Renz's Thesis No. 5 - "The Gospel compels us to be just and generous, equitable and charitable"

Thomas begins discussion of his Fifth Thesis by declaring that, “Christians are not under the Law which governed Israel’s polity.” He concludes with the case that, “ ‘as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them’ will preclude many forms of interest-taking but arguably not all.” Thus, he argues that it is not Old Testament Law, but the New Testament principle of charity that controls our thoughts and actions regarding usury. One wonders, then: what is the point of arguing about the economic history of the Ancient Near East - about the meaning of the Deuteronomic permission - or about the meaning of nokri?

Added to the controversy of usury is the controversy of the Law of God. Most Christians would agree that at least some of the Ten Commandments still are binding. Most also would agree that the Laws of Temple Sacrifice no longer are binding. It is necessary to find that point or that principle which will help us to discern between Laws that still bind us and Laws that do not. Much of the Christian controversy over usury has focused upon the requirement of God’s Law. Thomas’s next Thesis in order acknowledges that the church fathers categorically condemned usury. Surely, Thomas cannot be unaware that the basis for their condemnation was the firm conviction that usury was contrary to God’s Law. In the era of the Reformation, when the Christian teaching regarding usury began to be liberalized, the case for liberalization involved further scrutiny of the meaning of the Law. That is, liberalization was not done by way of dismissing Christians from obligation to the Law, but by way of arguing that the Law really did not require a strict prohibition. It was the world who began to argue that the church’s opinions regarding the Law of God were economically irrelevant.

However, Old Testament Law and New Testament charity are not contrasting principles. Jesus related them in their true integral unity. “Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Mat. 7:12) A general principle of charity is fulfilled in the requirements of the Law. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” (Rom. 13:10) Focusing the discussion of usury on the New Testament principle of charity does not alleviate the need for us to discern the requirement of the Law.

Thomas observes a parallel in the construction of various principles of Jesus. He suggests that just as “turn the other cheek” does not mandate absolute pacifism, and “to one who takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic” does not nullify the Eighth Commandment, so “lend, expecting nothing in return” does not preclude banking. The parallel is well taken up this point. But Thomas wishes to extend the principle so that it “…will preclude many forms of interest-taking but arguably not all.” This is a leap beyond the text. “Lend, expecting nothing in return” does not pertain to usury directly. In view is only the matter of repayment. The true parallel of principles is that just as “turn the other cheek” does not mandate absolute pacifism, and “to one who takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic” does not nullify the Eighth Commandment, so “lend, expecting nothing in return” does not necessarily condemn one who requires repayment. The issue of whether usury is required along with repayment is nowhere in view in context of the principle as stated. The issue of usury is settled already in the Law, and cannot be overturned by appeal to a general concept of “equity.” Thus, Thomas’s invocation of “justice” and “equity” is spurious.