Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:25
If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is] poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
25. Interest not to be taken on money lent to the poor.
as a creditor ] exacting and impatient: cf. 2Ki 4:1, Psa 109:11 (where the same word is rendered ‘extortioner’).
usury ] interest. This was formerly the sense of ‘usury’ (Lat. usura, something paid for the use of money); but the word is now restricted to exorbitant interest; the rendering has consequently become misleading. The taking of interest is prohibited also in Lev 25:36 f. (H), and Deu 23:19 f.: it is referred to also with disapproval in Eze 18:8; Eze 18:13; Eze 18:17; Eze 22:12, Pro 28:8, Psa 15:5 (as what the model Israelite would not do). The same feeling against taking interest on money lent was entertained by Greek thinkers (see Plato, Legg. v. 742; Arist. Polit. i. 10. 5): it was also shared largely in the early Christian Church. Many good Christians, however, now put out their money on interest: what, then, is the cause of the change of feeling? The cause is to be found in the different purpose for which money is now lent. In modern times money is commonly lent for commercial purposes, to enable the borrower to increase his capital and develope his business: and it is as natural and proper that a reasonable payment should be made for the accommodation, as that it should be made for this loan (i.e. the hire) of a house, or any other commodity. But this use of loans is a modern development: in ancient times money was commonly lent for the relief of poverty brought about by misfortune or debt; it partook thus of the nature of a charity; and to take interest on money thus lent was felt to be making gain out of a neighbour’s need. The interest which ancient feeling condemned was thus not the interest taken on a commercial loan such as is taken habitually in the modern world, but the interest taken on a charitable loan, which only increases the borrower’s distress. Be the feeling with which the ancients regarded all interest is of course still rightly maintained against usurious interest, such as ‘money-lenders’ often exact from those whom need drives into their hands. Cf. the remarks of Grote, Hist. of Greece, Part II., ch. xi., in connexion with the measures adopted by Solon at Athens for the relief of those who had borrowed money on the security of their own persons (cf. 2Ki 4:1).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See the notes at Lev 25:35-43; compare Deu 23:19.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.] neshech, from nashach, to bite, cut, or pierce with the teeth; biting usury. So the Latins call it usura vorax, devouring usury. “The increase of usury is called neshech, because it resembles the biting of a serpent; for as this is so small as scarcely to be perceptible at first, but the venom soon spreads and diffuses itself till it reaches the vitals, so the increase of usury, which at first is not perceived nor felt, at length grows so much as by degrees to devour another’s substance.” – Leigh.
It is evident that what is here said must be understood of accumulated usury, or what we call compound interest only; and accordingly neshech is mentioned with and distinguished from tarbith and marbith, interest or simple interest, Le 25:36-37; Pr 28:8; Eze 18:8, Eze 18:13, Eze 18:17, and Ex 22:12. – Parkhurst.
Perhaps usury may be more properly defined unlawful interest, receiving more for the loan of money than it is really worth, and more than the law allows. It is a wise regulation in the laws of England, that if a man be convicted of usury – taking unlawful interest, the bond or security is rendered void, and he forfeits treble the sum borrowed. Against such an oppressive practice the wisdom of God saw it essentially necessary to make a law to prevent a people, who were naturally what our Lord calls the Pharisees, , lovers of money, (Lu 16:14), from oppressing each other; and who, notwithstanding the law in the text, practise usury in all places of their dispersion to the present day.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Any of my people, i.e. any Israelite; for it was permitted to take usury of the Gentiles, Deu 23:20.
That is poor: this seems to be added not by way of apposition, as if Gods people and the poor were all one, because such are commonly poor; but by way of restriction; for God had promised greatly to bless and enrich the generality of his people, if they by their wickedness did not hinder it, and that there should be few poor among them; yet some such there should be for the trial and exercise of their charity. See Lev 19:10; Deu 15:4,7,11.
Usury; the Hebrew word signifies biting; so usury is called, not by way of distinction, as if moderate usury were allowed in this case, which is manifestly false, because the borrower is here supposed to be poor, to whom not the use only, but ofttimes even the principal is to be remitted, Luk 6:34,35; but by way of explication, because all usury is of a biting or eating nature, which commonly consumes the person that pays it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, c,] Such only need to borrow money, and to whom it should be freely lent, when it may be to the good of the borrower, and not any injury to the lender: this law, according to the Jewish writers, only respects Israelites, and not Gentiles agreeably to which is Jarchi’s note,
“if thou lend, that is, not to a Gentile; and to which of my people? the poor, and to which of the poor? that is with thee:”
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer; that will not lend without usury, nor without an exorbitant interest, and deals very hardly with the borrower if he is not punctual in the payment of it; the Israelites were not only not to be usurers, but they were not to be like them; they were not to require anything for lending a poor man a little money; as not any settled interest, so neither were they to take any previous gift or reward later, see Lu 6:34
neither shalt thou lay upon him usury; or oblige him to give interest for money borrowed: it is in the plural, number, “neither shall ye lay”; and Aben Ezra observes, that the lender, scribe, and witness, all transgress this law; that is, when a man lends money on interest, and a bond is made by the scribe for it, and this signed by witnesses, all are guilty of the breach of it: yea, some Jewish writers h say, not only those, but whoever is a surety or bondsman for the payment, and even the borrower himself, [See comments on Ps 15:5].
h Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 5. sect. 11. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If a man should lend to one of the poor of his own people, he was not to oppress him by demanding interest; and if he gave his upper garment as a pledge, he was to give it him back towards sunset, because it was his only covering; as the poorer classes in the East use the upper garment, consisting of a large square piece of cloth, to sleep in. “ It is his clothing for his skin: ” i.e., it serves for a covering to his body. “ Wherein shall he lie? ” i.e., in what shall be wrap himself to sleep? (cf. Deu 24:6, Deu 24:10-13). – With Exo 22:28. God directs Himself at once to the hearts of the Israelites, and attacks the sins of selfishness and covetousness, against which the precepts in Exo 22:21-27 were directed in their deepest root, for the purpose of opposing all inward resistance to the promotion of His commands.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. 26 If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: 27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. 28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. 29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. 31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
Here is, I. A law against extortion in lending. 1. They must not receive use for money from any that borrowed for necessity (v. 25), as in that case, Neh 5:5; Neh 5:7. And such provision the law made for the preservation of estates to their families by the year of jubilee that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity, and therefore it is generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger, whom yet they might not oppress, they were allowed to lend upon usury: this law, therefore, in the strictness of it, seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state; but, in the equity of it, it obliges us to show mercy to those of whom we might take advantage, and to be content to share, in loss as well as profit, with those we lend to, if Providence cross them; and, upon this condition, it seems as lawful to receive interest for my money, which another takes pains with and improves, but runs the hazard of, in trade, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pains with and improves, but runs the hazard of, in husbandry. 2. They must not take a poor man’s bed-clothes in pawn; but, if they did, must restore them by bed-time, Exo 22:26; Exo 22:27. Those who lie soft and warm themselves should consider the hard and cold lodgings of many poor people, and not do any thing to make bad worse, or to add affliction to the afflicted.
II. A law against the contempt of authority (v. 28): Thou shalt not revile the gods, that is, the judges and magistrates, for their executing these laws; they must do their duty, whoever suffer by it. Magistrates ought not to fear the reproach of men, nor their revilings, but to despise them as long as they keep a good conscience; but those that do revile them for their being a terror to evil works and workers reflect upon God himself, and will have a great deal to answer for another day. We find those under a black character, and a heavy doom, that despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, Jude 8. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obliges us to honour and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people; no, not though the ruler was then his most unrighteous persecutor, Acts xxiii. 5; see Eccl. x. 20.
III. A law concerning the offering of their first-fruits to God, Exo 22:29; Exo 22:30. It was appointed before (ch. xiii), and it is here repeated: The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me; and much more reason have we to give ourselves, and all we have, to God, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The first ripe of their corn they must not delay to offer. There is danger, if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity, in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time. Let not young people delay to offer to God the first-fruits of their time and strength, lest their delays come, at last, to be denials, through the deceitfulness of sin, and the more convenient season they promise themselves never arrive. Yet it is provided that the firstlings of their cattle should not be dedicated to God till they were past seven days old, for then they began to be good for something. Note, God is the first and best, and therefore must have the first and best.
IV. A distinction put between the Jews and all other people: You shall be holy men unto me; and one mark of that honourable distinction is appointed in their diet, which was, that they should not eat any flesh that was torn of beasts (v. 31), not only because it was unwholesome, but because it was paltry, and base, and covetous, and a thing below those who were holy men unto God, to eat the leavings of the beasts of prey. We that are sanctified to God must not be curious in our diet; but we must be conscientious, not feeding ourselves without fear, but eating and drinking by rule, the rule of sobriety, to the glory of God.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 25-27:
“Usury” nashah, means simply “interest.” The present text applies primarily to the poor. However, other passages imply that no interest was to be charged to a fellow-Israelite, Ps 15:5; Pr 28:8; Eze 18:13. There was provision to charge interest to a foreigner, De 23:20; but this could not be an exorbitant rate. v. 21.
The Law did not prohibit the taking of a pledge as collateral for a loan. However, there were certain limitations as to what could be used as a pledge. In this text, the “raiment” or outer garment is designated as such an item. This garment was used as cover by night, to ward off the chill. If taken as collateral, it must be returned to the owner at night.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. If thou lend money to any of my people Humanity ought to be very greatly regarded in the matter of loans, especially when a person, being reduced to extremities, implores a rich man’s compassion; for this is, in. point of fact, the genuine trial of our charity, when, in accordance with Christ’s precept, we lend to those of whom we expect no return. (Luk 6:35.) The question here is not as to usury, as some have falsely thought, (111) as if he commanded us to lend gratuitously, and without any hope of gain; but, since in lending, private advantage is most generally sought, and therefore we neglect the poor; and only lend our money to the rich, from whom we expect some compensation, Christ reminds us that, if we seek to acquire the favor of the rich, we afford in this way no proof of our charity or mercy; and hence lie proposes another sort of liberality, which is plainly gratuitous, in giving assistance to the poor, not only because our loan is a perilous one, but because they cannot make a return in kind.
Before descending to speak of loans, God here adverts to poverty and distress, (Lev 25:35,) whereby men’s minds may be disposed to compassion. If any one be afflicted with poverty, he commands us to relieve his necessity. He makes use, however, of a metaphor, (112) that he who is tottering should be strengthened, as if by catching hold of his hand. What follows about the stranger and sojourner extends and amplifies, in my opinion, the previous sentence; as if it were said that, since humanity is not to be denied even to strangers, much more is assistance to be given to their brethren. For, when it pleased God that strangers should be permitted to inhabit the land, they were to be kindly treated (113) according to the rights of hospitality; for to allow them to live is to make their condition just and tolerable. And thus God indirectly implies, that such unhappy persons are expelled and driven away, so as not to live, if they are oppressed by unjust burdens. This, then, is the sum of the first sentence, that the rich, who has the ability, should uplift the poor man who is failing, by his assistance, or should strengthen the tottering.
A precept is added as to lending without interest, which, although it is a political law, still depends on the rule of charity; inasmuch as it can scarcely happen but that the poor should be entirely drained by the exaction of interest, and that their blood should be almost sucked away. Nor had God any other object in view, except that mutual and brotherly affection should prevail amongst the Israelites. It is plain that this was a part of the Jewish polity, because it was lawful to lend at interest to the Gentiles, which distinction the spiritual law does not admit. The judicial law, however, which God prescribed to His ancient people, is only so far abrogated as that what charity dictates should remain, i. e. , that our brethren, who need our assistance, are not to be treated harshly. Moreover, since the wall of partition, which formerly separated Jew and Gentile, is now broken down, our condition is now different; and consequently we must spare all without exception, both as regards taking interest, and any other mode of extortion; and equity is to be observed even towards strangers. “The household of faith.” indeed, holds the first rank, since Paul commands us specially to do good to them, (Gal 6:10😉 still the common society of the human race demands that we should not seek to grow rich by the loss of others.
As touching the political law, no wonder that God should have permitted His people to receive interest, from the Gentiles, since otherwise a just reciprocity would not have been preserved, without which one party must needs be injured. God commands His people not to practice usury, and still lays the Jews alone, and not foreign nations, under the obligation of this law. In order, therefore, that equality ( ratio analogica) might be preserved, He accords (114) the same liberty to His people which the Gentiles would assume for themselves; for this is the only intercourse that can be endured, when the condition of both parties is similar and equal. For when Plato (115) asserts that usurers are not to be tolerated in a well-ordered republic, lie does not go further than to enjoin, that its citizens should abstain from that base and. dishonest traffic between each other.
The question now is, whether usury is evil in itself; and surely that which heathens even have detested appears to be by no means lawful to the children of God. We know that the name of usurer has everywhere and always been infamous and detested. Thus Cato, (116) desiring to commend agriculture, says that thieves were formerly condemned to a fine of double, and usurers quadruple; from which he infers, that the latter were deemed the worst. And when asked what he thought of usury, he replied, “What do I think of killing a man?” whereby he wished to show, that it was as improper to make money by usury as to commit murder. This was the swing of one private individual, yet it is derived from the opinions of almost all nations and persons. And assuredly from this cause great tumults often arose at Rome, and fatal contentions were awakened between the common people and the rich; since it can hardly be but that usurers suck men’s blood like leeches. But if we come to an accurate decision as to the thing itself, our determination must be derived from nowhere else than the universal rule of justice, and especially from the declaration of Christ, on which hang the law and the prophets, — Do not unto others what ye would not have done to thyself. ( Mat 7:12.) For crafty men are for ever inventing some little subterfuge or other to deceive God. Thus, when all men detested the word foenus, another was substituted, which might avoid unpopularity under an honest pretext; for they called it usury, as being a compensation for the loss a man had incurred by losing the use of his money. But (117) there is no description of foenus to which this specious name may not be extended; for whosoever has any ready money, and is about to lend it, he will allege that it would be profitable to himself if he were to purchase (118) something with it, and that at every moment opportunities of gain are presenting themselves. Thus there will be always ground for his seeking compensation, since no creditor could ever lend money without loss to himself. Thus usury, (119) since the word is equivalent to foenus, is but a covering for an odious practice, as if such glosses would deliver us in God’s judgment, where nothing but absolute integrity can avail for our defense. There was almost a similar mode of subterfuge among the Israelites. The name נש5, neschec, which is derived from biting, sounded badly; since then no one chose to be likened to a hungry dog, who fed himself by biting others, some escape from the reproach was sought; and they called whatever gain they received beyond the capital, תרבית, therbith, as being an increase. But God, in order to prevent such deception, unites the two words, ( Lev 25:36,) and condemns the increase as well as the biting. For, where He complains of their unjust modes of spoiling and thieving in Ezekiel, (120) and uses both words as He does here by Moses, there is no doubt but that He designedly cuts off their empty excuses. ( Eze 18:13.) Lest any, therefore, should reply, that although he derived advantage from his money, he was not on that account guilty of usury, God at once removes this pretense, and condemns in general any addition to the principal. Assuredly both passages clearly show that those who invent new words in excuse of evil, do nothing but vainly trifle. I have, then, admonished men that the fact itself is simply to be considered, that all unjust gains are ever displeasing to God, whatever color we endeavor to give to it. But if we would form an equitable judgment, reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception. If the debtor have protracted the time by false pretences to the loss and inconvenience of his creditor, will it be consistent that he should reap advantage from his bad faith and broken promises? Certainly no one, I think, will deny that usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal, to compensate his loss. (121) If any rich and monied man, wishing to buy a piece of land, should borrow some part of the sum required of another, may not he who lends the money receive some part of the revenues of the farm until the principal shall be repaid? Many such cases daily occur in which, as far as equity is concerned, usury is no worse than purchase. Nor will that subtle argument (122) of Aristotle avail, that usury is unnatural, because money is barren and does not beget money; for such a cheat as I have spoken of, might make much profit by trading with another man’s money, and the purchaser of the farm might in the meantime reap and gather his vintage. But those who think differently, may object, that we must abide by God’s judgment, when He generally prohibits all usury to His people. I reply, that the question is only as to the poor, and consequently, if we have to do with the rich, that usury is freely permitted; because the Lawgiver, in alluding to one thing, seems not to condemn another, concerning which He is silent. If again they object that usurers are absolutely condemned by David and Ezekiel, ( Psa 15:5; Eze 18:13,) I think that their declarations ought to be judged of by the rule of charity; and therefore that only those unjust exactions are condemned whereby the creditor, losing’ sight of equity, burdens and oppresses his debtor. I should, indeed, be unwilling to take usury under my patronage, and I wish the name itself were banished from the world; but I do not dare to pronounce upon so important a point more than God’s words convey. It is abundantly clear that the ancient people were prohibited from usury, but we must needs confess that this was a part of their political constitution. Hence it follows, that usury is not now unlawful, except in so far as it contravenes equity and brotherly union. Let each one, then, place himself before God’s judgment-seat, and not do to his neighbor what he would not have done to himself, from whence a sure and infallible decision may be come to. To exercise the trade of usury, since heathen writers accounted it amongst disgraceful and base modes of gain, is much less tolerable among the children of God; but in what cases, and how far it may be lawful to receive usury upon loans, the law of equity will better prescribe than any lengthened discussions.
Let us now examine the words. In the first place, where we have translated the words, “Thou shalt not be to him as a usurer,” (123) there is some ambiguity in the Hebrew word נש5, nashac, for it is sometimes used generally for to lend, without any ill meaning; but here it is undoubtedly applied to a usurer, who bites the poor; as also in Psa 109:11, “Let the usurer catch all that he hath.” (124) The sum is, that the poor are to be liberally aided, and not to be oppressed by harsh exactions: and therefore immediately afterwards it is added, “neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” When again He repeats, “And if thy brother be waxen poor,” etc., we see that reference is everywhere made to the poor; because, although sometimes those who possess large properties are ruined by usury, (as Cicero says that certain luxurious and prodigal persons ill his days contended against usury with the fruits of their farms, because their creditors swallowed up the whole produce; (125)) still the poor alone, who had been compelled to borrow by want, and not by luxury, were worthy of compassion.
The third passage, however, admirably explains the meaning of God, since it extends usury to corn and wine, and all other articles. For many contracts were invented by artful men, whereby they pillaged the needy without ignominy or disgrace: and now-a-days no rapacity is more cruel than that which imposes a payment upon debtors, without any mention of usury; for instance, if a poor man should ask the loan of six measures of wheat, the creditor will require seven to be repaid; or if the same thing should happen as regards wine. This profit will not be called usury, because no money will pass; but God, indirectly casting ridicule upon their craftiness, shows that this plague of usury (126) extends itself to various things, and to almost all sorts of traffic; whence it clearly appears that nothing else is prescribed to the Israelites, but that they should humanely assist each other. But, since cupidity blinds men, and carries them, aside to dishonest dealings, God sets His blessing in opposition to all such iniquitous arts, whereby they hawk, as it were, for gain; and commands them to look for riches rather to Him the author of all good things, than to hunt for them by rapine and fraud.
(111) See C. on Luk 6:35. Harmony of the Evang., vol. 1 p. 302. — (Calvin Soc. edit.,) together with the Editor’s note.
(112) Margin. A. V. , “If his hand faileth, then thou shalt strengthen him.” “When a man is so impoverished that he hath no means, they are commanded to strengthen him, as taking him by the hand; so the Lord is said to strengthen the right hand of Cyrus, when he assisted him against his enemies, Isa 45:11, etc.” — Willet, in loco.
(113) “Il a entendu qu’on les traittast humainement;” He implied that they should be treated with humanity. — Fr.
(114) “Il permet aux Juifs pareille liberte envers les nations estranges, que les Payens se donnoyent envers les Juifs; “He permits the Jews to have equal liberty with respect to foreign nations, with that which the heathen gave themselves with respect to the Jews. — Fr.
(115) Πολιτεία Γ. in fin.
(116) “Furem dupli condenmari, foeneratorem quadrupli.” Cato de R. Rust. in procem. “Ex quo genere comparationis illud est Catonis senis; a quo quum quaereretur, quid maxime in re familiari expediret, respondit, Bene pascere. Quid secundum? Satis bene pascere. Quid tertium? Male pascere. Quid quartum? orare. Et, cum ille, qui quaesierat, dixisset, Quid foenerari? Tum Cato, Quid hominem, inquit, occidere? ” Cic. de Off. 2:24.
(117) In Fr. the following sentence is here inserted: — “Ce titre la doncques a este favorable: comme en nostre langage Francois le mot d’Usure sera assez en horreur, mais les interests ont la vogue sous nulle difficulte ni scrupule:” This title then was an euphemism, as in our French language, the word Usury will be sufficiently dreaded, whilst Interest is current without difficulty or scruple. Say. Econ. Polit. B. 2Ch 8:0 Section 1., tells us that, “L’interet…s’appelait, auparavant usure, et c’etait le mot propre, puisque l’interet est un prix, un loyer qu’on paie pour avoir la jouissance d’une valeur. Mais ce mot est devenu odieux; il ne reveille plus que l’idee d’un interet illegal, exorbitant, et on lui en a substitue un autre plus honnete et moins expressif selon la coutume.”
(118) “Terre ou marchandise.” — Fr.
(119) “Ainsi, combien que ce nom d’Usure ait este favorable de soy du commencement, en la fin il a este diffame;” Thus, although this word Usury was of no ill meaning in its origin, in the end it has been abused. — Fr.
(120) See C. on Eze 18:5, where the subject is more fully discussed. C. Soc. Edit. vol. 2 p. 225, et seq. See also Mr. Myers’s Dissertation, ibid. , p. 469.
(121) Addition in Fr. , “Je say qu’on nomme cela Interest, mais ce m’est tout un:” I know that they call this interest, but this is all the same to me.
(122) Polit. , lib. 1. cap. 10. “The enemies to interest in general, (says Blackstone,) make no distinction between that and usury, holding any m-crease of money to be indefensibly usurious. And this they ground, as well on the prohibition of it by the Law of Moses among the Jews, as also upon what is said to be laid down by Aristotle, that money is naturally barren, and to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion of the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purposes of exchange, and not of increase.” The hypothetical form in which he attributes this dictum to Aristotle, he explains in a note to be, because “this passage hath been suspected to be spurious.” — Comment, on the Laws of England, b. 2. ch. 30 sec. 454.
(123) C. here uses the word foenerator; whereas his translation is, it will be seen, usurarius.
(124) A. V. , “The extortioner.”
(125) “Neque id (quod stultissimum est) certare cum usuris fructibus praediorurn.” Cic. Or. in Cat. 2da. 8, i. e. , says Facciolati in voce certo, “tot usuris se onerare, ut praediorum fructus exaequent: qua ratione fructus cum usuris committuntur, et certant, et plerumque superantur, quia usurae quotannis certae sunt, fructus autem incerti.” Fr. , “Car combien que ceux qui possedent beaucoup soyent aucunefois epuisez, pource qu’ils ne sont que receveurs de ceux auxquels ils doyvent;” for, although those who possess much are often ruined, because they are only the receivers of their creditors, etc.
(126) Foenebre malum.” — Lat. “Ceste vermine d’usure.” — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Exo. 22:31. And ye shall be holy men.] This seemingly abrupt clause is to be taken in a relation of strict sequence with all that has gone before. As much as to say: And sonamely, by your observance of all these instructionsye shall be (or become) holy men. It is true that these words are introduced simply by the conjunction vav; the part, however, which this small word plays in Hebrew syntax is beginning to be more rightly appreciated. Its strong sequential force is, no doubt, more commonly noticed when it is construed with a verb, in which case it very frequently requires to be translated and then, and so, so, so that; but it can also denote the sequence of thought before any other word (and was in that case originally spoken with a tone peculiar to itself) (Ewald, Intro. Heb. Gram., sec. 348). And so it may have this force With a noun as here. This very example is a strong proof of such a usage; since thereby alone does the fitness of these words to their place appear. The thought evolved by this legitimate recognition of their fitness is one of which the earnest teacher of Gods people may make a most fruitful use. The end of redemption is holiness; the rule and guide of holiness is the revealed will of the Thrice Holy One.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 22:25-31
THE DIVINE NATURE HAS TWO ASPECTS
The Almighty declares Himself gracious unto those who cry unto Him for succour; and in His provision He makes special regulations for the protection of those who might easily become the prey of the ungracious. With the merciful man thou shalt thyself be merciful, and with the upright man thou shalt shew Thyself upright. With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward Thou wilt shew Thyself unsavoury. And the afflicted people Thou wilt save; but Thine eyes are upon the haughty, that Thou mayest bring them down. The haughty must not presume upon the Divine graciousness; but the afflicted people may reasonably hope in His salvation.
I. We must learn to deal tenderly with the poor. Blessed is he that considereth the poor; the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. The cause of the poor is the cause of God. The Bible should be the poor mans Book In no other ethical systems is their case fully considered, or are their claims urgently pressed. The subject of usury is difficult. We must find it hard to settle what is mere proper interest, and what is usury. Certainly the exigency of the poor must not be abused. In that early society, where money was not largely required, we may suppose that money was to be lent without interest. That it must be very small, at least, is evident from the fact that the poor mans raiment, given for a pledge, must be returned to him before the sun has gone down. The mantle marks the extreme of poverty in general. The indigent Oriental covers himself at night in his outer garment. Great cruelty is characteristic of him who keeps in pledge the poor mans protection from the cold of an Eastern night. How many are those who cry because of the advantage taken of their poverty! While God is gracious unto those who call for help, what will He be to the pitiless. Let men be gracious unto the poor that God may be gracious unto those who are indeed poor and needy, though rich in earthly possessions.
II. We must be respectful in our dealings with those in high estate. The word gods in Exo. 22:28 is taken by some to mean the Deity. Thus the Israelites are commanded not to revile the deity. A more general way of dishonouring God than that of directly cursing Jehovah. And this view is supposed to be supported by the next sentence, nor curse the ruler of thy people, as Gods vicegerents, as the one next to, and placed in a position of authority by God. Certainly, he who dishonours the powers that be dishonours Him by whom the powers are appointed. Even Pauls practical opposition to the powers is accompanied by wonderful Christian courtesy. We must not curse the rulers; and the rulers must not oppressmust not interfere with the authority of conscience. When rulers and consciences are opposed resistance must follow, but resistance may be courteous while it is firm. The highest style of gentleman is the Christian. Let us forbear cursing or reviling, lest we dishonour the Infinite Ruler.
III. We must be prompt in presenting our offerings. He gives twice who gives quickly. Delays are dangerous. Delay not to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors. The fruit of all is to be presented as an offering to Him who is the first great cause of all productiveness. In these New Testament times we reverse the order. The first we give ourselves; and the last, if we can easily spare it, we give to God; and yet surely He has a greater claim. If under the law God could command the first of all, how much more under the Gospel! The God of revelation is the God of nature, we must not do unnecessary violence to nature even for the promotion of religion. Seven days must the sheep be with the dam before it is offered. A truly religious spirit will not interfere with natural productiveness and social prosperity.
IV. The glorious purpose of all Divine legislation. And ye shall be holy men unto Me. This is the great directing motive for all Gods movements with reference to His people. Holy men must have regard to the beauty and welfare of the temple when the spirit of holiness is enshrined. Ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. Defile not the temple of God. The body is the souls temple. The purity of the temple promotes the purity of the worshipper.W. Burrows, B.A.
CONCERNING LOANS.Exo. 22:25-27
While every one is liable to those fluctuations of fortune which entail temporary embarrassment or permanent poverty, the legitimacy and necessity of loans is apparent. The same remark applies to loans on security for purposes of trade. Loans are only illegitimate when applied to immoral purposes, or when they encourage indolence. The law before us provides
I. That in a case of real distress the rules of an ordinary commercial transaction were to be set aside, and the loan decided on the principles of humanity (Lev. 25:35-43; Deu. 23:19).
II. That in a matter of business (presumably) when the loan is under some risk, but which is expected to yield the borrower some kind of profit; then, as in the case of mortgages and pawnbroking, a security is required. But this security, if a necessity of life, as, e.g., the loose outer robe used for a coverlet as well as a garment, was to be restored when wanted.
III. That the graciousness of God should be the motive of mans conduct to his fellow in matters of obligation, and even business.
IV. That in this case, and in others which were to be decided on the principles of humanity, God took the consideration of the infraction of His law into His own hand.
Application.i. Avoid borrowing or lending as far as possible. ii. When needful or in the way of business, let mercy and generosity enter into the transaction, as well as interest and justice. iii. God has been gracious to you, be gracious to your fellow (Mat. 10:8). iv. Remember that God executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.J. W. Burn.
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES TO RESPECT.Exo. 22:28
There has been some controversy about the interpretation of the first clause, Thou shalt not revile Elohim.
1. Some understand it God, conformably with Gen. 1:1 and general usage. (De Wette, Keil, Knobel, Speakers Com.,&c.)
2. Some (as A.V. LXX. Vulg. Luther, Cranmer, &c.) Gods. Philo and Josephus understand it as expressing liberality to gods of other nations. And
3. (The Targum, Syr, Saadia, Theod. Genevan, &c.) as the marg. judges. The second may be dismissed. The third is untenable, as in that case Elohim would have the article prefixed. The first is the ordinary translation, and as here employed, suggests that magistrates wield the delegated authority of God, rule by Divine right, and are therefore entitled to respect (Jos. 4:14; Psa. 21:6-7; Pro. 24:21-22; Ecc. 8:2-3).
I. That the powers that be are ordained of God (Rom. 13:1-5; 1Pe. 2:13-15).
II. That magistrates must be treated with respect, both their persons and their decisions (Jos. 1:16-18).
1. Because they administer that which when it is law at all, is based on the will and authority of God (Rom. 13:2).
2. Because they administer that which is the bulwark of national stability and personal safety (Rom. 13:3).
III. That magistrates must receive respect, irrespective of the effect of their decision (Pro. 17:26).
1. Because they are but the servants of the law.
2. Because if through human infirmities, justice should occasionally miscarry, it is better to suffer than to bring the law into disrepute (Pro. 24:21-22).
3. But if their decisions violate conscience, then Act. 4:19-20; Act. 5:29.
IV. That magistrates must be secure against all hostile action (Pro. 17:26; Job. 34:17-18).
1. Fear will warp the judgment.
2. Fear will divert the course of justice.
V. That magistrates are not only entitled to respect, but to our sympathy and prayers (Psa. 22:1-2; Ezr. 6:10; 1Ti. 2:2).
VI. That disrespect to magistrates is severely condemned (Jud. 1:8).
Application.Let magistrates, all who are in authority and all who administer law whether civil or domestic, whether in law courts, homes or houses of business, rememberi. That they are responsible to God (2Sa. 23:3). Let them see
(1) that they accurately know the law, and
(2) that their administration is conscientious and courageous (Psalms 72; Psa. 74:12-14). ii. That they are responsible to man. Upon their decisions depend the well-being of the citizen, and the stability of the realm. iii. That their title to sympathy and veneration is recognised by the people at large.J. W. Burn.
CONSECRATION.Exo. 22:29-31
These laws are most appropriately interrupted by the revelation of Gods claims upon us and ours. This revelation teaches us
I. That Gods law should lead us to consider our relation to the Lawgiver.
1. We are not slaves under the rigorous and iron rule of an inflexible despot (Joh. 15:15; Rom. 8:15).
2. But sons under the mild, free, and benignant rule of our Father in heaven (Num. 11:12; Deu. 22:6; Rom. 8:15-16; Jas. 1:25; Jas. 2:12).
3. And should therefore disseminate and obey those laws which are for our Fathers glory and our brothers good.
II. That this relation to the Lawgiver should lead to the practical acknowledgment of His claims upon the service of all we have.
1. He has claims upon our property. We are only stewards (1Co. 4:7).
(1) Those claims upon part of it are literal and exclusive, and must be acknowledged by benevolence to the poor and the support of his ministers.
(2) Those claims are upon the whole of it, and must be acknowledged by the use of all our property in getting the will of God done on earth as it is done in heaven.
2. He has claims upon our children.
(1) We must be cautious how we abrogate this literal claim upon one of them. If, under the old dispensation, one was to be specially dedicated to His service, there are stronger reasons for the same under the new. While education for the ministry, as a mere profession, cannot be too strongly reprobated, yet when God comes to call at your house for labourers for His harvest, let Him find one at least of your children ready for that call. Let all parents, whether rich or poor, take heed to their privileges and duties in this direction.
(2) But as God has claims upon all of your children, see that they are dedicated to Him and trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
III. That Gods claims should be acknowledged first. The first of thy ripe fruits, &c.
1. Let Gods claims be acknowledged first in the order of time. The Jew embraced the first opportunityas soon as the sheep could leave its dam, and the child its mother, Gods claim was recognised. Surely the Christian should not be behind the Jew. In Gods cause as well as mans, he pays twice who pays promptly. Do not wait till the end of the quarter or the year before you pay your subscription. Let it be at the beginning.
2. Let Gods claims be acknowledged first in point of quality. First of ripe fruits. Other laws, based upon these claims, enact that the gifts shall be without blemish. Gods sacrifices were of the best of beasts, Gods house was the best in the land. How sad the contrast between this and Christian customs. Any scrap of money, or time, or prosperity, is good enough for Gods use, and any barn good enough for His worship. And when a noble spirit is awakened, it is met with the old and usual, To what purpose is this waste? Not that God is particular, whose is the earth and the fulness thereof! He can value the widows mite. But let them see to it, who live on the fat of the land and give a reluctant morsel to Gods cause; who can give the whole twenty-four hours to their own interest, and not as many minutes to Gods, and who sleep in palaces but worship in hovels (Hag. 1:2).
3. Let Gods claims be recognised first in order of interest. If the rest of the flock died, this must be given to God. But now Gods interests are considered last. After having consulted the claims of self, family, business, then if anything is left it may be given to God. On the other hand, if there must be retrenchment then Gods interests are considered firstto be invaded and ignored, and the guinea dwindles down to half a sovereign, &c.
IV. That Gods claims should be acknowledged systematically. First, on the eighth day. God here demanded a definite amount at a definite time. Gods claims must not be considered more recklessly or haphazard than those of family and business. The Christian rule must not be repealed till God repeals it (1Co. 16:1-2).
V. That our relation to the Divine Lawgiver should lead to the practical acknowledgment of His claims upon all we are, Exo. 22:31. Gods claim is everywhere on ourselves. No proxies, as such, are permitted. There are many who acknowledge Gods claims on what they have that but practically repudiate them which are personal. But (1Co. 6:20).
1. God demands personal holiness.
(1.) Separation from sin.
(2.) Separation to Himself. (See on Exo. 19:10.) Gods command is, Be ye holy, for I am holy, Gods will is even your sanctification.
2. God demands a practical exhibition of that holiness in the dignity and nobility of our lives. The flesh that was torn by wild beasts was not forbidden as unclean, but because it was mean and paltry for those members of the kingdom of priests to eat their leavings. So the Christian, in his living and general conduct, must not condescend to practices which degrade his profession and dishonour his God.
Learn
i. That all you have belongs to God.
1. How noble.
2. How safe are our possessions.
ii. That all we are belongs to God.
1. What dignity (Rev. 1:5-6).
2. What promises (Mat. 6:25-34; 2Co. 6:16-18; 2Co. 7:1; Rom. 8:28). 3 What safety (Luk. 12:32; Joh. 10:28-29; Rom. 8:31-39). And what glory (Rom. 8:18; 1Jn. 3:2), belong to the sons of God.
iii. What manner of persons ought we to be?J. W. Burn.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Divine Enactments! Exo. 22:1-31.
(1) There is a world of difference between a stained glass window and a kaleidoscope. Their relative values are very different, and so is their structure. The pieces of variegated glass are flung anyhow, for the prism to arrange; whereas, those employed in the window are all arranged to give a beautiful, effective, and abiding impression. These separate enactments are not strung together haphazard. On the contrary, they are chords divinely arranged to produce harmony in the world, and give forth strains of Divine adoration in their observance.
(2) If one side of a tree grows, and the other does not, the tree acquires a crooked form. It may be fruitful, but it cannot be beautiful. God would have humanities and nationalities, theocracies and individualities, both rich in the beauties of holiness and the fruits of righteousness. The unequal growth of the Christian graces is undesirable; hence the numerous Divine precautions to make them alike fair, fragrant, and fruitful.
Stern lawgiving! yet thou dost wear
The Godheads most benignant grace;
Flowers laugh before thee on their beds;
And fragrance in thy footing treads;
Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong.
Wordsworth.
Security Pledges! Exo. 22:26-27. In all parts of Southern Africa the skin cloak is the covering of males and females by day and night. The Hottentot cloak is composed of sheepskins, retaining the wool on the inside of it; and in this he sleeps comfortably under a bush or tree. In the East, extreme heat of the day is often succeeded by extreme cold of the night. The Israelite encamping in the wilderness would probably be often content with such a cloak or mantle. No doubt in the Holy Land there would be many poor, who could afford no other raiment than this by night and day. The Red Indian has his blanket, in which he wraps himself when wandering in his vast native forests. The thoughtful and gracious care of God, therefore, shines out sweetly in this humane and considerate enactment. Man should follow the Divine example.
Have love! Not love alone for one,
But man, as man, thy brothers call;
And scatter, like the circling sun,
Thy charities on all.
Schiller.
Gratitude-Gifts! Exo. 22:29-30. St. Paul stamps the sin of ingratitude to God as peculiarly heinous, when he says of the heathen (Romans 1) that they were not thankful. Senecabetween whom and St. Paul some suppose that there was personal intercoursesays: We are thankful to a friend for a few acres of land only, or for a little money; and yet for the possession of the whole earth, which God has given us, we care not to testify any grateful returns. The English proverb declares a humiliating axiom: The river passed, and God is forgotten. The Italian form of it sounds a still sadder depth of ingratitude: The peril passed, the saint mocked. Mandrabulus the Samian, having vowed to the goddess Juno a golden ram if she disclosed to him a certain mine, the Greek story runs that under her auspices and direction he was the discoverer. Once in possession, however, his votive-offering of a golden ram dwindled down into a silver one; that again for a brass one; and at last nothing at all. God here lays down the law of Divine gratitude, in which are also involved the Divine rights of human self-consecration: All that I have is Thine; I am my Beloveds, and my Beloved is mine; Let my Beloved come into His garden, and eat His pleasant fruits. But
Man, the worldly, ingrate man can ever
Enjoy Gods gifts, but never mind the Giver;
And like the swine, though pampered with enough,
His eyes are never higher than the trough.
Quarles.
Cheerful Consecration! Exo. 22:30. As fruits artificially raised or forced in the hothouse have not the exquisite flavour of those fruits which are grown naturally, and in their due season; so that obedience, which is enforced by the requirements of the law, wants the genuine flavour and sweetness of that obedience which springs from a heart warmed with the love of God in Christ. God loves a cheerful giver, for this among other reasons: The votive-fruits of such self-dedication are exceeding sweet to His taste. How much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices! (Son. 2:10).
Come, bring thy gift. If blessings were as slow
As mens returns, what would become of fools?
Herbert.
Legislation-Links! Exo. 22:31. The study of the Mosaic laws will repay the students. They will repay the historian, says Hamilton; for they will introduce him to a civilisation compared with which the Greek culture and Roman commonwealth are barbarisms. They will repay the jurist, for in the dividends and compensationsthe doctrine of trespass and damage and malice prepense laid down by the Hebrew lawgiver, he will find the origin or earnest of much in our own British statute-book. And they will repay every student of morals and of mankind; for thoughts, says Wines, colonise as well as races; ideas, like families, have a genealogy and a propagation. The cradle of all codes is the law of Mosaic enactments.
These are the lessons God would write
These laws as with a burning pen,
In traces of eternal light,
Upon the hearts of men.
Schiller.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(25) Usurer. . . . usury.The Hebrew nsheh and nshek have no sense of excess attached to them. They mean simply interest, and the man who lends upon interest.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(25-27) The Mosaic law of borrowing and lending was strange and peculiar. It was absolutely forbidden to exact any interest from those borrowers who were Israelites. The wording of the present passage, and of some others (Lev. 25:35; Deu. 15:7), construed strictly, prohibits interest only on loans to the poor; but, as in a primitive state of society only the poor wish to borrow, the qualifying expression lost its force, and to exact any interest of any Israelite was regarded as wrong. (See Psa. 15:5; Pro. 28:8; Neh. 5:7; Neh. 5:11; Eze. 18:13; Eze. 22:12.) And some prohibitions, as Deu. 23:19, were expressed in the most general terms. On the other hand, the lending of money upon interest to foreigners was distinctly allowed (Deu. 23:20), and no limit placed upon the amount of interest that might be taken.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. A usurer Or, a creditor, here regarded as a rigid exacter of interest . The tenderness enjoined in regard to loans to the poor was adapted to cultivate compassion and brotherly feeling . But it was not designed to favour the indolent and vicious .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Regulations Concerning Creditors And The Poor ( Exo 22:25-27 ).
In both examples the creditor is to show compassion to the debtor. The examples are too few for a chiasmus.
Exo 22:25
“If you lend money to any of my people among you who are poor, you will not be to him as a creditor, nor shall you lay on him usury.”
This is not dealing with business interest as a fair return on capital. It refers to exploitation of poor people by charging them interest when ‘helping’ them in their need. God expects that His people will help the needy. He also expects that they will not seek to gain from it.
“You shall not be to him as a creditor.” That is, pursuing him relentlessly until he has paid his debt. ‘Nor lay on him usury.’ That is, charge him interest.
Exo 22:26-27
“If you at all take your neighbour’s outer garment as a pledge, you shall restore it to him by the time the sun goes down. For that is his only covering. It is his garment for his skin. In what will he sleep? And it shall be that when he cries to me I will hear, for I am gracious.”
A man who has to pledge his own basic clothing is poor indeed, for it is essential to his well-being. Thus the essential outer garment must only be used as a short term pledge, within the day. It must not be required as a long term pledge, for it is as essential to him as his skin, and protects his skin, especially in the cold of night. Amo 2:8 speaks of breaches of this commandment. Of what use then is the pledge? It prevents him pledging it again to someone else.
“When he cries to me I will hear.” As with widows and orphans the poor are God’s special concern, allowed on earth that we may do them good, and He will be directly involved in dealing with those who mistreat them. Man’s responsibility for his fellowman comes out strongly in these verses, it is man who has been appointed as God’s agent to run the world and he will be responsible for any failure to do it properly, and that includes us.
“For I am gracious.” The word is often paralleled with ‘merciful’. It refers to God as not acting towards us as we deserve but in kindness and love.
The principles behind these provisions apply to us all. They are that God is concerned about the needy and helpless and that we should be equally concerned.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Exo 22:25. Thou shalt not be to him as an usurer The Hebrew word neshek, signifies biting usury, says Parkhurst: so the Latins call it usura vorax: to this purpose some Hebrew. critics observe, that “the increase of usury is called neshek, because it resembles the bite of a serpent; for, as this is so small as scarcely to be perceptible at first, but the venom soon spreads and diffuses itself, till it reaches the vitals; so the increase of usury, which, at first, is not perceived or felt, at length grows so much, as by degrees to devour another’s substance.” It is evident, that what is here said must be understood of accumulated usury, or what we call compound interest, only. This is an offence, which almost all nations and people have agreed to condemn: indeed, the word usurer is commonly understood with us in a bad sense, for an exactor of illegal and exorbitant interest; and our laws subject the offender, on conviction, to a threefold restitution: on this account it is to be wished that, in Mat 25:27 and Luk 19:23 our translators had used the word interest or increase, instead of usury. This usury is certainly forbidden to the Hebrews: but, from Deu 23:19-20 one would be apt to conclude, that every kind of usury or interest upon money, &c. between Hebrew and Hebrew, was forbidden; as usury from a stranger is there permitted. See Lev 25:35-36. The design of the great Lawgiver seems to have been, to inculcate benevolence among his people, and a tender regard to the poorer sort especially: while, with respect to strangers and others who traded with the nation, he permitted that advantage arising from the loan of money or commutation of goods, which all nations have agreed to allow, and upon which all commerce is founded. See Neh 5:7.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The character of every citizen of Zion is to abhor those practices. See Psa 15 throughout.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 22:25 If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is] poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Ver. 25. Thou shalt not be to him as a usurer. ] Heb., As an exacting creditor, Qui nullum diem gratis occidere creditori permittit. The usurer’s money is to necessity, like cold water to a hot ague, that for a time refresheth, but prolongeth the disease.
Lay upon him usury.
a Arist., Ethic, lib. iv. cap. 1.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 25:35-37, Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20, 2Ki 4:1, 2Ki 4:7, Neh 5:2-5, Neh 5:7, Neh 5:10, Neh 5:11, Psa 15:5, Pro 28:8, Jer 15:10, Eze 18:8, Eze 18:17, Mat 25:27, Luk 19:23
Reciprocal: Lev 25:36 – usury Deu 15:3 – General Pro 29:13 – meet Eze 22:12 – thou hast
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 22:25. If thou lend 1st, They must not receive use for money from any Israelite that borrowed for necessity. And such provision the law made for the preserving estates to their families by the years of jubilee, that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity; therefore it was generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger they were allowed to lend upon usury. 2d, They must not take a poor mans bed-clothes in pawn; but if they did, must restore them by bed-time.