DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Blurbs from the Bossman

Subprime Mortgages: What Would Jesus Do?
by Scott Perry | 2008/04/28 |

READER DISCRETION ADVISED

Warning: The following blog entry was written by a follower of Jesus Christ and contains Scripture passages from the Inspired Word of God.  The author assumes no liability for the reactions of those who may be offended by such unpopular and radical concepts.

Blurbs from the Bossman ::

As an Evangelical Christian, all the recent talk about subprime mortgages and predatory lending has gotten me to thinking...what must God think of the economic mess we've gotten ourselves into?  Reuters had a news item on this subject a while back and our own Rob Franco wrote a very good blog entry which examined the issue from a religious perspective, but to get God's take on things, I did what I've done all of my life and went straight to the Source--His Word as revealed in Scripture.

Now, I make no claim of being a Biblical scholar, nor do I consider myself a "religious" man. However, I do love the Lord, and have been studying the Bible my entire life (thanks in large measure to my mother, who read Bible stories to me and each of my siblings from birth). It surprises many people when I tell them that God's Word talks more about money than it does about faith, love, sex, or just about any other subject except God Himself.  In fact, money is mentioned in the Bible over 800 times.  Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, devoted a number of His parables to illustrating how we should deal with our finances. He teaches that our money really belongs to God and that we are simply the "managers"; He uses money as a test to see how we will handle greater things; "thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things" (Matt. 25:13).  He also warns us that money has tremendous power and cautions us not to let our things own us, that "no man can serve two masters" (Matt. 6:24).

The Reuters article also mentioned a Biblical prohibition on the charging of interest.  This comes from Deuteronomy 23:19, (KJV) "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anthing that is lent upon usury: (v. 20) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thy hand to whither thou goest to possess it."

So in reality, the prohibition is not on the charging of interest, per se, but on usury. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines usury as: "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates"; or "an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money".  The Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy is nashakh, "to bite" or to vex. According to Mosaic law, the Israelites were prohibited from taking interest from a fellow Jew on the loan of something that was considered a necessity. It also proscribed the taking of interest in a case of dire need or extreme poverty. In the case of strangers, however, it was permissible to loan money at interest.

The practice of mortgaging lands (sometimes at confiscatory rates of interest) began with the Jews during their captivity in Babylon. In Nehemiah Ch. 5, during the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah rebukes the nobles and the rulers for mortgaging lands at astronomical interest rates. People were desperate for land and the ruling classes were raising the prices far more than people could afford to repay (sound familiar?) Nehemiah called this extortion and came down on them hard for the practice.

As an aside, I found it interesting that modern Muslims still adhere to their ancient prohibitions against charging interest.  I did some research on the Islamic principles of non-interest lending, and they have some pretty creative financing vehicles. According to Wikipedia, instead of making a loan to the buyer, the bank buys the land from the seller and re-sells it to the buyer at a higher price while allowing the buyer to pay in installments.  There are other such approaches, such as sale and buyback, profit sharing, safekeeping and joint venture which basically accomplish the same thing. The Wikipedia article, however, does not address how federal truth-in-lending or financing disclosure laws would apply to such arrangements.

In the New Testament, Matthew 25:14-30 recounts the Parable of the Talents, in which Jesus tells the story of a man who goes out of town having entrusted a sum of money to each of his three servants. Upon his return, the man calls his servants to account for the money he gave them.  Two of the servants give the man his original investment, plus 100%.  The man calls the third servant (who hid his talent in the ground and did not invest it) "wicked and slothful" and that "I should have received mine own with usury." (v. 27) Of course, we know Jesus is using this parable as a spiritual object lesson, but the point is that in terms of trade and business, interest was never forbidden in Scripture, quite the opposite, in fact. The only thing prohibited was extortion and unreasonable interest.

So how does the borrower fit into this Scriptural scenario?

First of all, Scripture refers to debt as bondage. Psalm 22:7 tells us that, "...the borrower is servant to the lender."  While the Bible cites no direct prohibition upon taking on debt, Romans 13:8 states, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another..."  It would probably be a lot easier for most Christians if the Bible did explicitly proscribe borrowing.  But Psalm 37:21 (KJV) states, "The wicked borroweth and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth."  This clearly indicates that if we incur debt, we should repay it.  "A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches..." Psalm 22:1 (KJV).

Lots of folks saw falling interest rates and rising property values as an opportunity to "cash in", either buying more house than they could afford or cashing out equity to finance such things as big-screen TVs, vehicles and so forth.  As Christian financial adviser Dave Ramsey puts it, "we've used all this money we don't have to pay for stuff we don't want to impress people we don't like."  Many unscrupulous lenders and brokers took advantage of the situation and made loans that they knew in their hearts their borrowers would never be able to repay, then re-packaged and sold portfolios of these loans to third party investors.  Now the whole subprime scheme has blown up in their faces, leaving investors "holding the bag" and borrowers with no alternative but bankruptcy in some cases.

God's moral imperative is clear: lenders have an obligation not only to exact a fair price and rate of interest, but to refrain from extending credit to those who cannot repay, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:32 (KJV); conversely, borrowers have a duty to live within their means and to pay all debts and obligations when due.  We Americans can all certainly use a good healthy dose of common sense when it comes to being good stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us, and the Bible gives us the perfect "study guide".




Rating: 

1754 words | 1639 views | 10 comments | log in or register to post a comment


Don't ever enter a court room without an attorney

Just read an interesting article about the demise of Jesus. It seems that he had become a thorn in the side of established religion at the time, but no more so than a number of other individuals that were running around claiming to be the Messiah.

The Roman Empire exacted taxes from all of its provinces, and would permit no interuption of tax collection. Pontius Pilate governed the province uneasily. It was a hot bed of rebellion in which religious and political issues were virtually indistinguishable. He was trying to keep the peace at all costs to assure Rome's pleasure with tax revenues.

The thrust of the article indicated that the straw that broke to camel's back was Jesus' rage against the money changers in the Temple during Passover. Apparently the money changers and priests had a thriving business going from changing foreign currencies to local currency and the sale of sacrificial animals for the religious holiday. The ocassion also facilitated Rome's collection of taxes. No one in authority wanted to interrupt the flow of cash.

In retaliation for the difficulty created with the money changers, the Pharisees sought to elimnate the problem. The local government had no authority to authorize a death sentence, and had to seek permission from Roman authority. As such they had to make an accusation of violation of Roman law. They chose treason knowing that Pilate would be required to act accordingly. As was the custom of the time condemned criminals had their crime posted above their heads on the cross. No exception was made with respect to Jesus. It read INRI (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudiorum).

Seems like the price he paid for running afoul of big business and big government was a bit extreme. Rome had a well established legal system at the time. He probably could have used the services of a good lawyer. The outcome on western culture might have taken an interesting turn if he could have plea bargained it down to a lesser charge

 
by Kevin Ahern | 2008/04/28 | log in or register to post a reply

Interesting Perspective, Albeit Not Entirely Accurate...

Courtroom:  A place where Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot would be equals, with the betting odds favoring Judas.

Lawyer: One who protects us from robbers by taking away the temptation.

--H. L. Mencken

Thanks for commenting, F. Lee. Although your remarks are a little off of the original topic, which is an examination of the Scriptural principles of good financial stewardship, I will attempt to set the record straight.

 

 

First of all, since Jesus Christ was the Son of God, He had no need for the services of a lawyer.  During His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, He admonishes Peter to put away his sword, saying,

"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?  But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Matt. 26:53-54 (KJV).  By this, Jesus was telling Peter that His suffering and crucifixion were all a part of the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.

Secondly, Jesus was, in fact sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin (the Jewish High Court) for assuming an attitude of authority which the Pharisees and the high priests did not believe He deserved, as evidenced by the Latin Iesu Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews) inscribed on the plaque affixed to the cross.

The Court of the Gentiles was a place set aside in the Temple specifically for the purpose of purchasing animals for sacrifice and for currency exchange by Jewish pilgrims and non-Jewish travelers who visited the Temple.  Jesus was targeting the money changers not because they were in the Temple, per se, but because they were cheating people by charging inflated rates of exchange.

Pontius Pilate had made a practice of releasing one prisoner a year during the Passover in deference to the Jews and actually gave the Jewish leadership the choice of releasing either Jesus Christ or a man named Jesus Barabbas ("Barabbas" meaning "son of a rabbi"), a criminal who was caught in the act of rebellion or insurrection.  Pilate had found no fault with Jesus (Christ) and suggested that He be the One released.  However, the high priest Annas, who did not want to incite a revolt, left the choice to the people, who called for the release of Barabbas, and the rest, as they say, is history.

 

 
by Scott Perry | 2008/04/29 | log in or register to post a reply

Revisited

You really need to consider some different perspectives other than the Bible. While it may be known as the "Good Book"...it is not the only book. Pilate's conduct in offering to grant amnesty to one criminal was a gamble. He was hoping that the mob would support his position. He was trying to keep the lid on a politically volatile situation. It is true that history indicates that he found no guilt, but he lacked the intestinal fortitude to follow through on his findings of fact ...as a judge would do.  He had to avoid rebellion at all costs because it would interrupt tax collection by Rome. As such he chose to placate the mob rather than risk an uprising such as  the one years later at Massada. Passover was a prime business opportunity for both Rome and the local government.

While there may have been a sentence of death issued by the Sanhedrin...it could not be carried out without  authorization from Roman authority. That was the entire point of bringing the matter to Pilate's attention for his judgment in the matter.. Death by crucifixion was a Roman execution pursuant to Roman Law. It was carried out by Roman soldiers, and the famous lance through the side was perpetrated by a Roman. 

 
by Kevin Ahern | 2008/04/29 | log in or register to post a reply

Thanks, Kevin

You are always welcome to comment on my blog at any time.  I ask only that you restrict your remarks to the topic of the original post.

As far as the Bible is concerned, it is the only Book for me.

 

 
by Scott Perry | 2008/05/08 | log in or register to post a reply

Radical Concept of Truth

And the truth shall set you free.  How radical a concept is that?  Most people do not want to hear the truth any longer. 

 
by Nancy Geiger | 2008/04/28 | log in or register to post a reply

Thanks for your comment, Nancy

How right you are with that statement.  Some people just can't handle the truth.

 
by Scott Perry | 2008/04/29 | log in or register to post a reply

100% Agree with Scott

Scott,

I do believe that you hit the nail on the head with this one. I have been soapboxing this issue for months now. We have gotten ourselves into this mess, however, now we all want someone to blame. I don't know if you've heard of Crown Financial, a Christian financial lifestyle. It's taught at our church. While I've not taken it I do try to adhere to the Bibles teaching on finance. Even though times have been tight we've never stopped tithing. I honestly believe that God really blesses that. OK, got a little off subject there. What gets me mad is people wanting the government to bail them out. Now we all have to pay for the stupid ones, individuals and businesses. Just my thoughts.

 
by Kurt deVries | 2008/04/28 | log in or register to post a reply

Thanks, Kurt!

Actually, you're right on the money (no pun intended).  I also believe that tithing is important and that God honors a cheerful giver.  It's not that He needs our money; He can accomplish His purpose with or without us.  It's just another way that He uses money as a test and a testimony.

 

 
by Scott Perry | 2008/04/29 | log in or register to post a reply

Seems to me that financial discipline should be a staple of Christian teachings

Very few things will promote some of the other values promoted by Christians, such as staying married, more than good financial habits and staying within one's means.  I listen to Ramsey sometimes when I'm on the road and he gives good advice most of the time.  You'd think that most of it would be just common sense, but lots of people seem to need to hear it from a voice of authority before they will take heed.

 
by Slade Smith | 2008/04/28 | log in or register to post a reply

Well Said, Slade!

 

You raise a good point.  Most people do seem to need to be told what to do these days.  Good financial stewardship is the foundation upon which everything else rests.  It's just part of the good old-fashioned common sense that our parents and grandparents tried to instill in us.

 

 
by Scott Perry | 2008/04/29 | log in or register to post a reply
Blurbs from the Bossman

 

Thoughts, Observations
and Ruminations of an Independent Title Examiner Living & Working in the "Steel Buckle of the Rust Belt."

 

Links

Recent Comments

SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!Woman Plans To Marry Father After 2 Years Of Dating ...
by Scott Perry
Relevant changes to the Act are items 2,3,4 and 5 (bold). To stress Scott's point, the lien must be...
by Ted Mullucey
Under Pennsylvania law, delinquent property taxes are considered Municipal Liens. "Municipal Liens...
by Scott Perry
I haven't read the amendment or new law, but from what you've said, it appears a county   ...
by john gault
“Act 93, originally House Bill 388, only changed how municipalities reduce property&nbs...
by Scott Perry
This is a major change to Pennsylvania law - up to now, if a lien was recorded as a municipal lien, ...
by Elizabeth Helman
While there is a need for some kind of health support, we still need to make sure that it is real...
by Yusni Bonlingo
Your acknowledgement that “the exception proves the rule” is a prima fascie af...
by Scott Perry
Categories

     
    © 2020, Source of Title.