I’m reading “The Pillars of the Earth,” and in the continuing struggle to erect a cathedral the Prior is dealing with issues of finance. One of the characters asks whether they can’t borrow some money from the Jews. The Prior replies no, because they won’t lend them anymore as they were considered to be a repayment risk. The character then suggests they seek to borrow funds from another character, and the Prior reminds him that the woman in question is a Christian, and Christians can’t charge interest.
What is the source of this prohibition of interest? I’m familiar with the story of Jesus driving the money fellas out of the temple. Does it stem from that disapproval, or is there another specific biblical prohibition against usury, even reasonably applied? And is there any explanation for the way the rule became disregarded, as it seems to have, other than the sort of general toothlessness some of the biblical prohibitions suffered in time?
This has nothing to do with Jesus and the money changers (who were converting foreign coin to the appropriate Jewish coin to purchase sacrifices for the Temple).
There are several places in the Torah where God commands the Israelites not to charge interest when lending money, among them (in the NIV): Exodus 22:25 Leviticus 25:36 - 38
In each passage, the reference is made to “countryman” or a similar word, indicating those among the Israelites. In the Middle Ages, the Jews and the Christians each interpreted these passages to mean that they were not allowed to charge interest to “their own kind,” although they could charge interest to “outsiders.” Thus, Jews could lend to Christians at interest, but not to Jews; Christians could lend to Jews at interest, but not to Christians.
One result of this situation was that the Jews had a much broader base of clientele to whom they could loan money and make a profit. This gave rise to the practice of the Jews becoming moneylenders (or financiers) to Christians. Christians, of course, could be financiers to Jews, but with so many fewer Jews than Christians, there was not much of a market for such a trade.
Later, the fact that the Jews controlled so much finance (following both Christian and Jewish interpretation of the Law) gave rise to complaints about the “Jewish moneylenders.”
Thanks for the answer. As to the other aspect of my question, I suppose this is simply a prohibition that became ignored as the practice became more institutionalized and sophisticated, and not a face to face prospect where you knew who you were lending to/borrowing from . . . .
