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Just because you see a word in any type of historical document doesn’t mean that word has the same meaning today.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?
More Great Articles:
- What the Bible Says About Credit and Debt
- Freedom, Finances, Debt and the Bible
- Lending Club: How To Participate in P2P Lending
- Why I Don’t Eat Canned Meat | Borrowing & Slavery Follow-up
- Borrower is Slave to the Lender | The Point
- Christian Lenders | Should Lending Be Abolished?
 |
{ 9 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.