New Testament teaching on Interest/Usury

[RZehr]

What is new wine, except fresh grape juice? I don’t believe that they even used two different words for wine and juice. Just new wine, which was juice, and old wine, which had some fermentation.

[Soloist]

Num 6:3  He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

[Ken]

What is new wine, except fresh grape juice? I don’t believe that they even used two different words for wine and juice. Just new wine, which was juice, and old wine, which had some fermentation.

The New Testament was written nearly two millennia before the invention of refrigeration. In that climate any fruit juices would quickly ferment into either wine or vinegar in a matter of days. Fermentation into wine and vinegar was how people preserved the productions of vineyards for consumption year-round in the absence of refrigerated storage.

The main grape growing regions in Israel, both in Biblical times and today were in in the Galilee which would have been at least a week's journey by foot or donkey to Jerusalem for someone wanting to supply grape juice to the urban markets in Jerusalem. But more importantly, the grape harvest in Israel is in August and September just like in the US. This is inconsistent with the dates in the Bible in which wine was prominent such as the Last Supper which happened at the time of Passover and some scholars believe occurred on April 1st, at least half a year after the end of the grape harvest in Israel. It would have been impossible to preserve fresh grape juice from the harvest in August and September until Passover in April without refrigeration or modern chemical preservatives. Alcohol was the natural preservative.

Trying to interpret wine in the New Testament as being non-alcoholic is the sort of thing that my strict teetotaling Mennonite mother was prone to doing. But that is looking at Biblical writings through a modern filter. I don't think there is the slightest evidence that the wine mentioned in either the Old or New Testament is anything other than ordinary wine that was probably exactly as alcoholic as modern wine or about 11-12% alcohol since that the natural point at which wine is completely fermented and alcohol level reaches the point at which the yeast that are doing the fermenting start to die off due to the alcohol concentration. It is a natural process and that is the natural end-point.

[Josh]

The New Testament was written nearly two millennia before the invention of refrigeration. In that climate any fruit juices would quickly ferment into either wine or vinegar in a matter of days. Fermentation into wine and vinegar was how people preserved the productions of vineyards for consumption year-round in the absence of refrigerated storage.

Ken,

Does your statement above apply to water miraculously converted into other beverages?

[Biblical Anabaptist]

Has this parable of Jesus' been mentioned? If it has, I missed it.

Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:22,23 KJV)

Does not the nobelman represent Jesus?

Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch to use this passage to justify usury.

[Ken]

The New Testament was written nearly two millennia before the invention of refrigeration. In that climate any fruit juices would quickly ferment into either wine or vinegar in a matter of days. Fermentation into wine and vinegar was how people preserved the productions of vineyards for consumption year-round in the absence of refrigerated storage.

Ken,

Does your statement above apply to water miraculously converted into other beverages?

I think if the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine for a wedding party then he turned it into actual wine, not grape juice. And top quality wine to boot. The good stuff the passage says. Words have meaning. And if Jesus was making a lesson about temperance with that miracle he would have said so. He would have served the water instead and spoke about its merits.

[MaxPC]

Has this parable of Jesus' been mentioned? If it has, I missed it.

Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:22,23 KJV)

Does not the nobelman represent Jesus?

Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch to use this passage to justify usury.

In a related thought: the Hutterian Colonies will extend help, both financial and labor, to those Colonies who are in need of it. It would seem that if Christian communities could assist each other in like manner, then perhaps there would be no need for involving secular society’s usury.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Has this parable of Jesus' been mentioned? If it has, I missed it.

Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:22,23 KJV)

Does not the nobelman represent Jesus?

I agree it's a stretch. The nobleman does represent Jesus, but (1) everything in the parable is allegorical, not literal, and (2) what Jesus does as supreme God (allegorical or literally) does not inform us that we are to do likewise or that we can do likewise. The nobleman also goes out to conquer a foreign people, and when they don't accept him, he orders them brought forward and executed on the spot. If you use this parable to say that it justifies our use of usury, it also justifies our use of capital punishment on a whim. Even John Calvin in his commentary says that Jesus in no wise is permitting usury with these words.

Also, how did this get off topic into wine?

Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch to use this passage to justify usury.

[Soloist]

We must be drunk on grape juice

[Ken]

Has this parable of Jesus' been mentioned? If it has, I missed it.

Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:22,23 KJV)

Does not the nobelman represent Jesus?

Personally, I think it is a bit of a stretch to use this passage to justify usury.

In a related thought: the Hutterian Colonies will extend help, both financial and labor, to those Colonies who are in need of it. It would seem that if Christian communities could assist each other in like manner, then perhaps there would be no need for involving secular society’s usury.

Sure perhaps if you are proposing that all Christians form isolationist and separatist groups that remove themselves from the worldly economy such as the Hutterites and Amish. But if Christians are going to engage in the worldly economy, open businesses, conduct trade, buy property, make investments, etc. Then they are going to constantly come into contact with finance and credit in all its forms. And I believe it is true that even the Amish use credit and interest-paying bank accounts.