_USURY._
NEHEMIAH v.
We open the fifth chapter of "Nehemiah" with a shock of pain. The
previous chapter described a scene of patriotic devotion in which
nearly all the people were united for the prosecution of one great
purpose. There we saw the priests and the wealthy citizens side by
side with their humble brethren engaged in the common task of building
the walls of Jerusalem and guarding the city against assault. The
heartiness with which the work was first undertaken, the readiness of
all classes to resume it after temporary discouragements, and the
martial spirit shown by the whole population in standing under arms in
the prosecution of it, determined to resist any interference from
without, were all signs of a large-minded zeal in which we should have
expected private interests to have given place to the public
necessities of the hour. But now we are compelled to look at the seamy
side of city life. In the midst of the unavoidable toils and dangers
occasioned by the animosity of the Samaritans, miserable internal
troubles had broken out among the Jews; and the perplexing problems
which seem to be inseparable from the gathering together of a number
of people under any known past or present social system had developed
in the most acute form. The gulf between the rich and the poor had
widened ominously; for while the poor had been driven to the last
extremity, their more fortunate fellow-citizens had taken a
monstrously cruel advantage of their helplessness. Famine-stricken men
and women not only cried to Nehemiah for the means of getting corn for
themselves and their families; they had a complaint to make against
their brethren. Some had lost their lands after mortgaging them to
rich Jews. Others had even been forced by the money-lenders to sell
their sons and daughters into slavery. They must have been on the
brink of starvation before resorting to such an unnatural expedient.
How wonderfully, then, do they exhibit the patience of the poor in
their endurance of these agonies! There were no bread-riots. The
people simply appealed to Nehemiah, who had already proved himself
their disinterested friend, and who, as governor, was responsible for
the welfare of the city.
It is not difficult to see how it came about that many of the citizens
of Jerusalem were in this desperate plight. In all probability most of
Zerubbabel's and Ezra's pilgrims had been in humble circumstances. It
is true successive expeditions had gone up with contributions to the
Jerusalem colony; but most of the stores they had conveyed had been
devoted to public works, and even anything that may have been
distributed among the citizens could only have afforded temporary
relief. War utterly paralyses industry and commerce. In Judæa the
unsettled state of the country must have seriously impeded
agricultural and pastoral occupations. Then the importation of corn
into Jerusalem would be almost impossible while roving enemies were on
the watch in the open country, so that the price of bread would rise
as a result of scarcity. At the same time the presence of persons from
the outlying towns would increase the number of mouths to be fed
within the city. Moreover, the attention given to the building of the
walls and the defence of Jerusalem from assault would prevent artisans
and tradesmen from following the occupations by which they usually
earned their living. Lastly, the former governors had impoverished the
population by exacting grievously heavy tribute. The inevitable result
of all this was debt and its miserable consequences.
Just as in the early history of Athens and later at Rome, the troubles
to the state arising from the condition of the debtors were now of the
most serious character. Nothing disorganises society more hopelessly
than bad arrangements with respect to debts and poverty. Nehemiah was
justly indignant when the dreadful truth was made known to him. We may
wonder why he had not discovered it earlier, since he had been going
in and out among the people. Was there a certain aloofness in his
attitude? His lonely night ride suggests something of the kind. In any
case his absorbing devotion to his one task of rebuilding the city
walls could have left him little leisure for other interests. The man
who is engaged in a grand scheme for the public good is frequently the
last to notice individual cases of need. The statesman is in danger of
ignoring the social condition of the people in the pursuit of
political ends. It used to be the mistake of most governments that
their foreign policy absorbed their attention to the neglect of home
interests.
Nehemiah was not slow in recognising the public need, when it was
brought under his notice by the cry of the distressed debtors.
According to the truly modern custom of his time in Jerusalem, he
called a public meeting, explained the whole situation, and appealed
to the creditors to give back the mortgaged lands and remit the
interest on their loans. This was agreed to at once, the popular
conscience evidently approving of the proposal. Nehemiah, however, was
not content to let the matter rest here. He called the priests, and
put them on their oath to see that the promise of the creditors was
carried out. This appeal to the priesthood is very significant. It
shows how rapidly the government was tending towards a sacerdotal
theocracy. But it is important to notice that it was a social and not
a purely political matter in which Nehemiah looked to the priests. The
social order of the Jews was more especially bound up with their
religion, or rather with their law and its regulations, while as yet
questions of quasi-foreign policy were freely relegated to the purely
civil authorities, the heads of families, the nobles, and the supreme
governor under the Persian administration.
Nehemiah followed the example of the ancient prophets in his
symbolical method of denouncing any of the creditors who would not
keep the promise he had extracted from them. Shaking out his mantle,
as though to cast off whatever had been wrapped in its folds, he
exclaimed, "So God shake out every man from his house, and from his
labour, that performeth not this promise; even thus be he shaken out,
and emptied."[191] This was virtually a threat of confiscation and
excommunication. Yet the _Ecclesia_ gladly assented, crying "Amen" and
praising the Lord.
[191] Neh. v. 13.
The extreme position here taken up by Nehemiah and freely conceded by
the people may seem to us unreasonable unless we have considered all
the circumstances. Nehemiah denounced the conduct of the money-lenders
as morally wrong. "The thing that ye do is not good," he said. It was
opposed to the will of God. It provoked the reproach of the heathen.
It was very different from his own conduct, in redeeming captives and
supporting the poor out of his private means. Now, wherein was the
real evil of the conduct of these creditors? The primitive law of the
"Covenant" forbad the Jews to take interest for loans among their
brethren.[192] But why so? Is there not a manifest convenience in the
arrangements by which those people who possess a superfluity may lend
to those who are temporarily embarrassed? If no interest is to be paid
for such loans, is it to be expected that rich people will run the
risk and put themselves to the certain inconvenience they involve? The
man who saves generally does so in order that his savings may be of
advantage to him. If he consents to defer the enjoyment of them, must
not this be for some consideration? In proportion as the advantages of
saving are reduced the inducements to save will be diminished, and
then the available lending fund of the community will be lessened, so
that fewer persons in need of temporary accommodation will be able to
receive it. From another point of view, may it not be urged that if a
man obtains the assistance of a loan he should be as willing to pay
for it as he would be to pay for any other distinct advantage? He does
not get the convenience of a coach-ride for nothing: why should he not
expect to pay anything for a lift along a difficult bit of his
financial course? Sometimes a loan may be regarded as an act of
partnership. The tradesman who has not sufficient capital to carry on
his business borrows from a neighbour who possesses money which he
desires to invest. Is not this an arrangement in which lending at
interest is mutually advantageous? In such a case the lender is really
a sort of "sleeping partner," and the interest he receives is merely
his share in the business, because it is the return which has come
back to him through the use of his money. Where is the wrong of such a
transaction? Even when the terms are more hard on the debtor, may it
not be urged that he does not accept them blindfold? He knows what he
is doing when he takes upon himself the obligations of his debt and
its accompanying interest; he willingly enters into the bond,
believing that it will be for his own advantage. How then can he be
regarded as the victim of cruelty?
[192] Exod. xxii. 25.
This is one side of the subject, and it is not to be denied that it
exhibits a considerable amount of truth from its own point of view.
Even on this ground, however, it may be doubted whether the advantages
of the debtor are as great as they are represented. The system of
carrying on business by means of borrowed capital is answerable for
much of the strain and anxiety of modern life, and not a little of the
dishonesty to which traders are now tempted when hard pressed. The
offer of "temporary accommodation" is inviting, but it may be
questioned whether this is not more often than not a curse to those
who accept it. Very frequently it only postpones the evil day.
Certainly it is not found that the multiplication of "pawn-shops"
tends to the comfort and well-being of the people among whom they
spring up, and possibly, if we could look behind the scenes, we should
discover that lending agencies in higher commercial circles were not
much more beneficial to the community.
Still, it may be urged, even if the system of borrowing and lending is
often carried too far, there are cases in which it is manifestly
beneficial. The borrower may be really helped over a temporary
difficulty. In a time of desperate need he may even be saved from
starvation. This is not to be denied. We must look at the system as a
whole, however, rather than only at its favourable instances.
The strength of the case for lending money at interest rests upon
certain plain laws of "Political Economy." Now it is absurd to
denounce the science of "Political Economy" as "diabolical." No
science can be either good or bad, for by its nature all science deals
only with truth and knowledge. We do not talk of the morality of
chemistry. The facts may be reprehensible; but the scientific
co-ordination of them, the discovery of the principles which govern
them, cannot be morally culpable. Nevertheless "Political Economy" is
only a science on the ground of certain pre-suppositions. Remove those
pre-suppositions, and the whole fabric falls to the ground. It is not
then morally condemned; it is simply inapplicable, because its data
have disappeared. Now one of the leading data of this science is the
principle of self-interest. It is assumed throughout that men are
simply producing and trading for their own advantage. If this
assumption is allowed, the laws and their results follow with the iron
necessity of fate. But if the self-seeking principle can be removed,
and a social principle be made to take its place, the whole process
will be altered. We see this happening with Nehemiah, who is willing
to lend free of interest. In his case the strong pleas for the
reasonableness, for the very necessity of the other system fall to the
ground. If the contagion of his example were universal, we should have
to alter our books of "Political Economy," and write on the subject
from the new standpoint of brotherly kindness.
We have not yet reached the bottom of this question. It may still be
urged that, though it was very gracious of Nehemiah to act as he did,
it was not therefore culpable in others who failed to share his views
and means not to follow suit. In some cases the lender might be
depending for a livelihood on the produce of his loans. If so, were he
to decline to exact it, he himself would be absolutely impoverished.
We must meet this position by taking into account the actual results
of the money-lending system practised by the Jews in Jerusalem in the
days of Nehemiah. The interest was high--"the hundredth part of the
money"[193]--_i.e._, with the monthly payments usual in the East,
equivalent to twelve per cent. annual interest. Then those who could
not pay this interest, having already pledged their estates, forfeited
the property. A wise regulation of Deuteronomy--unhappily never
practised--had required the return of mortgaged land every seven
years.[194] This merciful regulation was evidently intended to prevent
the accumulation of large estates in the hands of rich men who would
"add field to field" in a way denounced by the prophets with
indignation.[195] Thus the tendency to inequality of lots would be
avoided, and temporary embarrassment could not lead to the permanent
ruin of a man and his children after him. It was felt, too, that there
was a sacred character in the land, which was the Lord's possession.
It was not possible for a man to whom a portion had been allotted to
wholly alienate it; for it was not his to dispose of, it was only his
to hold. This mystical thought would help to maintain a sturdy race of
peasants--Naboth, for example--who would feel their duty to their land
to be of a religious nature, and who would therefore be elevated and
strengthened in character by the very possession of it. All these
advantages were missed by the customs that were found to be prevalent
in the time of Nehemiah.
[193] Neh. v. 11.
[194] Deut. xv. 1-6.
[195] _E.g._, Isa. v. 8.
Far worse than the alienation of their estates was the selling of
their children by the hard-pressed creditors. An ancient law of rude
times recognised the fact and regulated it in regard to
daughters;[196] but it is not easy to see how in an age of
civilisation any parents possessed of natural feeling could bring
themselves to consent to such a barbarity. That some did so is a proof
of the morally degrading effect of absolute penury. When the wolf is
at the door, the hungry man himself becomes wolfish. The horrible
stories of mothers in besieged cities boiling and eating their own
children can only be accounted for by some such explanation as this.
Here we have the severest condemnation of the social system which
permits of the utter destitution of a large portion of the community.
It is most hurtful to the characters of its victims; it de-humanises
them, it reduces them to the level of beasts.
[196] Exod. xxi. 7.
Did Ezra's stern reformation prepare the way for this miserable
condition of affairs? He had dared to tamper with the most sacred
domestic ties. He had attacked the sanctities of the home. May we
suppose that one result of his success was to lower the sense of home
duties, and even to stifle the deepest natural affections? This is at
least a melancholy possibility, and it warns us of the danger of any
invasion of family claims and duties by the Church or the State.
Now it was in face of the terrible misery of the Jews that Nehemiah
denounced the whole practice of usury which was the root of it. He was
not contemplating those harmless commercial transactions by which, in
our day, capital passes from one hand to another in a way of business
that may be equally advantageous to borrower and lender. All he saw
was a state of utter ruin--land alienated from its old families, boys
and girls sold into slavery, and the unfortunate debtors, in spite of
all their sacrifices, still on the brink of starvation. In view of
such a frightful condition, he naturally denounced the whole system
that led to it. What else could he have done? This was no time for a
nice discrimination between the use and the abuse of the system.
Nehemiah saw nothing but abuse in it. Moreover, it was not in
accordance with the Hebrew way ever to draw fine distinctions. If a
custom was found to be working badly, that custom was reprobated
entirely; no attempt was made to save from the wreck any good elements
that might have been discovered in it by a cool scientific analysis.
In The Law, therefore, as well as in the particular cases dealt with
by Nehemiah, lending at interest among Jews was forbidden, because as
usually practised it was a cruel, hurtful practice. Nehemiah even
refers to lending on a pledge, without mentioning the interest, as an
evil thing, because it was taken for granted that usury went with
it.[197] But that usury was not thought to be morally wrong in itself
we may learn from the fact that Jews were permitted by their law to
practise it with foreigners,[198] while they were not allowed to do
any really wrong thing to them. This distinction between the treatment
of the Jew and that of the Gentile throws some light on the question
of usury. It shows that the real ground of condemnation was that the
practice was contrary to brotherhood. Since then Christianity enlarges
the field of brotherhood, the limits of exactions are proportionately
extended. There are many things that we cannot do to a man when we
regard him as a brother, although we should have had no compunction in
performing them before we had owned the close relationship.
[197] Neh. v. 7, 10, where instead of "usury" (A.V.) we should read
"pledge."
[198] Deut. xv. 3-6.
We see then that what Nehemiah and the Jewish law really condemned was
not so much the practice of taking interest in the abstract as the
carrying on of cruel usury among brothers. The evil that lies in that
also appears in dealings that are not directly financial. The world
thinks of the Jew too much as of a Shylock who makes his money breed
by harsh exactions practised on Christians. But when Christians grow
rich by the ill-requited toil of their oppressed fellow-Christians,
when they exact more than their pound of flesh, when drop by drop they
squeeze the very life-blood out of their victims, they are guilty of
the abomination of usury--in a new form, but with few of its evils
lightened. To take advantage of the helpless condition of a fellow-man
is exactly the wickedness denounced by Nehemiah in the heartless rich
men of his day. It is no excuse for this that we are within our
rights. It is not always right to insist upon our rights. What is
legally innocent may be morally criminal. It is even possible to get
through a court of justice what is nothing better than a theft in the
sight of Heaven. It can never be right to push any one down to his
ruin.
But, it may be said, the miserable man brought his trouble upon
himself by his own recklessness. Be it so. Still he is our brother,
and we should treat him as such. We may think we are under no
obligation to follow the example of Nehemiah, who refused his pay from
the impoverished citizens, redeemed Israelites from slavery in foreign
lands, lent money free of interest, and entertained a number of Jews
at his table--all out of the savings of his old courtier days at Susa.
And yet a true Christian cannot escape from the belief that there is a
real obligation lying on him to imitate this royal bounty as far as
his means permit.
The law in Deuteronomy commanded the Israelite to lend willingly to
the needy, and not harden his heart or shut up his hands from his
"poor brother."[199] Our Lord goes further, for He distinctly requires
His disciples to lend when they do not expect that the loan will ever
be returned--"If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive," He asks,
"what thanks have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again
as much."[200] And St. Paul is thinking of no work of supererogation
when he writes, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the
_law_ of Christ."[201] Yet if somebody suggests that these precepts
should be taken seriously and put in practice to-day, he is shouted
down as a fanatic. Why is this? Will Christ be satisfied with less
than His own requirements?
[199] Deut. xv. 7, 8.
[200] Luke vi. 34.
[201] Gal. vi. 2.