Fritz Springmeier

enemies, who they could kill—or at times were commanded to kill, that they could chargeinterest to. Interest appears to have been considered a kind of punishment, and other scripturesbear this out."If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all hiscommandments and his statutes which I commend thee this day, that all these curses shall comeupon thee, and overtake thee. He (the stranger) shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him:he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail."Again we read, "And all these blessings shall come on thee and overtake thee, if thou shalthearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure,the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thine hand;and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow."It seems likely the blessing of lending and the curse of borrowing of these passages refers toloaning with interest. If it was or wasn't doesn't alter the fact, that God commanded them not tocharge interest to his chosen people, converts to the faith, friends of the faith, but allowed themto loan with interest to those heathen enemies.In regards to what kind of law this was, note that the first three books of Moses are consideredto give the law, and Deut. is considered by some to repeat those laws.These three books mention twice about loaning to the poor, and once about to poor strangers.Why does the Holy Spirit twice say, "If thy brother be poor, thou shalt not lend on usury" ?(Usury in the King James Translation meant all interest.) Some will say that means the law wasnot universal, but limited to loaning to the poor, but that for business ventures it was O.K.But in Deut. it forbids usury (interest) to poor and rich alike. This is where an objectionby some develops who see Deut. as only a repetition of the law. Some would claim that we mustignore any additions the prophets gave to Ex 20 because they were not law givers, but lawinterpreters; therefore, they assert these laws are intended for kindness to the poor, just as Deut15: 1,2,3 and Deut 24:19,20,21.First, this ignores the tradition that Moses wrote Deut. Second, there is much more morallywrong with interest than just that it is unkind. However, kindness is a moral law and should bepracticed too. If we have a chance to be kind in the manner of Deut 15 and 25, then let us dothis. Bear in mind that interest is contrary to both the moral teachings of Christ and forbiddenby the moral teachings of the law."At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of therelease: every creditor who lendeth anything unto his neighbor shall release it, he shall not exactit of his neighbor, or of his brother, because it is called the Lord's release. Of a foreignor thoumayest exact it again; but that which is thine with thy brother, thine hand shall release.""When thou cuttest down thine harvest in the field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, thoushalt not go again to fetch it, it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow,that the Lord God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand." (verses 20-22 forbid beatingthe olive tree over again, and gleaning grapes for a second time.)—No wonder the JewishInternational Financiers will go to great lengths to destroy those who would hold the Bible'steachings dear.Can a Christian go after a forgotten sheaf in the field? May those who take clothes as a pledgefor money lent, wait until the sun goes down to return them (Ex 22:26)? Can a Christian holda debtor 8 years to a debt? Can a Christian obey one law of kindness and not another? Can wedeny Christians the liberty of breaking Deut 15:1,2,3 and Deut 24:19,20,21? Are we guilty offorbidding interest, a law of kindness, and ignoring the other laws of kindness? Have "Christians"