Why would he need to do that?

The biblical notion of private property allows me to be steward over any number of resources for the short period of time which is my life. Having received no direct verbal instruction from the Lord to sell all I have, I have tried to increase it using legitimate and ethical investments, and have had a modest amount of success at it, at least until the next market crash. Peter said to Ananias:

Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.

Peter is saying that Ananias would not have sinned had he not sold the field; nor would he have sinned if he had kept all or a part of the money for himself. He only sinned because he pretend to be like Barnabas (Acts 4.36) making people think that he was more generous than he was.

Why? He’s obviously got a lot of pride in his ability to make quadruple his investment in the market system and it reminded me of the rich young ruler. Why the need to brag about investments and such to a lowly soul such as myself who frankly doesn’t give a hoot? But as I said in the last comment — I don’t know. Jesus is the judge of the heart, not I.

It’s funny though that we take this and read it from our context, delighting in the usury it promotes whilst ignoring the surrounding context (particularly textual — it’s sandwiching between the parable of staying alert and the least of these as well as the greater context of scripture, such as that in Ex 16, Lev 25) and it’s decisively negative view of God (if He is in fact the owner).

But carry on — It’s obvious I’m in the minority here and that I am OK with.

And feel free to take the last word — I’m not likely to respond as it is bedtime and tomorrow I will be busy with other things that will keep me from the computer.

Well, since I didn’t tell you how much it was, I didn’t really view it as boastful. It could have been $100 dollars now turned into $500 for all you know–if it was 5 billion, well you’d be reading about me in the Wall Street Journal. Besides, as the body of Christ, can’t we not rejoice with one another when one of us does well? So my success is your success in a spiritual sense (cf. 1 Cor 12.26; Luke 15.9). Also, I find it helpful when those who are successful share their know-how with others, and I try to do the same on my investment blog. But you seem to consider it an evil thing to have and invest money.

I wanted to see how far you would take the interpretation: are you really so disdainful of people who can make successful investments? The article you cited portrays investors as the worst sort of evil sinners and extortionists. Ouch! It is really sad. Plus, I have a retirement account partly because I am much older than you, old enough even to be your dad. Would it bother you if your parents were to have investments in order that they can take care of themselves in their old age? I see that you are a missionary in South Africa. Do you have supporters? How do they make their money? Do any of them have retirement accounts? I hope, for your sake, that none of them maintain bank accounts in which they accept usury. Would you tell one of your supporters that he was full of pride if he said to you, Brandon, “I am going to give you $1000 per month, because God has been good to me, and I was able to quintuple my investments”?

Your understanding of interest is quite a narrow interpretation. Perhaps you know that Jewish people, even though they take very seriously the words of the Torah, have often been moneylenders, because in their view it is not a sin to accept interest from a non-Jew; and they were able to take advantage of many centuries when Christians were not permitted to charge interest to other Christians. But I wonder to what degree the Torah applies to Christians in this case. I hardly think it is a sin to put my money in a interest bearing savings account. Where do you put your money, under your mattress? Oh, I forgot, you said you didn’t have any.

Also, very few of my investments actually involve the charging of “usury”. They are mostly in the resource sector. At the low interest rates of today, “usury” is, as in the parable, the last thing I would choose to invest in. Are you also against any kind of business in which a profit is made?

Don’t worry about being a minority. You probably have a lot sympathizers here. They just haven’t jumped into the conversation yet. Bonne nuit! Take care.

Brandon:

I side with Calvin on the issue of usury: the kind of usury prohibited in scripture is that on loans to the destitute poor for the sake of helping them out of poverty. Not interest on normal business investments.

I don’t see how the context undermines my fairly minor point. I wasn’t saying the point of Jesus’ parable was to teach us about economics; just that he presupposes an economic law in his parable as being true. I also don’t see how this parable presents a negative view of God; what makes you think that it does? Is it just that God is angry?

Feel free to continue commenting. I for one appreciate the free exchange of different views. I hope you don’t take offense at my not agreeing with your comments.

That is an interesting point about Calvin. Would that explain Dutch banking? Or more generally the shift in Europe to allowing Christian moneylenders ?

The article that Brandon cited made the suggestion that the parable, if understood to be a parable of the Kingdom and not of the world, would have given a terrible image of God, as terrible and harsh master–who receives money from other people’s labor, who expects unreasonable rate of return on his investment, and who punishes a “whistle blower”.

Peter: I’m not up on my post-Reformation history enough, but I don’t doubt Calvin’s thinking was somewhat significant on the shift towards permitting allowing interest.

I think the whole point of the Master’s anger is that the servant should have known better: the master is not unreasonable, but is mad that the servant has maligned his character in suggesting that he is (and acting accordingly). That’s how I’ve always read it.