It’s been a while since I had a good ol’ fashioned accusation of being a heretic, so I thought I’d stir up a little trouble today.
“The Bible says it, that settles it”. This is a great statement to live by as long as you’ve done at least a little bit of work to confirm that the Bible says it.
I’ve been growing more and more uncomfortable with the common usage of Prov. 22:7. The passage was accurately highlighted in many of the writings of Larry Burkett, and has now been popularized by Dave Ramsey’s frequent use of the passage. In fact, I think Prov. 22:7 is a Bible passage known and accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike.
Here is the passage in question:
The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7 NIV)
Does Our Use of the Word Servant/Slave Dishonor Those Who Are/Were Slaves?
Just because you see a word in any type of historical document doesn’t mean that word has the same meaning today. What if you found a letter from 75 years ago that said, “I’m feeling quite gay.” Would that have a different meaning than that word today? I think it would.
Is it appropriate for me to say the heartache one feels because they have debt is comparable to a time when people were literally enslaved for having debt?
Webster’s dictionary describes slavery as “a condition … in which a person is deprived of freedom, at least for a period of time, by being in subjection to a master in order that the master may benefit from the labor of the slave.”
If I have credit card debt, does that mean I’m in slavery? Does that mean that Proverbs 22:7 now applies to me and my life? Or is that being a little over dramatic?
The borrower today has obligations. The borrow today gives up some future control over his or her life, but are they slaves?
Put another way, if the Bible was written today, would it really say that the borrower is slave to the lender? I think that people from biblical times would say, “If you think this is slavery, you’ve got another thing coming.”
When Jesus finished a parable, he said, “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.” (Matthew 18:30 NIV)
If you have credit card debt, can you say to that man in jail – “Yeah, me too, I know how you’re feeling – I’m slave to my lender.”
Sure, we can say I’m in a type of slavery. I’m being ruled over in a way. But, somewhere the parallel breaks down. Somehow our modern situation doesn’t seem quite as drastic.
All I’m saying is I’m not sure Proverbs 22:7 directly applies in our culture where there are borrowing laws, bankruptcy options, and a whole mess of other loopholes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say the Bible supports debt. I’m just not sure this is the best ‘go to’ passage. I’m not sure it is accurate to say that the borrower is indeed slave to the lender. It’s bad, just not that bad.
Who is this passage addressing – the rich or the poor?
During the times of ancient Israel, it seems clear that a lender could collect any and every item from you until there was nothing left to collect except for the person him or herself. At times, even children were sold to cover a person’s debt. The Bible does forbid Israelite lenders from participating in such lending practices, but it proves their borrowing climate was very different than our own.
The Message writes the passage in this way:
The poor are always ruled over by the rich, so don’t borrow and put yourself under their power. (Proverbs 22:7 NIV)
The focus of this way of reading the passage is that some foolish people have borrowed money and they are now under the power of the rich.
I believe that in Biblical times, borrowing was a function of survival, while today borrowing is a function of convenience. In our society, Petersons’ reading makes sense. Don’t borrow and put yourselves under their power.
But, in the biblical setting, the way the Message writes it doesn’t make sense. People borrow to survive. As such, the option is borrow or die. People didn’t glibly go and borrow money for a car. They borrowed money for crops or other items necessary for survival. The alternative to not borrowing is dying.
At the least, we could say this is a passage without judgment on either the rich or poor. It is simply a statement of facts. Or, if there is any incitement, it could be against the rich for ruling over the poor.
Could this passage be addressing the rich? Could it be addressing the lenders, not the borrowers? Is it noble for the rich to rule over the poor? Is that simply a fact of life? Should we say, “Hey, if you’re dumb enough to borrow from me, then you deserve to be my slave.” Why must the rich make the borrow a servant to the lender? Perhaps the challenge is towards the rich to change their oppressive habits, not the poor to change.
Could Proverbs 22:7 be a sad commentary that is intended as an indictment of the rich?
Since I live in a third world country, I do make it a habit to lend money to people. Does that mean I’m in the habit of enslaving people? Does this passage (Prov 22:7) give me permission to rule over those people? I see Prov. 22:7 as much as a challenge for the rich to be different as a challenge to the poor to stop borrowing.
What do you think? Is our current debt structure and system parallel with slavery? Is that a little extreme? Is Prov. 22:7 directed towards the rich or the poor?
Other Great Articles:
Get Free Email Updates
Sign up today and you'll also get a free copy of The Bible and 21st Century Finances.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Craig,
Interesting article as always. I think the bible does use strong language sometimes. For example, did Jesus really tell us to hate our father and mother? I think the passage gets across the point that by borrowing we do lose our freedom, our right to chose, we do inherit a second master. Especially in light of no man can serve two masters.
I think there is more bondage through debt today than we would like to acknowledge. Our current system doesn’t provide the same debt cancellation mechanism as the year of jubliee or other mechanisms for debt cancellation after a certain number of years of servitude.
I really liked hearing your perspective on directing Proverbs 22:7 to the rich. I recently read the book titled Lords of Finance (don’t read it, way too detailed). Lords of Finance showed how after WWI the winning countries were as bad off as the losers. The winners made the situation worse by placing extraordinary debt obligations on Germany. Translation: debt can ensnare the rich as well as the poor.
Thoughts?
Cedric
Well, I believe what the bible says. The borrower is slave to the lender. If those people borrow money from you, then you own them in a sense. They are in servitude to you. It sounds a bit extreme, but it is what the bible says. Just like if I borrow money from the credit card company.
I dunno Craig, if you look at the absolute spiritual bondage that folks are in these days to their debt, which may work itself out to where they become workaholics to pay for all their toys and keeps them from following Jesus I would say that’s a pretty strong slavery to be in.
Slavery just means your rights are given up – you are now under the direction of someone else. Someone else is your master. Paul calls himself a slave of Christ – did that mean he had no freedom? Of course not, but he was now under the direction of a new master.
The point of debt being slavery is not so much that we are chained up in prison for not paying our bills, it is rather that we are now under a new master – the lender is the master, we must do what they say.
I wish folks would take debt more seriously, not less seriously – debt is a very real and very damaging slavery to be in.
When you realize that you qualify for a job and not get it only because you took a settlement on a debt to that company this passage rings true. It will not apply to every person in debt, but it will apply to the person who has been unemployed for over a year finds the “perfect’ job and is rejected because of debt.
There is also the fact that paying the minimum on a $3,000 debt can take you 17 years to pay it off…Each payment covers the interest and if you are late well, that is a whole other story.
There you go making me think. Debt can be painful but not literally make you a slave.
Over 7 years ago I felt I was enslaved. I was a divorced Dad living in rural Oregon, with joint custody of my son. Then I got downsized from a very lucrative job. I had to take a job in Seattle to keep bill current. Every weekend drove home (6 hours) so I could be there for my boy. That is when I started listening to radio talk shows and heard DR. I was able to get out of debt and take a huge cut in pay and work in same town. I am able to go to all his games now, be with him daily. My car payments, toys, debt kept me away from my son. He graduates next year and I have options now that I am debt free.
Craig,
As always you make me think. I realize that properly understanding the Bible in today’s context requires first understanding what the original writers were saying in the original context. So, yes, there may have been a challenge to lenders: “do not take advantage of those you are loaning money to”.
This being said, I cannot believe we are taking the verse out of context by interpreting it as a warning to those today who voluntarily put themselves into the bondage of debt. The lender has some responsibility to be an honorable person, but the borrower (in today’s world) is not being forced to borrow the money. Like you say, “today borrowing is a function of convenience”.
In the end, debt is a type of servitude (different today than it was thousands of years ago, but still servitude) and I believe Proverbs 22:7 is an apt warning of this bondage to those who voluntarily borrow money for convenience.
I agree with the need to read verses in context, but I don’t think that just because we don’t live under literal enslavement where we give up all our rights – doesn’t mean the warning against debt isn’t still just as valid. I believe being in debt does put you in bondage – a slavery of sorts where you have had parts of your freedom taken from you. I believe our nation is in a crisis of debt and enslavement right now – maybe not a literal one – but one that can be extremely dangerous and bring about the downfall of many.
We also need to understand that there were different types of slaves. Joseph was a slave in Potiphar’s house, but he was also in charge of a large portion of the day to day activities that went on. When he was put into jail, still being a slave, he was in charge of the other prisoners. Slavery, even in Biblical times, doesn’t mean you have no freedoms, you just don’t have total freedom.
Proverbs 22:7 is dead on accurate yesterday, today and tomorrow. When you are in debt, you don’t have total freedom to spend your money anyway you want. You are bound by the agreement to pay it back. Even declaring bankruptcy doesn’t make you free. The bankruptcy will stay with you for years, impacting many aspects of your life.
Great article though and I appreciate the opportunity to really think about what the Bible says.
Craig, the responses you received to your article were very thoughtful and we hope to add to the already excellent discussion. It is a vitally important topic to consider and you’ve asked some really good questions.
We tend to agree that the meaning of words do change over time. Have the words rich and poor also changed over time? We would answer in the affirmative, but we will save that for another discussion. Examining the origins of these words, in the Hebrew and Greek, makes for a very interesting study.
We would agree that during the boom cycle, borrowing was more a matter of convenience than a necessity, but since the year 2000 (the bust cycle) we’ve experienced a continual barrage of economic disasters, one after another, and, as a result, more and more people are now using revolving credit for basic needs (food, shelter, utilities, and clothing) to bridge the gap between declining incomes and ever increasing expenses. But Proverbs 22:7 makes no issue of what the borrowed money is to be used for, but focuses, instead, on the slave/master relationship that is cultivated. Might not a loving Creator, who is no respecter of persons, desire that we not contribute to such divisive class distinctions by unequally yoking ourselves in such a relationship (James 2:1-9)? And, is not such a relationship subject to the human frailties Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25, no matter how well intentioned the parties to the relationship may be going into it?
Other questions that we would throw out for discussion are: What circumstances would warrant us giving up a portion or all of our freedom? And, to whom or for what would we be willing to give up this freedom? Are people today really that much different from their predecessors of old? Have not people of all ages and dispensations struggled with the issue of debt and debt’s not so distant cousins named chiefly…the lust of the eye and the pride of life? Is keeping up with the Jones’s a unique phenomenon of the 20th or 21st century? See Ecclesiastes 1:9.
The ball-and-chain slave of yesteryear certainly understood the full meaning of slavery. The reason a ball and chain was used was because the slave of yesteryear would escape if given a reasonable opportunity. The debt slave, however, might not have such an awareness, but may be just as enslaved as his or her ancestors were or possibly even more so. Which type of slave is the more despicable human condition…the one who knows he is a slave and would seek to escape from bondage at the first opportunity or the one who doesn’t recognize his despicable condition and keeps coming back for more debt just like an abused spouse will often cling to their abuser and, in so doing, fosters a rather perverse co-dependent relationship?
In today’s age of enslavement, does not the lender have more to gain by keeping the borrower on the hamster wheel of perpetual debt, for as long as possible, than he stands to gain by throwing him in jail? This is an especially important consideration when the lender knows, as a result of political lobbying efforts, that a bad loan will be made good by taxpayer backstopping (bailouts). The slave masters, in today’s highly technological age, may have smartened up a little while their subjects have remained somewhat aloof to the dummying down process inherent in an educational system that, more often than not, represents the interests of the oppressive rich. To be perfectly clear, the tool of the oppressive rich is not capitalism, but rather crony capitalism. We’ve not seen true capitalism in a half century or more.
In our view, scripture neither lets the slothful poor nor the oppressive rich off the hook. We see a symbiotic and unhealthy co-dependent relationship between the two. And, we certainly need not lump the rich in with the oppressive rich nor lump the poor in with the slothful poor because there is a big difference between the two that often gets shoved by the wayside in these discussions. The key distinction that serves to differentiate the rich from the oppressive rich and the poor from the slothful poor is who they are serving. The oppressive rich and the slothful poor are both slaves…to the flesh.
…bBut the Bible also tells us not to presume upon the future: Proverbs 27:1/James 4:13. Don’t walk around assuming that your
job, living situation, life, etc. will still be there tomorrow.
Good for you if you pay back your loan. Consider yourself very fortunate. Others, however, unexpectedly lost their jobs, lost their
homes, lost their lives. Circumstances beyond our control happen daily: it is part of a fallen world.
I naively thought my job would continue for several years while I pay back my loan. What a fool I was. I became a slave
to my lenders for years, and my lenders had not a shred of compassion for my situation, but instead harassed me non-stop. It was the most
horrible, harrowing thing I have ever experienced.
So I am here to confirm the truth of Proverbs 22:7. Just because you paid back your loan this time doesn’t mean this passage will be untrue
the next time you borrow.
JG,
I 100% agree. I’m not recommending loans. I’m not suggesting people get into debt.
The point of this article is basically that the word “debt” today is different than the word “debt” in the Bible so some critical thought is involved when determining what the Bible says about borrowing.
The point is that since the Bible (and Jesus) does approve of lending there must be a Biblical allowance for borrowing.
I think your analysis is being too pedantic (Proverbs 3:5). If your intent was to say “the consequences of not repaying a debt are different today than it did 2000+ years ago”, then just say that (Matthew 5:37, Proverbs 21:23, Proverbs 29:20).
Otherwise, you’re suggesting that the psalmist at Psalm 37:21 is lying. Just because the worldly consequences of not repaying a debt are different now than in the past doesn’t mean that the spiritual consequences are any different. Not repaying a debt is a sin, an old one. It’s _theft_ (that’s commandment number 8, and it’s often done in the pursuit of violating commandment number 10). We have a moral obligation to our lenders, and going into debt is a weak form of testing God (you’re presuming your current state of “financial grace” will remain, which it may not — a lesson Job learned the hard way). Every single time the Bible talks about debt it does so in a negative light. It’s not that borrowing is a sin, but rather it’s trouble prone and usually an unnecessary practice — it’s like drinking alcohol. You can certainly do it without sinning, but it’s highly correlated with sinful activity, so if you’re doing a lot of it, you better check yourself.
On top of all this, if you look at the Hebrew root “a-bad” (servant/slave in this verse), you find that root in all of these translated words from the Bible: slave, bondage, bond servant, burdened, cultivate, do the work, enslaved, holding in bondage, imposed, keeper, laborers, servant, manufacturers, performers, plowed, rendered, served, subject, tiller, uses services, workers, working.
The “servant” and “worker” translations are used more often than “slave” for words with the “a-bad” root. So I think the verse is still valid if you say “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower (is burdened by, is imposed upon by, labors for, serves, works for, is the servant of) the lender.” All of those words have the same root and could probably be snapped into the verse without changing its core meaning.
So I don’t think there’s any besmirching of people who went into indentured servitude or even slavery 200+ years ago in this verse or in the modern use of it — I think people like Dave Ramsey are using it just as it was intended — remember, we’re resident aliens on this earth — sin is still sin, even if we’ve made it relatively painless to sin in our modern society — that’s not always progress.
JMR,
Thanks for the comment.
I felt like this was a very technical issue that need to be approached methodically.
I’m not claiming that Ps 37:21 is a lie. However, I am claiming Proverbs are not direct cause and effect promised offered by God. In other words, the Proverbs are general truths that when you abide by them they generally are true – but there are exceptions.
I think the danger is that one might take a word used in the Bible and define it by a present day context.
I think the historical consequence is a very important part of this conversation because people didn’t borrow then like we borrow today. Our first job is to find the points of comparison and then apply that today.
For an extreme example, if I were to find an older translation that uses the word ‘gay’ for ‘happy’. I can’t teach that the Bible teaches us to be homosexual.
I think we take the word debt and apply it to our context without first filtering it through the context and setting of the Bible.
If the consequences are different then the application is different as well.
I don’t teach people to use debt. I don’t use debt. However, if someone says they are going to borrow $3,000 to buy a car I don’t feel like they are a ‘slave’. I think that word is too strong today. Instead, I want them to understand that they now have an obligation and responsibility to that person. If one takes on too much debt then their obligations mount up beyond their ability to replay and they will lose certain rights over their lives. Still, with the long US history of slavery that word does not properly communicate what I think the Bible wishes to communicate about debt.
How about the other way? Sometimes a debt cannot be collected no matter how hard you chase the borrower to return it after a certain time. The borrower is in bad faith and probably has not much intention to return the borrowed sum or drag his feet and make you wait an eternity before paying back some and giving lame excuses for paying the other balance. And if the amount is not big, (but not so small either), and going the legal route would prove to be more trouble than it is worth and the expenses incurred to collect the debt would negate the amount to collect. Then who is indeed the slave?