Usury was not forbidden in the legitimate commercial dealings with foreigners (Deuteronomy 23:20); and the laws against it seem to have had exclusive reference to dealings among Israelites themselves, and were evidently enacted more with a view to the protection of the poor than because the idea of usury in itself was considered wrong (Exodus 22:25; Lew 25:36). So here the context plainly seems to limit the sin of usury to unjust application of the principle, being connected with bribery. Against “biting” usury (the Hebrew word primarily means “bite”) all governments find it necessary to legislate, as we see in the case of the money-lenders of our own time; but with the employment of capital put out on interest for legitimate purposes of trade, neither Hebrew feeling generally, as the whole career of the race shows, nor the higher minds among them, as we see by our Lord’s parable of the talents, were averse. The best illustrations of invectives of prophets and psalmists against extortionate usurers are supplied by Shakespeare’s play, The Merchant of Venice.

Continues after advertising
Continues after advertising