767 Moneylending
Painting: 1600–1800 (New Haven, Conn./London 1995).
■ Tumay, M., “Jews, Money, Myth: Debunking the Illusion,”
Impakter (August 12, 2019; https://impakter.com).
Tijana Zakula and Yannis Johanides
IX. Film
Money has served as a major theme in film, with
infamous characters like Gordon Gekko (Wall Street;
dir. Oliver Stone, 1987, US) dominating popular
consciousness as the archpriest of modern capital-
ism; Gekko’s infamous baptism of vice is: “Greed,
for lack of a better word, is good.” The American
superhero film Constantine (dir. Francis Lawrence,
2005, US/DE) makes use of Milton’s personification
of Mammon as a fallen angel in his classic, Paradise
Lost. Two films, however, stand out as exemplary
in offering more biblically informed and complex
accounts of money, of its impact on personal charac-
ter, and of its place in the social order: Winter Sleep
and There Will Be Blood.
Anton Chekhov’s The Wife (along with several
other of Chekhov’s short stories) provides the inspi-
ration for Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s 2014 film Kış Uykusu
(TR/FR/DE, Winter Sleep). Although the film’s impact
within Western circles may be limited, critics hon-
ored the film with the Palme d’Or at Cannes. The
story, set in the mountains of Anatolia, examines the
significant divide between rich and poor as well as
the powerful and the powerless in contemporary
Turkey. In the film, Aydın (Haluk Bilginer) sees him-
self as the local benevolent Don, intervening in the
business of the local townspeople below the moun-
tain and pontificating on perceived social ills
through his newspaper column as he sits atop his
cave-like office in his mountain inn. The truth, how-
ever, is that Aydın is almost universally despised and
resented. In particular, his wife, Nihal (Melisa
Sözen), stands as a foil, challenging Aydın’s imperi-
ousness and casual indifference to the suffering of
those beneath him in the social order. As Aydın be-
comes preoccupied with writing a history of Turkish
theater, Nihal dedicates her efforts to fundraising for
developing schools, a cause not shared by Aydın.
When Nihal organizes a fundraiser in their home, Ay-
dın belittles her for her inexperience and lack of fi-
nancial skill. But, in a characteristically transparent
act of self-aggrandizement, Aydın makes a large
anonymous cash donation to the fundraiser, one that
will eventually be thrown into a fire when Nihal of-
fers it to their tenants, a local imam, and his extended
family, who are in danger of being evicted. The bibli-
cal and qurānic admonitions concerning wealth,
power, and the care of the poor and vulnerable echo
throughout the film (see, e.g., S 2:177; Prov 22:16).
Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil! (1926–27) provides
the basic structure of Paul Thomas Anderson’s There
Will Be Blood (2007, US), a ruthless unmasking of the
so-called Protestant work ethic and the American
dream of entrepreneurial integrity and triumph.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a silver
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
768
miner-turned-oilman on a ruthless quest for wealth
during the California oil rush at the turn of the last
century. Daniel’s efforts to acquire drilling rights
on property are initially thwarted by a local
preacher, Eli Sunday, who demands a large cash do-
nation for his church. Daniel’s efforts are further
complicated by an orphan whom he passes off as his
son, and a stranger who presents himself as a “long-
lost brother,” both of whom become opportunities
to advance as well as obstacles to be overcome. Dan-
iel’s murderous pursuit of wealth and status leaves
him a “ruin unto himself” (Prov 11:17) even as he
acquires enormous wealth. The film’s murderous
conclusion leaves Eli dead and Daniel declaring that
he is “finished.”
Bibliography: ■ Blake, R. A., “After Sunset,” America 198.8
(March 10, 2008) 18–20. ■ Diken, B., “Money, Religion,
and Symbolic Exchange in ‘Winter Sleep,’” Religion and Soci-
ety 8 (2017) 94–108.
Christopher McMahon
See also / Alms; / Cleansing of the Temple;
/ Coins; / Debt, Debts; / Inclinations (Good
and Evil); / Judas; / Mammon; / Moneylend-
ing; / Poor, Poverty; / Prosperity Gospel;
/ Salvation; / Seven Deadly Sins; / Shekel,
Half-Shekel; / Silver; / Taxes and Taxation;
/ Temptation; / Trade and Commerce;
/ Usury; / Wealth and Riches
Moneylending
I. Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament
II. Greco-Roman Antiquity
III. New Testament
IV. Judaism
V. Christianity
VI. Islam
VII. Literature
VIII. Visual Arts
IX. Film
I. Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible/
Old Testament
1. Semantics and Word Usage. Two roots are
used to evoke in-kind or moneylending (money
could be grains, weighted metal or coins, see
“Money”) in the HB: l–w–h (LXX, δανείζω; qal, “to
borrow”; hiphil, “to lend”) and n–š–h (qal, “to
lend,” “be a creditor” [with bet]; hiphil, also, “to
lend”; “make a loan”). The former is positively con-
noted as helping a person in financial difficulty by
granting a loan, while the latter has a negative con-
notation. In the legal and wisdom traditions, the
“righteous” and the “wicked” are opposed in re-
gards to lending money; the righteous lends
(MT lwh) out of pity or gives to the one in need
while the wicked practices usury by applying a high
interest rate (MT nāšak, LXX τόκος; Exod 22:24; Lev
769 Moneylending
25:36–37; Deut 23:20; Ps 15:5; 37:21, 26; 112:5;
Prov 19:17; Ezek 18:8, 13, 17; see also the more de-
veloped passage Sir 29 which reflects economic
problems in the Hellenistic period). Several passages
condemn usury or interest-bearing lending among
Israelites but allow it for foreigners, probably mer-
chants (Exod 22:24; Lev 25:36–37; Deut 23:20). This
ideology distinguishes subsistence lending from
economic lending (see Sir 8:12 which advises
against lending to the rich). Being a lender is a sign
of prosperity, while being a debtor is a sign of de-
pendence and vulnerability (Deut 28:12, 44). This
vulnerability can be a source of conflict and social
tension (Jer 15:10; Neh 5).
2. Function and History. The loan is made in
front of witnesses and stipulates a pledge, a dead-
line, and an “interest” (nešek; tarbit; marbit; Lev
25:36–37) which is expressed as an absolute amount
and not a percentage. Indeed, the term nešek, well
known from other Semitic languages, comes from a
root meaning “to bite” and refers to a loan where
only a part of an amount is given but the full
amount is due (e.g., 80 shekels are given but 100
shekels must be returned; 20 shekels are “bitten”).
The words tarbit and marbit, attested in many Ara-
maic documents from the Persian period, come
from the root “to multiply” and refer to an amount
due each month until the debt is repaid.
In case of non-payment, the pledge can be re-
tained and frequently the debtor becomes a slave to
repay the debt (see Chirichigno). According to the
Covenant Code and the Deuteronomic Law the slave
had to work for six years before being freed (Exod
21:1–6; Deut 15:12–18). In comparison to the Laws
of Hammurabi (see Altmann: 42) this a quite severe
stipulation, since the Law of Hammurabi releases
the debtor after three years. The interest rate varies
greatly depending on the time, place, and circum-
stances, but also on whether it is a monetary loan
or an in-kind loan (the former benefits from a more
advantageous rate). Nevertheless, lending is rarely
an economic activity in itself. It must be considered
as an ancillary activity of traders or a charitable ne-
cessity; interest, pledge or slavery are guarantees of
the loan rather than a return. The temple in Jerusa-
lem, like other temples in the ancient Near East,
probably played an important role in monetary
loans. Charity loans (i.e., interest-free loans) and
consumption loans in times of hardship may have
been granted. However, people asking for help may
have dedicated their children to the temple in ex-
change. Unfortunately, the Bible does not provide
information on this subject. From the 6th century
BCE onwards (the Persian period), the economy un-
derwent a privatization, as can be seen from the nu-
merous economic archives of individuals (archives
of Bēl-rēmanni, Murašu, Zenon, Zū-Bala, etc.). The
appearance of coins in the 4th century BCE and the
demand for the payment of taxes in this form is
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
770
sometimes seen as a reason for inflation and local
economic crisis due to a weak local money supply
(Neh 5). Nevertheless, the monetization appears late
and most of the taxation was levied in kind as evi-
denced by the lyhd seals found in the administrative
center of Ramat Rachel.
Bibliography: ■ Altmann, P., Economics in Persian-Period Bibli-
cal Texts (FAT 109; Tübingen 2016). ■ Chirichigno,
G. C., Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup
141; Sheffield 1993). ■ Hossfeld, F.-L./E. Reuter,
“nāšâ,” TDOT 10 (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999) 55–59.
■ Hudson M./M. Van de Mieroop (eds.), Debt and Economic
Renewal in the Ancient Near East (International Scholars Con-
ference on Ancient Near Eastern Economies 3; Be-
thesda, Md. 2002). ■ Kapelrud, A. S., “nāšak,” TDOT 10
(Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999) 61–65. ■ Kellermann, D., “II
lāwâ,” TDOT 7 (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1995) 477–78.
Axel Bühler
II. Greco-Roman Antiquity
Moneylending is the act of loaning money by one
party to another – with or without interest
(τόκος, fenus) – with the expectation of repayment.
In Greco-Roman antiquity, the loan may or may not
have involved a security deposit (ἀρραβών, pignus).
References to lending abound in the sources: papyri,
literature, inscriptions, etc. In the 6th-century BCE,
Solon abolished all debt in Athens (Plutarch, Solon
15.3). Livy (7.27.3–4) documents fluctuating inter-
est rates at Rome in the 4th-century BCE. Lending
could involve considerable sums (e.g., Cicero’s bor-
rowing 3,500,000 sesterces [Letters to His Friends
5.6.2; cf. Andreau 2020]). Temples and bankers
(τραπεζίται, mensarii) served as lenders (e.g., the ta-
bles of the Sulpicii, a family of bankers from Puteoli
in the 1st century CE; cf. Jones). Interest rates varied
considerably. Thus, a 2nd-century CE inscription
from Dacia: “Julius Alexander required a promise
in good faith that the interest on this principal …
would be one percent per thirty days” (CIL 3.934–
35). Also, “Earring left with Faustilla as collateral.
For a loan of two denarii [= thirty-two asses] she
took as interest one bronze as from the sum of 30
[thirty-two?] [asses] (CIL 4.8203).” The potential pit-
falls of borrowing as well as the questionable ethics
of lenders were well-known (e.g., Plutarch, That We
Ought Not to Borrow [Mor. 827D–832A]; cf. Maloney).
Bibliography: ■ Andreau, J., Banking and Business in the Ro-
man World (KTAH; Cambridge 1999). ■ Andreau, J., “Bank-
ing, Money-Lending, and Elite Financial Life in Rome,” in
Roman Law and Economics, vol. 2: Exchange, Ownership, and Dis-
putes (ed. G. Dari-Mattiacci/D. P. Kehoe; Cambridge 2020).
■ Jones, D., The Bankers of Puteoli: Finance, Trade and Industry
in the Roman World (Stroud 2006). ■ Maloney, R. P., “Usury
in Greek, Roman, and Rabbinic Thought,” Traditio 27 (1971)
79–109. ■ Scheidel, W., “Money and Finance,” in The Cam-
bridge Companion to the Roman Economy (ed. W. Scheidel; Cam-
bridge 2013) 266–82. ■ Temin, P., The Roman Market Econ-
omy (Princeton, N.J. 2013).
Trevor W. Thompson
771 Moneylending
III. New Testament
The HB/OT refers to the giving and taking of loans
on several occasions. Its main concern is not with
the fact of such lending (which is not questioned as
part of the realities of life), but with the conditions
under which such lending occurs. While they may
do so from non-Israelites (Deut 23:19–20), Israelites
are not to charge interest from their fellow Israelites
(Exod 22:25; Lev 25:36–38; see also Ezek 18:8–17;
Ps 15:5). The taking of pledges is strictly limited
(Deut 22:26). Lenders may not enter a house and
seize pledges but are to accept what is offered to
them. If a cloak is given as a pledge, it is to be re-
turned before night sets in so that the needy may
sleep in it. The blessing of the poor of those who
lend to them fairly will be to the lender’s credit be-
fore God (Deut 24:6–17; Prov 19:17). There is to be
remission of debt at regular intervals (Deut 15:1–
15). When such stipulations are not followed and
injustice is rife, firm intervention is necessary to re-
store justice (Neh 5; Amos 2:6–8). The HB/OT also
mentions the risks involved for the lenders (“The
wicked borrow and do not pay back,” Ps 37:21) and
those who have to borrow money and are unable to
pay back as agreed (2 Kgs 4:1). “The borrower is the
slave of the lender” (Prov 22:7; with consequences
up to losing one’s freedom). Therefore, both lend-
ing and borrowing may result in being cursed by
those affected (Jer 15:10). Giving and lending to
others generously characterizes a righteous person
(Pss 37:21, 26; 112:5). The ability to lend to many
nations (rather than having to borrow from them)
is an indication of divine blessing (Deut 28:12, but
also v. 44).
The potentially dire consequences of money-
lending also appear in the NT (Matt 5:25–26;
18:23–35; Luke 7:41–42). Some parables of Jesus
mention moneylending. As an illustration of the
implications of divine forgiveness, Jesus speaks of a
debtor whose tremendous financial debt is cancelled
and generously forgiven by the lender, but who fails
to cancel the small debt which others owe to him.
In return, the cancellation is recalled and the entire
debt has to be paid (Matt 18:21–35). A shrewd man-
ager reduces the debt in material goods which sev-
eral debtors owe to his master in order to endear
himself to them (Luke 16:1–9). Jesus praises him for
taking action in order to secure his future. The slave
who in Jesus’ parable doubled the five talents en-
trusted to him while his master was away (Matt
25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27), likely did so by lending
the money out at extortionate interest rates rather
than by putting the money into the bank.
Following the stipulations of the Law regarding
the lending of money or goods, Jesus emphasizes
the duty of supporting the needy with loans though
nothing can be expected in return. There is no di-
vine reward in lending to people where the return
is guaranteed (Luke 6:34–35). Generous lending,
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
772
even to enemies, characterizes the children of God
who will reward them.
The lack of other direct references to actual
moneylending is surprising, as moneylending was
common on all levels of society and also served as
a means of creating social obligations and bonds.
Exhortatory texts regarding the proper use of mate-
rial means call Christians to give to each other and
to other people freely as they themselves received
freely from God (Matt 10:8). As far as we know, Paul
accepted gifts but never borrowed from or lent to
others nor did the communities which he founded.
Rather than lending the money, they were to make
a concentrated effort to gather the funds on a regu-
lar basis (1 Cor 16:1–2).
In the NT, the language of lending and debt also
occurs in a figurative sense (sin, forgiveness, expres-
sion of gratitude). For example, according to Paul,
the gentile Christians owe a debt to the Jewish
Christians of Jerusalem (Rom 15:27; see “Debt,
Debts II. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and III.
New Testament”).
Bibliography: ■ Chilton, B., “Debts,” ABD 2 (1992) 114–16.
■ Crüsemann, M./W. Schottroff (eds.), Schuld und Schulden
(Munich 1992). ■ Ernst, M. et al., “Gewinn,” Sozialgeschicht-
liches Wörterbuch zur Bibel (ed. F. Crüsemann et al.; Gütersloh
2009) 215–18. ■ Hays, C. M., Luke’s Wealth Ethics (WUNT.2
275; Tübingen 2010). ■ Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C.,
“Schulden,” Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch zur Bibel (ed. F.
Crüsemann et al., Gütersloh 2009) 509–15. ■ Schottroff, W.,
Gerechtigkeit lernen (ed. F. Crüsemann/R. Kessler; Gütersloh
1999).
Christoph Stenschke
IV. Judaism
■ Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism ■ Rabbinic Ju-
daism ■ Medieval Judaism ■ Modern Judaism
A. Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism
During the Second Temple period, moneylending
became much more common, as Judea and its envi-
rons transitioned to a more currency-based econ-
omy, and elite and mercantile interests saw height-
ened opportunities for profit. The life of most
Judeans revolved around a patrilocal (“house of the
father”) system in an agrarian context, and precari-
ous circumstances were the norm. Only a small per-
centage of the population enjoyed the benefits of
wealth, and the extant sources indicate a frequent
willingness among lenders to capitalize on the gap
between rich and poor.
In some of the sources, especially the wisdom lit-
erature, lending is encouraged as a means of helping
a neighbor as required by the Torah. For example,
“The merciful lend to their neighbors; by holding out
a helping hand they keep the commandments” (Sir
29:1). Even with such advice, problems might arise
for borrowers, especially in light of the usurious
terms of most loans. Moreover, the mere charging of
interest went against the stipulations of earlier legal
773 Moneylending
traditions, which prohibited usury among members
of the covenant community (e.g., Deut 23:19–20). Yet
creditors could and did change the terms of loans and
raise interest rates during the Second Temple period,
a practice known as antichresis. Such penal lending
could lead to loss of land and even debt slavery, as ex-
emplified in Neh 5, where wealthy lenders force des-
perate borrowers into servitude during a famine pe-
riod.
Contractual evidence from this period also
points to interest charges as a regular feature of the
regional economy, and the increase of written docu-
ments allowed for better adherence to the terms of
a loan. Yet the warnings in the Torah against loans
at interest continued to guide certain communities,
such as the sectarians responsible for the Dead Sea
Scrolls (e.g., 4Q267 iv:9–10). Moreover, Philo pro-
hibits lending at interest among fellow believers
(Virt. 82) based on his reading of Mosaic traditions,
and Josephus follows the same logic (Ant. 4.266).
In addition to charging interest, it was common
in the Second Temple period to serve as guarantor
for a neighbor or associate. This practice, known as
surety, was condemned by the sages responsible for
Proverbs (e.g., Prov 6:1–5) and receives a mixed re-
sponse in the Second Temple sources. Ben Sira en-
dorses vouching for the loan of another individual
as a generous act that coheres with the benevolent
spirit of Israel’s sapiential and legal traditions: “A
good person will be surety for his neighbor, but the
one who has lost all sense of shame will fail him”
(Sir 29:14). In contrast to this advice, 4QInstruction,
from the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus, warns against
standing surety for another person because of the
inherent financial risks. A person might fall into
penury by vouching for the loan of another (e.g.,
4Q418 88:3). The contrast between these two texts
probably can be traced to different social locations:
Ben Sira had a more elite audience, while 4QIn-
struction circulated among those in more precarious
circumstances. What all of these sources share is the
difficulty in balancing the prohibitions against in-
terest in earlier legal traditions with the reality of
widespread lending in the Second Temple period.
Bibliography: ■ Adams, S. L., Social and Economic Life in Sec-
ond Temple Judea (Louisville, Ky. 2014). ■ Murphy,
C. M., Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Commu-
nity (STDJ 40; Leiden 2002).
Samuel L. Adams
B. Rabbinic Judaism
In rabbinic literature, moneylending is governed by
three discrete sets of laws: pledges (Deut 15:8,
24:10), usury (Exod 22:24; Deut 23:20–21), and she-
mitøtøah, the once-in-seven year forgiving of debt
(Deut 15:1–3). The laws of pledges (mBM 9:13) are
short, and largely unchanged in scope between the
Bible and rabbinic literature. Rabbinic laws on
usury are broader and more complex than those in
the HB/OT. Mishnah and Tosefta (mBM 5 and tBM
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
774
4–6) catalog contracts and institutions concerning
transactions known from the Roman world, and
mark each one as permitted or prohibited. They are
thus useful for consumers and scribes, who give le-
gal language for economic transactions. In the Aqi-
van tannaitic corpus (Mishnah, Tosefta, Sifra, Sifrei,
Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon), the prohibition on usury
is decoupled from the duty to care for the poor. This
decoupling continues in the Talmuds and classical
midrash. Tannaitic literature (Mishnah and Tosefta)
employs the usury prohibition to envision an urban
society of equal citizens. Gentiles, dependent family
members, and close friends are all excluded from
the usury prohibition in different ways. This decou-
pling ends only in later works such as the piyyutim
of Yannai and the Tanhuma midrashim, which re-
connect the usury prohibition to a concern about
poverty. Some (Gamoran) have read rabbinic usury
legislation as “flexible,” changing according to the
needs of the people and increasing the supply of
loans or allowing for the charging of certain mark-
ups on loans in order to increase the supply of
credit. Others (Neusner: ch. 5; Lapin: ch. 5; Gva-
ryahu) have opposed this reading, pointing to the
fact that there is scant evidence that Jews in the first
centuries CE avoided usury. These scholars empha-
size the institutional and communal aspect of the
usury laws rather than their more abstract macro-
economic impact. Central to the claim that rabbinic
usury laws are flexible is the fact that a late stratum
of the Babylonian Talmud marked most of the
usury laws in the Mishnah as belonging to a lesser
prohibition, termed “dust of usury.” This is how-
ever grounded in the hermeneutic motives of the
Babylonian Talmud (Gvaryahu: ch. 3), not in the
tannaitic or even early amoraic materials.
Individuals who lend at interest are disqualified
from testimony in court (mSan 3:3). This is a civic
sanction, which deprives the moneylenders of their
standing as equals in their communities. This status
highlights the fact that lending at interest is an of-
fence against the city, rather than against the poor
(Gvaryahu: ch. 5; Malka). Unlike the usury laws,
which the rabbis expanded and developed, they all
but abolished the sabbatical debt remission in sev-
eral ways, the most far-reaching of which is the pros-
bul, understood as a declaration stating that the len-
der can collect his loan any time he pleases (see
mShevi 10; Llewelyn; Ancselovits).
Bibliography: ■ Ancselovits, E., “The Prosbul – A Legal Fic-
tion?,” JLA 19 (2011) 1–16. ■ Gamoran, H., Jewish Law in
Transition: How Economic Forces Overcame the Prohibition against
Lending on Interest (Cincinnati, Ohio 2008). ■ Gvaryahu, A.,
“Lending at Interest in Rabbinic Literature: Law, Homilet-
ics, and Cultural Contacts” (PhD diss., The Hebrew Univer-
sity of Jerusalem, 2019). [Heb.] ■ Lapin, H., Early Rabbinic
Civil Law and the Social History of Roman Galilee: A Study of
Mishnah Tractate Baba Mesøia (Atlanta, Ga. 1995). ■ Llewelyn,
S. R., “The Procedure of the Execution and the Prosbolē,”
in NDIEC, vol. 7: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri
775 Moneylending
Published in 1982–83 (North Ryde, NSW 1994) 197–232.
■ Malka, O., “Disqualified Witnesses between Tannaitic Hal-
akha and Roman Law: The Archeology of a Legal Institu-
tion,” Law and History Review (2019) 1–34. ■ Neusner, J., The
Economics of the Mishnah (CSJH; Chicago, Ill. 1990).
Amit Gvaryahu
C. Medieval Judaism
1. Moneylending in Medieval Jewish Sources.
Moneylending is addressed primarily in five types
of medieval Jewish texts: biblical commentary, tal-
mudic commentary, rabbinic codes, responsa
(sheelot u-teshuvot), and polemical literature. Biblical
commentary concentrates on the passages in the To-
rah concerning loans, pledges, and “usury” (Exod
22:24–26; Lev 25:36–37; Deut 23:20–21; 24:10–13),
as well as the moral exhortations against “usury” in
the Writings and Prophets (Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; Ezek
18; 2 Kgs 4:1–2; Hab 2:6; Neh 5:1–11). Foremost
medieval Jewish biblical exegetes include Rashi
(northern France, 1040–1105), Rashbam (northern
France, 1080–1158), Abraham Ibn Ezra (Spain,
1089–1167), Radaq (David Qimh i; Provence, 1160–
1235), Nah manides (Moses ben Nah man; Spain,
1194–1274), and Gersonides (Levi ben Gershom;
Provence, 1288–1344). The commentators harmo-
nize the interpretation of biblical texts with rab-
binic law on loans, pledges, and interest or profit.
They also explicate difficult biblical language
through literary, linguistic, and historical interpre-
tation (peshat) and through traditional exegetical
methods of midrash. The central interpretive ques-
tions revolve around clarifying: when one is obli-
gated to give a loan, the meaning of neshekh and
tarbit (terms usually translated as “usury”; see, e.g.,
Lev 25:36; Ezek 18:8), from whom one may or may
not take neshekh or tarbit (a poor or rich Jew; a
brother [ahø ], resident alien [ger, toshav], or foreigner
[nokhri]), whether a borrower also sins by paying nes-
hekh or tarbit, and how lenders should preserve the
dignity of borrowers and extend mercy to them,
particularly in regard to seizure of pledges.
Medieval rabbinic authorities also codified and
elaborated the halakhah on moneylending, which
had been developed in the Mishnah and Talmud on
the basis of the biblical passages. Great care was
taken to define gray areas where illicit interest
might knowingly or unknowingly change hands:
loans of produce, purchase on credit, advance pay-
ment for goods, mortgages, and investments. The
responsa literature extends the legal thinking on
lending and shows that rabbinic laws were widely
practiced in medieval Jewish communities. Observa-
tion of rabbinic prohibitions did not mean the end
of intra-Jewish credit, nor widespread deployment
of fictitious workarounds. For example, commercial
investments generating profit could take place be-
tween Jews through a contract known as an isqa in
which the investor splits the profit with the agent.
No usury takes place, because half of the investment
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
776
is received as a loan, and half as a deposit. The agent
makes profit on the first, and the investor on the
latter. (Jews did not limit themselves to rabbinic
contracts, but also used among themselves contracts
from the majority Christian or Islamic culture.) The
heter isqa (ca. 1600) allowed for greater flexibility in
the terms of the contract and greater security for
the investor.
The interpretive issue which shifts most signifi-
cantly between the classical rabbinic period and the
medieval regards taking “usury” from non-Jews.
Whereas talmudic commentators express a broad
range of opinions, medieval rabbinic commentators
in Christian Europe almost uniformly define Chris-
tians as strangers (nokhrim), from whom one may
take usury (Deut 23:21). Medieval Christian com-
mentators, in polemics and disputations of the
12th–14th centuries, contested this interpretation
as well as others. Jewish polemics refuted Christian
challenges and defended Jewish biblical interpreta-
tion in texts such as: Sefer ha-Berit (The Book of the
Covenant) by Joseph Qimh i (ca. 1105–1170), the
anonymous Sefer Nitsahø on Yashan (The old Book of
Polemics), and Milhø emet Mitswah (Obligatory War)
by Menahem ben Solomon Meiri (1249–after 1314).
2. The Myth of the Medieval Jewish Money-
lender. The most significant medieval develop-
ment for Judaism and Jewish communities was the
emergence in Western Europe of the image of the
Jew as usurer. This negative stereotype is errone-
ously assumed today to describe a social and eco-
nomic fact – that moneylending was a Jewish occu-
pation. The persistence of this myth is due in part
to modern antisemitic politics and in part to a poor
understanding of medieval economic history and
thought.
“Usury” is often incorrectly read as a pejorative,
premodern term for “interest.” But usury, then as
today, referred to exploitative and illegal profit as
defined by custom, culture, and religious law. In
probing the ethical and legal limits of just profit,
medieval religious authorities – Jewish, Christian,
and Muslim – all developed sophisticated economic
thought on markets and prices, contracts, loans, in-
terest, currency exchange, and commercial invest-
ment. Ethical concerns did not obstruct economic
growth. Rather, they simultaneously produced
more precise definitions of usury and more expan-
sive permissions on profit. Both were driven by the
religious aim to fulfill divine law, particularly the
biblical precepts on usury. Two examples warrant
mention: the term “interest” was created by medie-
val Christian theologians and canon lawyers to de-
fine permissible profit on a loan due to loss, dam-
age, or injury. Investment loans were permitted by
Jewish, Muslim, and Christian law when the inves-
tor shared risks as well as profits with the agent,
as in the contracts known as isqa, mudø āraba, and
commenda, respectively.
777 Moneylending
It is often assumed that medieval Christians
were not allowed to lend on interest, and Jews
therefore became Europe’s moneylenders. Both as-
sumptions are incorrect. Jews did lend money, but
the majority of professional moneylenders, money
changers, bankers, and merchants were Christian.
Some Jews were wealthy moneylenders and mer-
chants. But most Jews, like most Christians, were
too poor to have been either. Second, the limits on
lending for Christians, whether interest rates set by
secular rulers or canonical decrees against usury,
were extended to Jews as well.
The stereotype of the Jewish usurer emerged
over the 12th to 15th centuries out of a campaign
against lay Christian usury. The campaign was put
in motion by a reforming papacy driven by concerns
over protecting the property of the church and her
crusaders, strengthening papal authority, and re-
forming lay and clerical Christian practices. When
the usury campaign became involved with religious
movements avowing abject, voluntary poverty
(Waldensians, Franciscans, etc.), the repression of
“heresies,” and the new theological and legal stud-
ies at universities, the church’s ancient theological-
economic language of salvation swelled into an ac-
rid anti-Jewish rhetoric.
In the new climate of orthodoxy and heresy, re-
jection of Christian “truth” was manifest evidence
of irrationality, if not willful disbelief. Jewish unbe-
lief was consequently akin to heresy. In the milieu
of crusading, Jews were imagined as a dangerous,
internal enemy with a psychotic hatred of Christ
and Christians. The image of the hostile Jew was
projected into the vicious and bizarre accounts fab-
ricated about ritual murder, blood libel, and host
desecration by Jews. In this context, moneylending
was seen as a way that Jews could gain abusive
power over Christians.
The reforming papacy used canon law widely to
reform Christendom, and specifically to suppress
Jews’ authority over Christians and separate them
socially and economically. Canonical decrees were
issued against Jews holding public office, employ-
ing Christian servants, comingling in taverns, bath-
houses, or parties, selling food to, or having sexual
liaisons with Christians. Jews were to be distin-
guished by badges or distinctive clothing. Jewish
“blasphemy” and “magic” were condemned, and
many copies of the Talmud burned. Usury too be-
came part of this anti-Judaic legislation, as the
Christian anti-usury campaign widened. But the pa-
pacy first turned to secular rulers to curtail Jewish
usury. Rulers implemented royal registries for Jew-
ish-Christian loans, conducted inquests into usury
(Christian and Jewish), set interest rates, and ex-
pelled foreign Christian and Jewish usurers. What
had begun as a church campaign to protect her
property and her crusaders ballooned into a cam-
paign protecting all Christians and their property
against “false Christians” and “infidels.”
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
778
Economic-theological concepts put forward by
the friars contributed to the growth of anti-Juda-
ism. The friars, embracing voluntary poverty as the
fullest expression of the apostolic life, expanded the
early Christian theological language infused with
economic concepts. Economic trust was fused with
religious faith, and mistrust with infidelity. The NT
figure Judas, who had misvalued the incommensu-
rate worth of the savior at thirty talents of silver,
became a prototype for the contemporary Jew and
his obstinate unbelief, his economic misvaluation,
and hostility to Christ(ians). The Jew became the
prototype for the false Christian whose usury in-
jured the Christian commune. From the late 13th–
15th centuries, entire Jewish communities were
characterized as usurers, and mass expulsions in
Western Europe were justified on this basis.
From the early modern period to today, the
myth of the medieval Jewish moneylender has con-
tributed to anti-Judaism and antisemitism. Yet, the
myth has also been sustained by Jewish leaders and
philosemitic scholars who have embraced the image
of Jewish moneymaking as a contribution to the so-
ciety. By revaluing the act of moneylending as a
credit instrument necessary for economic develop-
ment, they recast the greedy, Jewish usurer as a ben-
eficial, modernizing agent: Jews furnished Europe
with credit, but suffered an antisemitic backlash for
doing so. Both the antisemitic portrait of the Jewish
usurer and the philosemitic view of “Jewish eco-
nomic function” misunderstand the dynamics of
medieval economic history and thought in relation
to biblical directives on usury.
Bibliography: ■ Baldwin, J., Masters, Princes, and Merchants:
The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle (Princeton,
N.J. 1970). ■ Cohn, H. H./B. Z. Eliash, “Usury,” EncJud 20
(Detroit, Mich. 22007) 437–43. ■ Dorin, R., “Banishing
Usury: The Expulsion of Foreign Moneylenders in Medieval
Europe, 1200–1450” (PhD diss.; Harvard University, 2015).
■ Gamoran, H., Jewish Law in Transition: How Economic Forces
Overcame the Prohibition against Lending on Interest (Cincinnati,
Ohio 2008). ■ Karp, J., The Politics of Jewish Commerce: Eco-
nomic Thought and Emancipation in Europe, 1638–1848 (Cam-
bridge 2008). ■ Kellenbenz, H. et al., “Banking and Bank-
ers,” EncJud 3 (Detroit, Mich. 22007) 111–19.
■ McLaughlin, T. P., “The Teaching of the Canonists on
Usury,” Mediaeval Studies 1 (1939) 81–147; and 2 (1940) 1–
22. ■ Mell, J., The Myth of the Medieval Jewish Moneylender, 2
vols. (New York 2017–18). ■ Mundill, R., England’s Jewish
Solution: Experiment and Expulsion, 1262–90 (Cambridge 1998).
■ Penslar, D., Shylock’s Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in
Modern Europe (Berkeley, Calif. 2001). ■ Satlow, M. (ed.), Ju-
daism and the Economy: A Sourcebook (London 2019). ■ Shatz-
miller, J., Shylock Reconsidered (Berkeley, Calif. 1990). ■ So-
loveitchik, H., “Usury and Moneylending,” in id., Collected
Essays, vol. 1 (Oxford/Portland, Oreg. 2013) 41–168.
■ Stein, S., “Moneylending,” EncJud 14 (Detroit, Mich. 22007)
436–43. ■ Toch, M., The Economic History of European Jews:
Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages (Leiden/Boston, Mass.
2013). ■ Toch, M./E. Müller-Luckner (eds.), Wirtschaftsge-
schichte der mittelalterlichen Juden: Fragen und Einschätzungen
779 Moneylending
(Munich 2008). ■ Todeschini, G., Franciscan Wealth (St. Bon-
aventure, N.Y. 2009).
Julie Mell
D. Modern Judaism
The “Jewish” profession of moneylending did not
spur significant innovation in the modern Jewish
treatment of moneylending, whether legal or homi-
letical. However, three other critical developments
in modern Jewish history have made the prohibi-
tion on usury nearly inoperative in most contexts in
the present.
The first development is the creation of the legal
instrument known as heter isqa, “the permission of
partnership.” This instrument was pioneered by
Isaiah Menahem ben Isaac Avigdors of Krakow
(d. 1599), and it is in use to this day and known
eponymously as Heter MaHaRaM (The permission of
Rabbi Menahem; Gamoran: 159–63; Bleich); it
builds on earlier work casting loans as investments.
Other instruments were sanctioned by the Polish
halakhist Joshua Falk Cohen (1555–1614), Avig-
dors’ sucessor as rabbi in Lodomeria, in his Qun-
tresal dinei ribbit (Treatise on the laws of interest),
and commissioned by the Council of the Four Lands
of Poland and Lithuania (1607). R. Joshua Falk of-
fered laypeople instructions about how to avoid the
prohibition and admonished them to do so, while
supplying rabbis with “permissions” (heterim) in a
second, more specialized segment of his treatise
(Halperin/Bartal: 1:18–25; Gamoran: 162). There
was a similar development in Ottoman Egypt
(ibid.: 164–66). In contemporary times, most Israeli
banks have a generic “permission” bill on hand that
covers all of their transactions (ibid.: 172–75; Gva-
ryahu). The bill today is used not only for commer-
cial loans but for consumer loans as well.
The Sanhedrin of Paris (articles 8 and 9), decreed
in 1812 that Jews were forbidden from taking
usury usure from anyone, Jew or gentile, whereas
legal intérêt charged on loans for “enterprise and
speculation of commerce” was permitted to be
taken from all – Jew or gentile. This ruling was ex-
plicitly rooted in the exegesis of the Biblical Hebrew
terms neshekh and tarbit (Lev 25:36–37), “correcting”
widespread “misunderstanding” about them, and
offering a new rationale for them.
The Orthodox halakhic decisor R. Moshe Fein-
stein, writing in the 1960s, approved of the wide-
spread practice of religiously observant Jews in the
US of availing themselves of retail banking for cur-
rent accounts, despite the fact that this could be
construed as lending at interest (Feinstein: YD,
4:62–64; Gamoran: 174–75). Feinstein suggested
that the bank’s status as a limited liability corpora-
tion meant that it was an entity separate from its
shareholders, and not liable to the laws of interest;
he did not allow retail borrowing from banks (cf.
Rosin: 182).
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
780
Together, these developments have made con-
tracts between Jews no different than from those
between gentiles, and they eventually allowed Jews
to become consumers in the emergent retail-bank-
ing industry. The prohibition against usury has
thus become almost a dead letter in the otherwise
observant Jewish community.
Bibliography: ■ Bleich, J. D., “Survey of Recent Halakhic
Periodical Literature: The Hetter Iska and American
Courts,” Trad. 42.3 (2009) 49–79. ■ Feinstein, M., Iggerot
Mosheh, vol. 8 (OH 5; YD 4; New York 1996). [Heb.] ■ Ga-
moran, H., Jewish Law in Transition: How Economic Forces Over-
came the Prohibition against Lending on Interest (Cincinnati,
Ohio 2008). ■ Gvaryahu, A., “A Bill to Allow Banking
(Heter Isqa),” in Judaism and the Economy: A Sourcebook (ed. M.
Satlow; London/New York 2019) 198–201. ■ Halperin, I./I.
Bartal (eds.), The Records of the Council of the Four Lands, vol. 1
(Jerusalem 21990). [Heb.] ■ Rosin, J., Tsofnat Paneahø (War-
saw 1938).
Amit Gvaryahu
V. Christianity
■ Patristics and Orthodox Churches ■ Medieval Times
and Reformation Era ■ Modern Europe and
America ■ New Christian Churches and Move-
ments ■ Africa and Southeast Asia
A. Patristics and Orthodox Churches
Almost without exception, patristic theologians
condemned moneylending at any rate of interest.
Three biblical passages are often referenced in sup-
port of this position toward moneylending: most
frequently, Ps 15:5; less frequently, Jesus’ parable
about the talents (cf. Matt 25:14–30); least fre-
quently, reference to moneylending in expositions
of Ps 37:21. There are occasional references in expo-
sitions of these biblical passages to Levitical injunc-
tions against moneylending, which seem to influ-
ence Jesus’ – and later patristic theologians’ – views
towards individuals in need. These references
stressed the attitude of loving-kindness from the
moneylender towards the one in financial distress,
especially when this distress involved family; re-
garding those in difficulty: “You shall not lend
them money at interest taken in advance or provide
them with food at a profit” (Lev 25:35–37).
We may divide comments made about money-
lending in patristic homilies into three different
categories: The first is offhand remarks against
moneylending. For example, in his exposition of Ps
14, Athanasius stated little more than the passage
itself, that followers of Christ may not lend money
at interest (Athanasius, Expositiones in Psalmos, Ps.
14). The second category is digressions from errors
of lending money to spiritual meanings of economic
terminology. Cassiodorus, for instance, taught that
moneylending is an ambivalent word. Bad money-
lending is money lent at interest that ought to have
otherwise gone to the poor, while good moneylend-
ing is preaching and teaching the Gospel (Cassiodo-
rus: 155–60). The third is lengthy expositions
781 Moneylending
against the practice of moneylending. We find such
expositions in texts by Basil the Great, Gregory of
Nyssa, and Ambrose of Milan, who composed ser-
mons specifically devoted to refuting the practice
(Basil, Homilia in psalmum 14; Ambrose, Tob.; Greg-
ory of Nyssa, Contra usurarios). Drawing heavily on
Deuteronomy, Ps 15, and Greek and Roman phi-
losophy, they addressed ethical, social, and theo-
logical implications of the practice. Common
themes include usury as theft, lies of the lender,
anxiety of borrower and lender, enslavement to ava-
rice, and heavenly usury.
Later Christian theologians inherited these
negative patristic stances and continued the con-
demnation of moneylending. Until the High Mid-
dle Ages, the church stood firmly against any lend-
ing with interest. Taking their cue from laws, the
HB, free lending encouraged by Jesus and recogni-
tion by philosophers that usury is unethical and un-
social, early Christian bishops wrote in explicit
terms against moneylending.
Bibliography: ■ Cassiodorus, Explanation of the Psalms (ACW
51; Mahwah, N.J. 1990). ■ Percival, H. R., The Seven Ecumen-
ical Councils of the Undivided Church: Their Canons and Dogmatic
Decrees, Together with the Canons of All the Local Synods which
have received Ecumenical Acceptance (Peabody, Mass. 1999).
Brenda Llewellyn Ihssen
B. Medieval Times and Reformation Era
During the medieval and Reformation eras, Chris-
tian teaching about moneylending depended on
whether it was considered usury or interest. Confu-
sion over these terms and the tendency not to dis-
tinguish clearly between them contributed to the
misconception that Christianity imposed a univer-
sal ban on all forms of interest. Yet “there was a
world of difference between usury and interest”
(Kerridge: 5). Theologians distinguished between
sinful usury and legitimate interest, and this dis-
tinction was crucial in determining the ethics of
moneylending. Medieval writers delineated four
grounds of entitlement to interest. The first three
related to an agreed penalty or loss of opportunity
if repayment was delayed beyond the stipulated
date. The fourth came from the risk shared between
lender and borrower, for example in a trading voy-
age. During the South German Interest Rate Con-
troversy in 1514–15, Johannes Eck espoused a mod-
erate interest of up to five percent as acceptable
(Rex: 109; Lier/Schweiger: 200).
Moneylending, which received compensation
due to an individual’s interest in a business (verum
interesse), was acceptable up to an extent, while
usury was unjust interest that took above and be-
yond the principal solely in return for a secured
loan. Several biblical examples recognized this dis-
tinction between usury and interest. Psalm 15 con-
demned the usurer, but Jesus Christ in the parable
of the talents (Matt 25:14–30) emphatically recom-
mended depositing accounts with interest. Yet
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
782
usury was a much more loosely used word that
sometimes could have a positive meaning, while
those wishing to disguise dubious transactions
naturally tried to redefine their activities in terms
of a verum interesse. One response to this ambiguity
was to develop guidelines for regulating interest
rates. The purpose of this effort was not to accept
any interest rate as legitimate, but to define accept-
able interest rates and condemn usurious practices
that took advantage of the vulnerable.
Regarding the recipients of moneylending, Mar-
tin Luther wrote that a Christian “should be willing
to lend and give to everyone who asks him. Yet if
he knows that this is a scoundrel, he is not obliged
to give it to him” (LW 21:117). Other reformers like
John Calvin and Martin Bucer, following the usage
of the Roman civil law, distinguished between legit-
imate usury (which included uncontested practices
as the lending of land to farm) and illegitimate
usury, which caused confusion over whether the re-
formers allowed usury in the narrowly defined or
broader popular sense (Kerridge: 30). Anabaptists
denounced all interest-taking and expected mem-
bers to abandon any usurious enterprise before join-
ing the brotherhood (Klassen: 97).
Bibliography: ■ Kerridge, E., Usury, Interest and the Reforma-
tion (Aldershot 2002). ■ Klassen, P. J., The Economics of Ana-
baptism 1525–1560 (The Hague 1964). ■ Lier, S./C. Schwei-
ger (eds.), Between Creativity and Norm-Making: Tensions in the
Early Modern Era (Leiden 2013). ■ Rex, R., The Making of
Martin Luther (Princeton, N.J. 2017). ■ Torvend, S., Luther and
the Hungry Poor (Philadelphia, Pa. 2008).
Esther Chung-Kim
C. Modern Europe and America
Christian teachings about lending money in early
modernity were first based upon received medieval
and reformation patterns wherein usury, i.e., lend-
ing money at excessive interest, was absolutely pro-
hibited, although lending in hopes of a profit if the
principal was at risk was allowed. In England in
1611, the chaplain to the Lord High Chancellor,
Roger Fenton produced a treatise decrying contem-
porary, actual uses of credit practiced in London
trade, high and low. Fenton employed a full range
of biblical references – Exod 22, Lev 25, Deut 23, Ps
15, Ezek 18, and more – to argue for the elimina-
tion of all forms of lending money at interest. His
views were influential in Anglican and Puritan cir-
cles alike. Yet but a few short decades later, Protes-
tant clergy in Holland, England, and America had
come around to the morality of lending. The reason
for the change was to be found in the era of explora-
tion and increased international trade, beginning
around 1650.
The Catholic nations of France and Spain carried
on their economies in hard currency enlarged by Pe-
ruvian silver and Mexican gold and were thus able
to continue to observe the taboo on lending money
at interest. The Protestant nations of England and
783 Moneylending
the Netherlands came, by contrast, to depend on
new forms of paper money to expand their econo-
mies – bills of exchange, notes, and bonds – that
as conceptual money led to innovations in thinking
about valuing and discounting particular instru-
ments in relation to time, distance, and risk of re-
payment. Conceptually, the religious meaning of
lending in these lands and in early America shifted
to what rates of interest were just and unjust under
particular circumstances. A lively Protestant clerical
literature on each side of the Atlantic sought to deal
with the traditional biblical teachings in a changed
context, not unlike centuries of rabbinical thought
that had likewise squared trade with justice.
In the late 18th century views shifted again
when Jeremy Bentham argued against Adam Smith
in favor of lifting any caps on rates of interest,
Smith having argued that high rates invited moral
imprudence and unproductive projects for lenders
and creditors alike. Half a century later Papal policy
at last relaxed the practical prohibition against
Catholics lending money at interest, so long as it
was just. Usury was finally omitted from doctrine
in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Still, the morality of
money lending survives in the culturally Christian
secular West in the form of hotly debated laws set-
ting maximum interest rates well into the 21st cen-
tury on grounds that the prophet Amos (8:5–6) ar-
gued, namely that credit too easily allows the rich
and powerful to exploit the poor.
Bibliography: ■ Bentham, J., Defense of Usury: Shewing the Im-
policy of the Present Legal Restraints on the Terms of Pecuniary
Bargains (London 31816). ■ Fenton, R., A Treatise of Usurie
(London 1611). ■ Valeri, M., “The Christianization of
Usury in Early Modern Europe,” Interpretation 65.2 (April
2011; https://journals.sagepub.com).
James Hudnut-Beumler
D. New Christian Churches and Movements
Most present-day Christian organizations accept
that moneylending is a necessity in contemporary
economic conditions. The Claretians are a rare ex-
ception: founded in 1849 as of the Congregation of
the Missionary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary, its members hold that accruing interest on
lent money is sinful (Exod 22:25). In the main,
Christian commentators argue that prohibitions on
“usury” belong to the Old Covenant, and are not
binding on Christians. Christian objections to exact-
ing interest arise where a loan is exploitative, or the
interest excessive. In 1931, during the Great De-
pression, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Quadra-
gesimo Anno, in which he deplored the way in which
“an immense power and despotic economic dicta-
torship is consolidated in the hands of a few,” with
the result that those who manage investments con-
trol the lending process. In his 2013 Evangelii Gau-
dium Pope Francis condemned the progressive accu-
mulation of debt in poor countries, for which
interest was required, and he urged that the world’s
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
784
economic systems should not underprivilege the
poor. In the same year, Justin Welby, Archbishop
of Canterbury, vigorously opposed “pay day loans,”
which are made to poverty-stricken individuals with
insufficient funds to meet their financial needs un-
til they are paid by their employers. Such loans
could incur interest equivalent to as much as 4,000
percent per annum.
In his Interest and Usury, B. W. Dempsey distin-
guishes between two types of loan – one to buy fin-
ished goods in order to reduce the waiting time for
their acquisition, and another to buy unfinished
goods with a view to improving them and selling
them in a completed state. Most Christians would
find no objection to the latter, and most would only
refuse to charge interest to members of their own
community, in line with the ancient Jewish practice
of only seeking usury from foreigners (Deut 23:20).
Jesus’ parable of the talents (Luke 19:11–27) is
often taken to recommend investing one’s money
for interest; however, Protestant writer Paul Mills
points out that the master describes himself as a
“hard man,” “reaping what I did not sow” (Luke
19:22), thus implying that attracting interest for
lent money is unjustifiable unearned income. He
contends, however, that lending money to an indi-
vidual usually differs from lending money for busi-
ness ventures, which involves risk-taking and profit
sharing, although ethical considerations must be
taken into account, for example if one were to in-
vest in alcohol, tobacco, armaments, or pornogra-
phy.
Bibliography: ■ Dempsey, B. W., Interest and Usury (London
1948). ■ Mills, P., “Investing as a Christian: reaping where
you have not sown?,” Cambridge Papers 5.2 (June 1996;
www.jubilee-centre.org). ■ Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium
(Vatican 2013). ■ Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anni (Vatican
1933). ■ Tomielli, A./G. Galeazzi (eds), This Economy Kills:
Pope Francis on Capitalism and Social Justice (Collegeville,
Minn. 2015).
George D. Chryssides
E. Africa and Southeast Asia
Moneylending among majority world Christians is
common among ministers, kinsfolk, and close
friends. Calls to give or lend are seen in 1 John
3:17–18 (“But whoever has the world’s material
possessions and observes his brother in need and
shuts his heart against him, how does the love of
God reside in him?”). Pietistic Christians see Luke
6:34 as calls to lend generously, but without any
kinship, tribal or ethnic ties, seldom does one lend
to an enemy (Luke 6:35) or to unbelievers. This is es-
pecially true in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and
many Muslim majority nations to avoid charges of
financially-induced conversions.
In patron-client cultures, interpersonal concerns
include moneylending as meeting another person’s
need. For example, African Christians place money-
lending into relationships of care between powerful
785 Moneylending
patrons and those working their land or businesses.
Thus, while the needy understand Phil 4:19 as God
meeting their financial needs, they are not averse to
borrowing. These sustain a culture of moneylend-
ing, but, outside these relationships, Christians gen-
erally shun such practices. Moreover, African and
Asian Christians understand that lending cannot be
exploitative, since the love of money is the root of
all evil (1 Tim 6:10). Lending in the majority world
is virtuous when it meets the needs of poor kinsfolk
and is offered without interest (so that lenders avoid
shame and charges of exploitation). They may or
may not be familiar with biblical injunctions not
to charge interest (in Lev 25:35–38) or to hold collat-
eral from the borrower (Deut 24:10–13), but
their moneylending practices nevertheless parallel
those prescribed in the Bible.
Most moneylending involves small and moder-
ate amounts, but larger sums require greater discre-
tion. If loans are requested too often, they strain
relationships. In Malaysia and Singapore, there is
an unspoken understanding that borrowers should
repay (Luke 12:48; Prov 22:7; Rom 13:7–8). Even
so, lenders downplay this to avoid conveying that
their relationship is reduced to settling balances or
to an ungenerous spirit. However, if requests are
made too often, they strain relationships. If borrow-
ers cannot repay, the loan is often written off as a
gift. In such cases, 2 Cor 9:6–8 (“God loves the
cheerful giver”) and Luke 6:38 (“give … for with the
measure you use it will be measured back to you”)
are sometimes applied to moneylending.
Community-wise, when majority world nations
modernized, the lack of charitable institutions
stirred local Christian giving practices to follow the
examples of missionaries who gave (but did not
lend) to the poor. This later stimulated other non-
Christian faiths to establish charitable institutions
that gave, not lent, money.
Bibliography: ■ Bonk, J. J., Missions and Money, revised and
expanded (Maryknoll, N.Y. 2006). ■ De Neui, P. H. (ed.),
Complexities of Money and Missions in Asia (Pasadena, Calif.
2012). ■ Maranz, D., African Friends and Money Matters (Dal-
las, Tex. 2001).
John Cheong
VI. Islam
The Qurān not only provides legal injunctions in
regard to dealing with money and with the methods
by which money is gained, but also sets strict guide-
lines on profit generated through moneylending.
Receiving interest or any monetary profit through
moneylending is prohibited outright in Islam (cf.
Exod 22:25; Lev 25:36–37; Deut 23:19–20; Neh 5:7).
Charging interest on borrowed money is referred to
in the Qurān as ribā or usury, which means an in-
crease or growth in capital (al-T ūsı̄: 359). S 2:275–
76 illustrate the strict prohibition of ribā: “God …
forbids [ribā]. God has blighted [ribā] and made
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
786
almsgiving fruitful.” Also, S 3:130 says: “O you who
believe! Do not devour [ribā], doubling and quadru-
pling (the sum lent).” The Qurān describes the
practice of ribā as “devouring people’s wealth by
false pretenses” (S 4:161).
The Qurān also makes a distinction between
trading and ribā: “God permits trading and forbids
[ribā]” (S 2:275). Money generated by trading is legal
because the increase of money is generated by the
exchange of goods and commodities while ribā is
the increase of money without any exchange of
goods (al-T ūsı̄: 360). Also, with trading, there is the
prospect of earning profit and there is the risk of
incurring loss. Ribā, however, is the earning of
money regardless of the outcomes. Hence, “there
can be no doubt that the payment of something def-
inite in return for something uncertain inflicts a
harm” (Chapra: 10). The Qurān chastises those who
equate ribā with trading because ribā is in conflict
with the socio-economic justice of the Qurān.
Moreover, to equate trading with ribā is an outright
disbelief (kufr) in the Qurān and whoever profits
from ribā is an unbeliever (kāfir) (al-T ūsı̄: 362). The
prophet Muh ammad also spoke against ribā in the
strongest terms and condemned not only those who
benefit from ribā but also those who give it as well
as those who record the transaction or act as wit-
nesses to it (Sø ahø ı̄hø al-Bukhārı̄, vol. 7, bk. 72,
no. 829; Sø ahø ı̄hø Muslim, bk. 10, Hadith 3854). Muh -
ammad even went further to equate ribā with as-
signing partners to God (shirk), killing an innocent
soul, consuming the property of an orphan, and
slandering chaste women (Abū Dāwud bk. 11, Ha-
dith 2868). In the Sharia (Islamic law), ribā is de-
fined as the premium that must be paid by the bor-
rower “as a condition for the loan or for an
extension in its maturity … In this sense, ribā has
the same meaning and import as interest,” accord-
ing to all the schools of law (Chapra: 4–5; al-Ja-
zı̄rı̄: 304). The Qurān’s condemnation of ribā was a
reaction to the injustices that occurred in pre-Is-
lamic Arabia from the widespread practices of
charging interest at the time. The Qurān wanted to
guarantee a healthy financial system that is free
from exploitation and fair for both moneylenders
and borrowers.
Bibliography: ■ Chapra, M. U., “The Nature of Riba in Is-
lam,” Hambard Islamicus 7.1 (1984) 3–24. ■ McAuliffe, J.
(ed.), The Qurān (New York/London 2017). ■ al-Jazı̄rı̄, A. R.,
Kitab al-Fiqh, vol. 2 (Beirut 22003). ■ al-Tūsı̄, Abū Jafar
Muh ammad b. al-H  asan, Al-Tibyān fı̄ Tafsı̄r al-Qurān, vol. 2
(Beirut n.d.). [Available at www.hadithcollection.com]
Hussam Timani
VII. Literature
As other entries have shown, biblical injunctions re-
lating to moneylending tend to accept it as an eco-
nomic necessity while urging restraint and generos-
ity in the lender. The term “usury” in English
connotes unscrupulous moneylending and there is
787 Moneylending
a fine distinction between the two. The rise of mer-
cantilism in Europe brought the tensions between
“acceptable” and “unacceptable” practice to the
fore, with (for example) the trope of Christ driving
the moneychangers/-lenders from the temple part
of the anti-usury discourse. For Hyam Maccoby, the
Fourth Gospel’s treatment of Judas as the treasurer
among the disciples of Jesus (John 12:3–6) “was a
most fateful development for the history of an-
tisemitism” (Maccoby: 63).
While discussion of moneylending in literature
often tends to be tilted towards the issue of the anti-
Semitism inherent in the medieval relegation of
Jews to the role of userers through a dark form of
Christian moral expediency, it is also true that early
modern societies struggled more generally with the
topic. In particular, in Russia moneylending at-
tracted the opprobrium associated with foreign in-
terference in Slavic culture. Usury in this context is
vilified because it represents modernity. Similarly,
in England the intense debate about usury during
the 16th and 17th centuries often revolved around
the threat which usury presented to the status quo.
In a paraphrase of Thomas Lodge’s An Alarum
Against Userers (1584), “Usury is a means by which
the low-born can get the land and money of the
high-born and invert the social order” (Berek: 147).
Dante in Inferno 11:109–11 contrasted the atti-
tudes of userers with the vision set out in Gen 1.
These were people who placed their hopes not in
God’s promise of abundance within Creation:
They place their hopes in other things, and thus
Make mock of Nature’s self and her close kin.
(Dante: 97)
For this these Florentines are consigned to the sev-
enth circle of Hell.
John Donne’s poem, “Love’s Usury” (ca. 1590)
daringly treats the raptures of love-making as a
form of borrowing from the future in a reversal of
the usual biblical connotations of the term and this
from an author deeply imbued with biblical no-
tions.
William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice
(1605) clearly is a crucial text for understanding the
moral ambiguities surrounding moneylending dur-
ing the Renaissance. Emma Smith points out that
the term “Jew” had become less of a racial signifier
than one specifically related to the occupation of
moneylending and equally that English anti-Semi-
tism could be read as a cipher for other forms of
racial prejudice, such as anti-Hispanic sentiment
(Smith: 217). Previously Robert Wilson’s play The
Three Ladies of London (1581) had presented the Jew-
ish moneylender Gerontus as a generous and car-
ing man.
The novels of Benito Pérez Galdós are much
concerned with avarice. Gloria (1877) treats the char-
acter Juan Amarillo as a miser and userer, cast in
the image of the figure of Dives in Luke 16:19–31.
Both this novel and the earlier La Fontana del Oro
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
788
(1870) were influenced by the anonymous Lazarillo
de Tormes (1554), in Spanish literature a founda-
tional treatment of the theme of Dives and Lazarus
(Alfieri: 723–25).
Moneylending as a symptom of unwelcome for-
eign practices in evident in Gogol’s Dead Souls
(1842), in Pushkin’s drama, The Miserly Knight
(1830) – made into an opera by Rachmaninov – and
the short story “The Queen of Spades” (1834) –
made into an opera by Tchaikovsky – as well as in
Dostoevsky’s novel, The Gambler (1866) – made into
an opera by Prokofiev. In all these cases moneylend-
ing is associated with modernity rather than having
anti-Semitic overtones.
Arnold Wesker’s play The Merchant (1975) revis-
its the situation of Shylock, placing him in the Jew-
ish ghetto in Venice in 1563, with its vibrant cul-
tural life despite the limitations of the ghetto in
which the main protagonist, confined to money-
lending as an occupation, is “bled dry by the Vene-
tian tax-collector and compelled to purchase civic
rights by a contract whose renewal is uncertain”
(Sicher: 60).
An interview with the author Gregor von Rez-
zori published in 1983 revealed disturbingly that
the medieval view of the relationship between Jews
and moneylending had not entirely died out (Hoff-
man: 238–39). Tom Wolf’s novel The Bonfire of Vani-
ties (1987) more broadly used a quasi-biblical trope
to highlight the excesses of Wall Street bond-trad-
ing using borrowed money.
Bibliography. Primary: ■ Dante, A., Inferno (trans. R. Kirk-
patrick; London 2006).
Secondary: ■ Alfieri, J. J., “The Double Language of Avarice
in Galdós’ Novels,” Hisp. 46 (1963) 722–29. ■ Berek, P.,
“The Jew as Renaissance Man,” RenQ 51.1 (1998) 128–62.
■ Hoffman, N. Y., “The Temptations of Betrayal,” Southwest
Review 68.3 (1983) 234–49. ■ Maccoby, H., Judas Iscariot and
the Myth of Jewish Evil (New York 1992). ■ Rosenshield, G.,
“Gambling and Passion: Pushkin’s ‘The Queen of Spades’
and Doestoevsky’s ‘The Gambler,’” The Slavic and East Euro-
pean Journal 55.2 (2011) 205–28. ■ Sicher, E., “The Jewing
of Shylock: Wesker’s ‘The Merchant,’” Modern Language Stud-
ies 21.2 (1991) 57–69. ■ Smith, E., “Was Shylock Jewish?,”
Shakespeare Quarterly 64.2 (2013) 188–219.
Anthony Swindell
VIII. Visual Arts
Moneylenders were common in Christian religious
and secular art of the Middle Ages. Though not all
medieval moneylenders were Jewish (in fact a rela-
tively small number of Jews held lucrative positions
in the field), artists created a strong visual connec-
tion between this occupation and Judaism. This
connection, which Christians rooted in the HB/OT
(e.g., Lev 25:35–37; Deut 23:19–20; Ps 112:4–9;
Matt 5:40–42) instigated and aggravated medieval
antisemitism. The material culture of medieval
moneylending largely depended on documents
loosely categorized as tax records or receipts rolls.
In addition to noting the minutiae of financial
789 Moneylending
Fig. 16 “Hell with Satan and the infernal punishments
for deadly sins” (ca. 1120/30)
transactions, these records often contain visual in-
formation. For example, the margins of English Ex-
chequer rolls are often punctuated with visual find-
ing aids (the pointing hand or coin being the most
common). In records pertaining to Jews, the hands
and coins are supplemented with drawings of
badges (two tablets of the law) and human heads in
profile. In addition, drawings of known moneylend-
ers from the Jewish community can appear in the
rolls. Christian scribes portrayed historical figures
such as Isaac of Norwich (12th–13th cent.) as ab-
stracted and grotesque figures, ignoring real hu-
manity in favor of derogatory caricature. Visualiza-
tions of moneylenders in religious contexts
(especially illuminated manuscripts) tend to depend
on more subtle visual cues that identify the charac-
ters as Jews. Despite these distinguishing cues, such
as costume, Jewish moneylenders were humanized
rather than grotesquely rendered as in the secular
material or even passion imagery. The main visual
identifier of the moneylender is a bag of coins that
seems to weigh down even the most robust of char-
acters. In a tympanum sculpture on the façade of
the Romanesque Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy in
Conques, a damned figure representing avaricious
greed is visualized as a moneylender with a bag of
coins tied round his neck as he hangs from the gal-
lows (see fig. 16).
The clearest narrative imagery connecting bibli-
cal moneylenders to Jews comes from the NT epi-
sode of the cleansing of the temple (Matt 21:12–
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
790
17; Mark 11:15–19; Luke 19:45–48; John 2:13–16).
Artists tend to focus on Jesus’ physical actions of
driving the moneylenders out of the temple, push-
ing them from the space and intentionally overturn-
ing tables heavy with coins. The laden table in vari-
ous states of being overturned is usually a visual
center point – coins slide from the table alerting the
viewer to an implied loud noise of reckoning. In
Rembrandt’s 1625 etching of the scene, the coins
slide from the central table as if to pour right out
the picture plane. Jesus’ whip is about to descend
on a lender tightly clutching his bags of money.
Similar imagery appears in El Greco’s painting of
the Cleansing of the Temple (before 1570, National
Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.), where Jesus’
strong dynamic movement confidently casts the
chaos out from the temple. In Quentin Matsys’ alle-
gorical painting of the Money Changer and his Wife
(1514, Louvre, Paris) the laden table is the most di-
rect indication of the male’s profession. Moneybags
and piles of coins tend to identify the moneylender
in Christian art. When appearing in isolation, im-
ages of moneylenders depend on the symbolism of
the trade (coins, moneybags, etc.) but when visual-
ized in larger narratives based on these scenes from
the NT, the moneylenders tend to be pushed to the
outskirts of the plane, while Jesus dominates the
center.
Carlee Bradbury
IX. Film
Moneylending appears on screen primarily in two
ways. The first has only tangential relation to the
Bible. The second relies on a form of antisemitism
that frequently bases itself in the Bible.
The first category of films portrays moneylend-
ing as a neutral activity that can be either beneficial
or destructive. For example, in Frank Capra’s It’s a
Wonderful Life (1946, US), the genial president of Bai-
ley Building and Loan speaks movingly about how
his business enables people to build decent homes
for themselves. Meanwhile, the miserly bank owner
in the film cares only about profit and forecloses
ruthlessly on anyone who can’t pay him back. Simi-
larly, D. W. Griffith’s silent short The Usurer (1910,
US) opens with an intertitle that alerts viewers to
“wine distilled from the blood of unfortunates – vi-
ands paid for with the tears of the needy.” However,
again, it is the exploitation of the poor by the
wealthy that is condemned rather than lending it-
self. Neither of these films explicitly invokes the Bi-
ble, though biblical teachings about how the rich
ought to treat the poor seem to lie in the back-
ground.
A second category of films about moneylending
is complicated by negative stereotypes about Jews
that are often biblically-derived. In her examination
of Jewish moneylending in medieval France, Julie
Mell argues, “Jews became the symbolic referent for
791 Mongolian Bible Translations
‘usurer’ not because they were the most important
moneylenders, but because ‘infidel’ became identi-
fied with economic sin, and Jews were the most pre-
scient symbol of the infidel as the historic agents
who were offered the Messiah, yet rejected and
‘killed’ Christ” (2018: 184). Mell concludes that “the
concept of Jewish enmity with the intent to injure
by economic means remains a staple of antisemi-
tism to this day” (ibid.: 81). Thus the stereotype of
the greedy Jewish moneylender may rely on bibli-
cally-derived ideas about Jews as Christ-killers even
when there is no explicit invocation of biblical lan-
guage.
The most notorious anti-Semitic portrayal of
moneylenders is Veit Harlan’s Jud Süss (1940, DE).
The film was produced as part of Joseph Goebbels’
Nazi propaganda campaign (Tegel: 151). A costume-
drama set in 18th-century Germany, the story was
based on the life of Joseph Süss Oppenheimer (who
was financial advisor to the Duke of Württemberg),
but the facts of Süss’ life are twisted to promote a
Nazi agenda. In Harlan’s depiction, Süss is a malev-
olent schemer who uses his role as moneylender to
insinuate his way into high society, uses his influ-
ence to open the city gates to Jews, and rapes a vir-
ginal non-Jewish woman (who then commits sui-
cide). As happened in real life, the cinematic Süss is
executed. To justify the death sentence, the dead
woman’s father reflects, “An eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth. That is not our custom. Our legal code
states, for all eternity: ‘Whenever a Jew mingles his
flesh with a Christian woman – he should be
hanged at the gallows as well-deserved punishment
and a warning to all.” After Süss has been executed,
the local magistrate reads a declaration expelling all
Jews from Württemberg and adds, “May our de-
scendants adhere to this decree and thereby be
spared suffering for their own wellbeing, and for
the sake of their children’s blood, and that of their
children’s children.”
Jud Süss was designed to warn Nazi society about
the supposed threat of Jewish influence. At the
same time that it rejects the lex talionis (Exod 21:24),
it alludes to Matt 27:25 (“His blood be on us and on
our children!”) as justification for executing Süss.
Notably, an earlier film had portrayed Süss as a
hero. The English Jew Süss (dir. Lothar Mendes,
1934, aka Power) opened with a description of the
film’s setting: “It was a time of brutality and univer-
sal intolerance and the Jews above all suffered op-
pression and boycott. At last there rose up a man
who … resolved … to break down, once and for all,
the barriers of the Ghetto.” In this version of the
story, Süss was a fighter against the subjugation of
his people. At one point in the film he declares, “I
want to sit down to table with Dukes and Princes.
Not for my sake only, but for the sake of all of us”
(Tegel: 128).
Another early movie that defied the stereotype
of the greedy moneylender was Old Isaacs, the Pawn-
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 19
© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2021
792
broker (dir. Wallace McCutcheon, written by D. W.
Griffith, 1908, US). In this short film, a Jewish mon-
eylender pays off the debts of a sick woman and her
child. The studio was so aware of the anomalous
depiction that it advertised the movie as overcom-
ing “the malignant calumnies launched at the He-
braic race” (Erens: 31).
The image of the nefarious Jewish moneylender
is found throughout cinema. There are over a dozen
different movie presentations of Shakespeare’s Mer-
chant of Venice in which the Jew Shylock demands a
pound of flesh should his Christian borrower re-
nege. These include a silent short from Italy di-
rected by Gerolamo Lo Savio (Il mercante di Venezia,
1911), a version from 1983 (dir. John Sichel, UK),
and a 2004 version (dir. Michael Radford, US/IT/
LU/UK).
One final film of note is The Pawnbroker (dir. Sid-
ney Lumet, 1964, US), which tells the story of a Jew-
ish Holocaust survivor who owns a pawnshop. The
owner’s assistant is named Jesús, and in the end, he
dies for the Jewish owner. Judith Doneson observes
that this plot sets up a troubling dynamic: “Juda-
ism, it is intimated, lacks that essential ingredient
of ‘love thy neighbor’ found in Christianity”
(22002: 112). Once again, though the Bible may not
be explicitly referenced, ideas derived from the Bi-
ble about Jews and Judaism may shape films’ narra-
tives.
Bibliography: ■ Doneson, J., The Holocaust in American Film
(Syracuse, N.Y. 22002). ■ Erens, P., The Jew in American Cin-
ema (Bloomington, Ind. 1984). ■ Lam, B./G. B. White, “The
Morality of Banking in It’s a Wonderful Life,” The Atlantic (De-
cember 23, 2016; www.theatlantic.com). ■ Lipton, S., Im-
ages of Intolerance (Berkeley, Calif. 1999). ■ Mell, J., The Myth
of the Medieval Jewish Moneylender, 2 vols. (New York 2017;
Cham 2018). ■ Ray, J., The Sephardic Frontier (Ithaca, N.Y.
2006). [Esp. ch. 3] ■ Tegel, S., Jew Süss (London 2011).
Theresa Sanders
See also / Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism;
/ Cleansing of the Temple; / Debt, Debts;
/ Economics and the Bible; / Money; / Poor,
Poverty; / Taxes and Taxation; / Usury
Mongolian Bible Translations
/ Versions and Translations of the Bible
Moniuszko, Stanisław
Stanisław Moniuszko (1819–1872) was a Polish Ro-
mantic composer, conductor, pedagogue, organist,
and widely regarded as the father of Polish na-
tional opera.
Moniuszko came from a Polish, patriotic, Catho-
lic landowner (noble) family living under Russian
rule during the partition of Poland (1795–1918), oc-
cupied by Prussia, Austria, and Russia. His father
participated in Napoleon’s campaign against Russia