This has come up on several occasions in discussions. And not that I have a problem with Christians being debt free, I have a problem putting the Biblical mandate on it. I also have a problem speaking on behalf of God, that His plan for you is to be debt free, as in, never ever actually incurring debt.
I commend Christians who set goals to remove debt from their lives. What happens if I tried to argue the inverse? "All Christians should incur debt". I'm sure that'll fly.
But is it sin if a Christian currently has a mortgage? Is it sin if a Christian took out a student loan? Especially if it was for a Christian education at Bible college or seminary? That last one seems like a hypocritical doozy. I can definitely state that Christians show incredibly poor witnesses in not paying off debts, but that's not really the issue at stake; should a Christian incur debt at all.
I'm amazed at the man handling of Scripture that ensues to justify believers being absolutely debt free. The newly married Christian couple praying for a new house is suddenly hit with a staunch reality that the loan they received for their home, was actually disobedience to Scripture, and not trusting in God; even though they prayed and prayed for the loan to go through.
Is that really the case? Have so many Christians been deceived into not trusting God and hindering their walk? Do these Christians really not trust in God to provide for them? Again, for balance sake, I'm sure there are Christians who have been poor stewards and launched themselves into debt or refuse to pay debt, but for the Christian who bought a car on credit and pays it off faithfully, are you in error?
If your advice to a Christian is that it would better for you to pay off your debt, I would say that that is sound advice. But the moment you take the Word of God and conform it to your belief, you have erred. But what does the Bible say about debt?
The first occurrence that I find in Scripture referencing the concept of lending is found in Exodus 22:14,
"If a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while its owner is not with it, he shall make full restitution."
The Greek translation of the Old Testament does use language to the effect of paying back the owner if the circumstances permit. But I'm not sure this passage is really of value to us, since it allows for the opportunity to borrow, and actually gives guidelines for or against needing to pay back.
Of course this is specific to live stock, as the context suggests. Exodus 22:7 talks about one person giving money to another, but it doesn't seem like paying it back is the intention, unless you stole the money from the one the money was given to. Doesn't look like this helps to show that you shouldn't incur debt as a Christian.
The next occurrence of borrowing and lending is found in Deut 15:6 and this passage has actually been used against me to show that Christians shouldn't incur any debt at all,
“For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you."
So the statement is made, that because God promises to provide for Israel, that we as Christians should embrace the same concept that God will provide for us, and that we can specifically see that God intends for His people to rely upon His provision, and not to borrow from others at all.
My first point of confusion is why is it that God doesn't want His people to incur debt, but he tells them its ok for them to lend, causing others to incur debt? That's just a small issue though.
My biggest issue is this verse being used incredibly out of context. What do I mean by that? Verse 6 is spoken of in the middle of God granting remission of debts that the people had for 7 years. Let's look at what's said before verse 6,
"At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts. “This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the LORD’S remission has been proclaimed. “From a foreigner you may exact it, but your hand shall release whatever of yours is with your brother. “However, there will be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today." (Deuteronomy 15:1–5 NAS95)
So which one is it? God wants His people to incur zero debt, or God permitted debts for 7 years and then granted remission of debts? I think I'll stand with what the Bible says in this verse. What God granted was at the end of seven years, His people would basically forgive the debts of their neighbors. They were told they could collect from foreigners, but from the people of God, they would forgive the debts that were owed.
Among the context is the desire to take of the poor, and the promise that God would provide for them so they wouldn't borrow from foreign nations. There's really even more of a reason on why God granted a remission of debt. We can see there isn't a motivation for His people to be debt free, for the sake of being debt free, but for the poor. Notice,
"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; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. “Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,’ and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you. “You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings." (Deuteronomy 15:7–10 NAS95, my emphasis)
So actually an underlying motivation for the remission of debts, is to cause the poor to be rid of debts they couldn't pay back within 7 years. And the offense that happens is when you recognize that the end of the 7 years is approaching that you refuse to lend to a brother who is poor because you know that the year of remission will come and you won't be paid back, instead you are to lend to your poor brother.
So not only does this text not say that Christians should never incur debt, it actually allows it, and permits it specifically for believers to lend to poor believers.
The next verse that deals with borrowing is Deuteronomy 28:12.
“The LORD will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hand; and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.”
(Deuteronomy 28:12 NAS95)
In light of what we just read in chapter 15, this clearly isn't a passage that says believers should never borrow at all. But that the nation of Israel shouldn't borrow from other nations. If God's provision was such that people shouldn't borrow, why are there poor at all among the people of Israel in Chapter 15? Deuteronomy 24:14 even shows that fellow Israelites can be poor, so why is it that we are being required to believe that God gives abundant provision to His people so they would never have to borrow and indeed intend them not to borrow, if there are poor people among those whom are the recipients of God's provision? Maybe because as Chapter 15 shows us, God's provision can actually come through believers lending to poor believers.
Deut 28:12 showed that the nation of Israel wasn't suppose to borrow from foreign nations. Not that they weren't suppose to borrow in any context.
In accordance with that, believers need to avoid growing ever so close to the health, wealth, and prosperity guys, by making suggestions that you'll never have to worry about money if you trust in God. That's another area of concern for those who hold to certain interpretations of the Bible to be debt free, because God will provide. What about the poor? Are they not trusting in God? A middle ground does exist between prosperity theology and poverty theology.
Continuing along in Scripture, we find debt being talked about in 2 Kings 4:7,
“Then she came and told the man of God. And he said, “Go, sell the oil and pay your debt, and you and your sons can live on the rest.”
(2 Kings 4:7 NAS95)
This woman was the wife of one of the prophet's sons (2 Kings 4:1), and she's coming to the prophet Elisha with a specific problem. A problem that shows, she wasn't debt free (verse 1). So clearly her problem was debt and Elisha was telling her she needed to do what was necessary to pay off her debt, because she needed to be debt free; or else she'd miss out on truly living for God, right? Not exactly.
Her problem was her husband died as verse 1 tells us and the creditor is going to reposes here kids and make them his slaves. So it wasn't the fact that she needed to pay off her debt in general its the fact that her husband died and clearly the debt couldn't be paid back as intended. She was a poor widow.
One of the main problems that I have with this, is the fact that the Mosaic Law permitted the creditor to do this. Which clearly shows that being in debt is permitted, and even in the case when a person cannot pay back a creditor, that person can become a slave, but only until the year of Jubilee, and then the debtor can be set free, both of slavery and obligation (Leviticus 25:39, 40). This passage is nothing more than Elisha giving godly counsel to a distressed widow that granted her the ability to be debt free, without slavery, and then to actually have money to live off of. I have not problem with Biblical debt management, and counsel that leads us to pay off debt, especially in extenuating circumstances.
The next verse is Psalm 37:21
“The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.”
(Psalms 37:21 NAS95)
Clearly not an indication that it's wicked to borrow, but that it's wicked to borrow and not pay back.
Proverbs 22:7
“The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.”
(Proverbs 22:7 NAS95)
I would give credence to this verse, had not the ones who best understand Hebrew translated it into Greek as the following:
"The rich rule over the poor, and servants will lend to their own masters."
So clearly the translators of the Hebrew text understood this verse to be explaining that a master/slave relationship was already existing, but the lending was going slave to master not master to slave.
The problem is that people will come to this verse and suggest, "you can only have one master and that's Christ, 1 Corinthians 7:23", as if the Bible never gives instruction for slaves to be obedient to earthly masters (c.f. Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 4:1) and thus shows you can have an earthly master but still be fully obedient to Christ. By the way, 1 Corinthians 7:23 was about not becoming slaves, but not to worry if you are already a slave when you became a Christian.
Apart from the fact that we've already seen in the Old Testament grounds for incurring debt, and the absence of God wanting His people to never incur debt, clearly the interpretation of Proverbs does not hold weight with what Scriptures teach. Besides, if we took this interpretation and were consisten with Proverbs 22:7, should we not then say that it's wrong for you to become poor, since the rich rule over you, and you only have one ruler which is Christ? Does consistency even matter anymore?
“When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.”
(Ecclesiastes 5:4–5 NAS95)
Here's another text that refers to paying back something, but one really has to stretch what this passage is saying to apply it to incuring monetary debt. The Greek translation says nothing of financial debts from God, in fact just simply warns against saying something is, when it isn't. The Hebrew text is also completely absent on financial debt and is similar to the Greek. But I'm perfectly ok with that adaptation of this text as means of saying, "if you can't pay debt, don't go into debt". But that's not exactly what this text is even saying.
But now the moment I'm sure we've all been waiting for: the definitive New Testament verse that gives us clear indication that Christians should never owe anything to anyone (as if Deut 15 goes out the window now). And that verse is Romans 13:8
“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”
(Romans 13:8 NAS95)
Does this verse prove indefinitely that Christians should never incur debt? No.
The word "owe" (ὀφείλω) can mean owing something in the financial sense, but that's not the meaning in this verse. The Bible must be allowed to be it's own dictionary. And there's no possible way this verse can be saying to owe no financial debt, considering Paul actually told us to keep paying a type of financial debt. Notice:
“Render [pay] to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”
(Romans 13:7 NAS95)
Here's where it's interesting. The word in verse 7 for "due" is the noun form of the word "owe" in verse 8. So for all intents and purposes it's the same word.
Verse 7 does tell us to pay back what is owed, and specifically in the realm of taxes. Why would Paul tell us to pay what is constantly owed (tax) then to tell us using the same word to not owe anything to anyone.
Clearly we have a different idea of what's being referred to in verse 8 than a financial dealing. Baur, Danker, and Arndt explain to us what type of debt is to not be owed to anyone, except the debt of love:
"to be under obligation to meet certain social or moral expectations, owe"1
The remaining context of Romans 13:8 and following shows that Paul isn't telling the Romans to not owe any financial debt to anyone, but to not submit yourselves to the social and moral standards of the world in which live. But to display love as a fulfilling of the law.
I hope this is helpful specifically in the area of not letting people put a yoke or a burden on you that is unnecessary, and to focus in more on what God's word is actually telling you.
Notes:
1). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 743.
No comments:
Post a Comment