define sin. The civil laws defined a form of government. It was at this time that those laws were done away with in the written form given to the Hebrews.

However, the principles of the ten commandments still apply to all actions. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet, etc... still apply to us. They are part and parcel of love thy neighbor as theyself, and Jesus said that whoever does this fulfills the law. So, is it a sin for a Christian to loan out money at exhorbitant rates? Yes, for it is simply a civil government legalized form of theft. Is it a sin for us to borrow money? I believe it is if we are doing so at ridiculous rates. Why? Because God tells us that all we have and all we are belongs to Him. If we are paying out usurious interest rates we are robbing God of what is rightfully His and giving it to those who are in effect breaking God's law.

I guess everything I've said sort of boils down to, as long was we don't now violate the principles of Ten Commandments in our business practices that it isn't wrong, for civil law of the Hebrews is no longer our form of government.

Knight
June 26th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
But boards like this are supposed to get you to think. Were still waiting on you to hold up your end of the bargain. :D

billwald
June 26th, 2004, 06:16 PM
See new 613 thread.

"the difference between being saved by grace and freed from the Law, and establishing a government with a Godly criminal justice system."

The difference is that they are two seperate topics, like ice cream and felt hats.

"Zakath, do you agree that I have demonstrated that Deuteronomy 15:6 was a law that was specifically and exclusively for Israel, and that it is therefore not inherently immoral to borrow money according to Scripture?"

That's my point! And so was the other 612. Why make a big deal out of the 10 (commandments)? Why post only 10 on city walls? The rejoinder is that only the 10 are "moral."

The 10 were placed in that ark because they were like chapter headings. Probably also because one would need a flat bed truck to transport a stone slab with 612 statements.

"However, that does not set aside the 10 commandments as they were always covered by the mercy of God and speak to the condition of the human heart. They define sin."

FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Turbo
June 27th, 2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by billwald

Why make a big deal out of the 10 (commandments)? Why post only 10 on city walls? The rejoinder is that only the 10 are "moral." The ten commandments are a summary of the 613 laws. They are not the only moral laws, and in fact, as I've said before, keeping the sabbath is not an inherently moral issue. Like other symbolic laws, it was only for Israel and was a means of separating Israel as a people. (It was only wrong for Israel to violate the laws because to do so would be to disobey God, which is immoral.)


"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11


And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: "Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. Exodus 31:12-13

The red text explicitly indicated that the Sabbath laws are specifically for Israel, and that they are symbolic. Sign is a synonym of symbol.

The blue text explains exactly what the law symbolizes.

Do you agree?

billwald
June 27th, 2004, 09:52 AM
"The ten commandments are a summary of the 613 laws."

Not many people can pass a college course by reading "Cliffs Notes."

Why do you think it works for the Christian life?

Red, OK. I think blue should also be red. <G>

billwald
June 27th, 2004, 10:06 AM
In the same way, "Love God and Love Neighbor" is a summary of the NT (Christian) Law. Why, then, do we bother to read the rest if it isn't necessary for the Mosiac Covenant? Because the Mosiac Covenant isn't applicable to gentiles.

The Christian Church is mostly guilty of bad logic. The British Traffic code requires that all vehicles stop and yield before proceeding through a stop sign. If I, in Washington State, stop and yield at stop signs, am I "keeping" or obeying the British Traffic Code? No, I am not, because the British traffic code has no authority over Drivers in America.

Neither are British Drivers obeying the British Traffic Code if they stop for stop signs in Washington State. If they were, then they would be guilty of driving on the right side of the center (centre? <G>) line.

It is immaterial to Gentile Christians outside the Land that 9 out of the ten are also codified in the NT. If I am wrong then the Adventists are right - at least respecting Sabbath worship. It is bad theology and bad logic to say that we worship on the Lord's Day because the Church changed the Sabbath. We worship on the Lord's Day because gentile Christians traditionally and always worshipped on the Lord's Day.

Zakath
June 27th, 2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Zakath,


The Hebrew nation was a theocracy when it was first established. Thus their whole government was based upon laws given by God.

I agree that lending money at interest to each other was not allowed by their civil law. And that is what it is, a civil law. Civil law as compared to what? Criminal law? Ecclesiastical or Canon law?

"The Law" is 613 statements or mitzvot (plural of mitzvah). Some of them relate to interpersonal behavior (civil and criminal), some of them relate to individual relationship with YHWH (religious), some relate to corporate behavior and relationship with YHWH (ecclesiastical).


While it's foundation is built upon the same principles that underly the ten commandments it is separate from the that law. How so?


...On the outside of the Ark of the Covenant, on each side of the Ark were place to pockets, if you will, and in those pockets were placed the copy of the civil law that was given to Moses by God. This was done at God's instruction. Oh really? Where do you find such instructions regarding placing of the mitzvot on the Ark?

That doesn't seem to be familiar to any of my research sources. Since the bulk of your post depends on this typology, I"ll respond to the rest of your post after you explain where you came up with this idea., :think:

Turbo
June 27th, 2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by billwald

Why do you think [the ten commandments] works for the Christian life? Did I say that?

Christians are not under the law. They are made righteous by the blood of Christ, not by following a set of rules. Unbelievers are condemned according to the Law, but not the symbolic laws, which were only for Israel.

Zakath
June 27th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Turbo,

Perhaps a bit of clarification would help here...

When you say "Christians are not under the law", do you consider the decalogue to be part of what the Jews (and Paul) referred to as "The Law"? :think:

Turbo
June 27th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by billwald

In the same way, "Love God and Love Neighbor" is a summary of the NT (Christian) Law. No, they are Old Testament laws that act as a further summarization of the 613 (and of the 10).



You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:5


Why, then, do we bother to read the rest if it isn't necessary for the Mosiac Covenant? Because the Mosiac Covenant isn't applicable to gentiles. Which gentiles are you talking about? Believers, unbelievers, or both?

You know, we're going to end up talking about Paul sooner or later, since his epistles were for the gentiles. It's too bad you don't believe Peter, the Twelve, and Luke when they say that Paul's ministry is legitimate, and that his epistles are Scripture.


It is bad theology and bad logic to say that we worship on the Lord's Day because the Church changed the Sabbath. And you've never seen me say such a thing.

Turbo
June 27th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Turbo,

Perhaps a bit of clarification would help here...

When you say "Christians are not under the law", do you consider the decalogue to be part of what the Jews (and Paul) referred to as "The Law"? :think: Yes.

elected4ever
June 27th, 2004, 11:32 AM
I think that for the Christian to commit to criminal justice law the tenants of the Jewish law is an exercise in futility. It will never happen and should never happen. Why should any Christian want to be entangled again with what he has been liberated from?:freak:

Having said that I believe that the law is a pretty good guide to use when we are instructed to endeavor to live peaceably within our societies. The law in the society of one's dwelling renders all other law moot but that does not negate the Christian from a higher principle of personal conduct.

Though we are not under any law and therefore without sin in Christ Jesus society has a differing opinion and can very will imprison a Cristian or anyone else for doing what is good and right. Case in point The summary execution of murderers; Those who pray on the innocent and helpless. Society protect them and the one defending the right cause is executed.

e4e

Zakath
June 27th, 2004, 11:51 AM
Turbo,

Thank you for clarifying that point. :thumb:

Perhaps you could assist me further by describing how you see the difference between what you referred to as "symbolic" laws and "moral" laws.

Also, from your point of view, are there other categories of laws contained in the 613 mitzvot? If so, what are they?

Your answers will be very helpful in my understanding of your position.

billwald
June 27th, 2004, 06:23 PM
>Which gentiles are you talking about? Believers, unbelievers, or both?

All gentiles living outside of Nation of Israel.

Problem with getting one's theology from Paul's letters is that it is like listening to only one side of a telephone conversation. Theologians assume the other side based upon what they want Paul to mean.

Big Finn
June 28th, 2004, 10:13 AM
Zakath,


Oh really? Where do you find such instructions regarding placing of the mitzvot on the Ark?

That doesn't seem to be familiar to any of my research sources. Since the bulk of your post depends on this typology, I"ll respond to the rest of your post after you explain where you came up with this idea.,


Deu 31:23 And Jehovah commanded Joshua the son of Nun, and said, Be strong and courageous; for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I have sworn unto them; and I will be with thee.
Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had ended writing the words of this law in a book, until their conclusion,
Deu 31:25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee;





Deu 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:


Heb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant

billwald
June 28th, 2004, 10:41 AM
"Christians are not under the law. They are made righteous by the blood of Christ, not by following a set of rules."

Correct! But so was Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah . . . made righteous by the "blood of Christ, not by following a set of rules."

(Even) the rabbis now conclude that no one was made righteous by following a set of rules but by repentance and restoraton. The only important difference between Christianity and rabbinical Judaism is the status of Jesus.