David Wiley aka “David of Ohio” has recently authored an e-book titled: “New and Ancient Justice - The Epic Failure of Lawmaking” wherein the following message is written:
“This book is copyright protected simply so no one may monopolize its content. The e-book is made available in several formats for free electronic download. David places no restrictions upon any lawful use of the text or ideas presented herein. Anyone may copy, distribute, translate, or even profit from publishing this book, in whole or in part. The value of this book is to be realized from the truth it proclaims, and David hopes that it will benefit many people. If you have benefited from this information and want to make it more broadly available to others, please consider sending a donation in an amount that reflects your enthusiasm to help disseminate its message. Electronic donations may be made via PayPal at David’s website. Cash (for gold or silver, please insure delivery), checks, or money orders may be sent to.” ...
David of Ohio
P.O Box 422
Coshocton, Ohio 43812 USA
David hopes that the information contained herein will salt and light the world by advancing the expansive benefits of justice and an economy of love. For additional information, opportunities to view comments, participate in discussions, or ask questions, please visit David’s website. The e-book can be downloaded from David’s website.
On page 31 David of Ohio writes: “There are only three possible ways that property can change hands - (1) Gift (2) Transaction (3) Theft. Below is what he writes about “Theft.”
3) Theft. “Theft occurs when one person or a collective of persons (such as a corporation, mob, or government) acquire property to which they are not entitled. Every act of theft diminishes the life of the victim because each theft is actually an attack upon the person of the property owner. Opposite to the way a gift or free transaction blesses all parties, theft diminishes the lives of both the victim and the thief. Theft is always a wealth-destroying activity that harms individuals and society because it breaks the chain of goodwill by cutting off productive resources from an economy of service. Since God commands, You shall not steal, all theft is a violation of the will of God.”
Gifts and transactions work to increase individual wealth and improve the commonwealth, but theft always destroys wealth. Gifts and transactions are blessings, but theft is always a crime that conveys a curse, not a service. When property is stolen, the owner effectively bears the loss of whatever portion of his or another’s life was spent obtaining or producing the property. Theft defrauds the property owner, debases the thief and offends God who is the property owner of last resort.
Since usury is “theft” David has devoted a whole chapter about usury titled: “Hold Usury Unenforceable.” pages 47 - 52 and I am re-posting “Hold Usury Unenforceable” here at The UsuryFree Eye Opener.
As written above: If you have benefited from the information in the book titled: “New and Ancient Justice” and you want to make it more broadly available to others, please consider sending a donation in an amount that reflects your enthusiasm to help disseminate its message.
David of Ohio writes: “The subjects covered below are not the only areas where applied faith is needed, but they are specific matters that have been overlooked by church leaders. What follows below is obviously not a final word, but is intended to advance a constructive discussion of public and private repentance leading to a more just society. As I see it, the following issues represent things that must change before our nation can be redeemed from sin and inherit the blessings of liberty.”
1) Hold Usury Unenforceable.
God’s Law forbids charging usury or interest on debts. The following text is one of several in the Bible that make it clear that usury is contrary to the will of God.
If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. (Leviticus 25:35-37
God’s Commandment against usury teaches part of what it means for us to love our neighbors. But Jesus challenges his people to even go further than merely to abstain from collecting interest, “Lend, hoping for nothing in return.” Like turning the other cheek, our Lord instructs us to do more than the bare minimum required by the Law, but in any case, we must never do less!
For fifteen hundred years the Church Fathers and Church councils in both the East and the West were unanimous in their opposition to usury. The orthodox Christian doctrine had always been that usury or interest in all its forms and at any rate is unlawful and is banned by Moses, the holy prophets and is forbidden by the command of Christ. Throughout Christendom the question of the unlawfulness of usury on loans of money was a settled issue. Usury was a serious sin for all Christians, and Roman Catholics universally categorized it as a mortal sin for nearly 1500 years.
Clearly, it is a much different picture today. The vast majority of churchgoers all over the world, including Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics now practice usury on a 24/7 basis with no Sabbath rest and seemingly with no pangs of conscience. Usurers maximize their take and are even admired for their involvement in this sin. Church leaders are even known to teach that expert usurers are ‘good stewards’ of what God has entrusted to them!
When, how and why did the clear and consistent Church teaching about the sin of usury change? In the early 1500’s the revolutionary view that some usury could be lawful found a haven with some Roman Catholic teachers. The new view fundamentally contradicted the laws of Moses, the plain teachings of Christ, the Church Fathers and the established canon law. Also around this same time, some leaders of the Protestant Reformation, notability Calvin, accepted this new teaching through a process of rationalization. Even so, many of the Protestant reformers maintained the orthodox teaching that usury is a serious sin. But following the reasoning of the Catholics, Calvin and a few other reformers invented new exceptions for usury where none existed before.
Within the ruling and mercantile classes there was an overwhelming sentiment to minimize laws against usury. Jews were already practicing usury and realized that it brought them great riches. They operated without economic competition within a society that abstained from this practice. Because usury can tap the labor of many others all at the same time, it allowed moneylenders to operate at an increased scale of business without the need to produce more goods or services for others. Legitimizing usury was tempting for the upper classes because they sought to be served, not to serve. Under great pressure to please their patrons, scholars began to advance theoretical arguments to defend usury as a legitimate business practice.
As a result of this corruption of the law, disputes arose and more pressure was brought to bear upon the Church to loosen her staunch opposition to usury. The arguments were complex and subtle, but in the end they came down on the side of secular human reason instead of the obedience of faith. Church authorities failed to assess this radical change in the light of settled orthodox doctrine. The approach of the usury revolutionaries was essentially to assert that some new idea of ‘equity’ based upon ‘reason’ would now supplant the orthodox doctrine of the Church that was based upon God’s Law.
Some scholars advanced the theory that there is a difference between taking usury from a destitute poor man and taking ‘interest’ from a rich man. They further theorized that if a rich man used a loan to fund a commercial enterprise, then the lender was entitled to a share of the profits. These pragmatic distinctions of poor/rich or business/charitable were devised solely for the purpose of diverting the discussion from the legal ethics of taking usury to the philosophic issues of class distinctions, equity and rights.
This philosophic approach to classifying borrowers did not clarify the ethics of usury. What does it mean to be rich or poor? Can anyone precisely identify these classes of people so lenders will know with certainty when usury is permitted or when it is forbidden? None of those who advocate such views have provided accurate definitions of “rich” or “poor” borrowers. Is a car loan that enables a poor man to get to work a loan to the poor, or is it a commercial loan? Is lending to an American who has a big screen TV, iPhone, air conditioning and an automobile, but who by government standards remains below the poverty line, a loan to the poor or to the rich? Is a loan made to a needy businessman a commercial loan, or is it a loan to the poor? If usury is justified as a ‘share of profits,’ how could an interest rate be ascertained without accurate foreknowledge of the eventual profits? No usurer can possibly know in advance how much profit will result from a business that is to be financed by his loan. What if there are no profits and the commercial borrower suffers a loss instead? To be consistent it follows that if interest is justified as a share of the profits, then a usurer should also share in any losses. But because of the covetousness that rules in the hearts and minds of usurers, the justification for taking usury is only a one-way street.
God commands all people to judge the poor and the rich by the same standard. Although circumstances may change, a sin against one person is also a sin against others. Since economic or social circumstances do not erase sins or alter justice, the same standards for transgressions apply to all people regardless of their economic condition. The rich/poor and the commercial/personal distinctions that are advanced by self-justifying usurers can only advance injustice. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it. (Deuteronomy 1:17)
Another modern tactic to confuse the subject was to introduce a new term as a basis to distinguish between unlawful usury vs. lawful ‘interest.’ Use of the word interest caught on quickly because it was fresh and it sounded better than plain old usury. It seemed more technically specific, so it supported a new concept of selling the practice of usury to nervous Christians who valued their souls more than worldly goods. The new dogma of ‘interest’ gave civil governments a pretext to distinguish usury vs. interest by limiting the rate of interest. If a maximum interest rate is set by ‘law,’ then any interest rate lower than the ‘legal’ limit may be legally charged to anyone, regardless of the use of the loan in question or economic status of the borrower. Thus, only rates beyond the legal limit were said to be usurious and unlawful. However, the arbitrary legalization of some rate of usury is nothing more than a vain exercise in false lawmaking. God’s Law is not confounded thereby.
Every attempt to justify “interest” or “legitimate usury” defies analysis and vanishes before the light of even the most cursory examination. All pro-usury arguments prove to be so arbitrary that eventually any usurious loan can be justified by the manipulation of the ‘allowable’ categories. This is not rocket science. It is plainly seen that usurers do not seek truth or justice. They seek only usury, not answers about how best to pursue righteousness or how to love their neighbor. This is why usurers quickly abandon any such argument of equity as soon as it is apparent that a borrower has become unprofitable. Then, the proud usurer can always be heard demanding loudly, “I’ll have my bond!”
Overall economic activity within a nation is affected to the degree that usury is practiced. The mathematics of usury forecloses a long-term stable and expanding economy because usury becomes one of the costs included within the stream of commerce. Because profitable businesses are positioned to pass along these costs with the goods they supply, consumers always pay all the costs of usury.
When usury is allowed, the cost-burden trickles down throughout the economy. The production/consumption ratio of poor consumers is unfavorable, so as a percentage of their total purchases the poor disproportionately pay the added cost of usury. But the trickle becomes a massive flood as the mathematics of usury expands. The Devil knows his business. The unnamed poor are trodden underfoot by anonymous usurers who have tapped the stream of goods and services.
Usury bites as much flesh as it is able, its character is without a conscience and its appetite is insatiable. This is no mere exaggeration or hyperbolae; the biblical Hebrew word translated into English as usury or interest is neshek, which literally means the bite of a serpent. Compound interest means this bite over time will spread its poison to become exponentially more damaging to the commonwealth and to individual souls.
Compound interest demands an ever-increasing supply of currency with which to repay loans. Therefore, a fixed and stable money supply cannot long support the practice of usury. In a vain attempt to meet usury’s demands, modern economists advise ‘expanding the money supply,’ which effect is known as inflation. But no amount of monetary inflation can effectively satisfy the growing demand for currency that accompanies widespread usury – especially when all new currency is loaned into circulation by a central bank as it is today. It is mathematically impossible to inflate currency to keep up with the demands of compounded interest. This scheme is simply unsustainable.
Compounding debt strips its victims of their wealth and adds material wealth to usurers through direct payments and foreclosures. Thus, usurers have ever more money to lend. Given enough time, the demands of usury will eventually outstrip any possible supply of money along with the value of all goods and assets. Usurers will get richer and those who labor will become poorer. Increasing the velocity of currency in commerce or the temporary economic development that moneylenders claim to foster cannot reverse this trend. Usury will eventually debase everything. Such practices corrupt social and commercial intercourse, monetary weights and measures, goodwill, peace, and love. All that is efficient, artful and beautiful is in jeopardy when usurers dictate economic policy and get their teeth into the masses.
The evil of usury could not be broadly practiced today if it were not for the implicit or explicit approval of those who claim to be priests and ministers of Christ our Lord. By their complicity international usury has grown to become a scourge upon every nation. They shall have their day of reckoning when the Lord of Righteousness comes knocking on the door of unrepentant usurers. Their fine vestments, liturgical traditions, or even the practice of holy sacraments cannot shield them from God’s wrath when it is kindled but a little. God will judge all those who support oppression. Warnings from James and Paul come down to us through the ages:
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:9-10)
Here are some practical steps to roll back the evil of usury. First, usurious contracts must not be enforced against anyone who is not a declared enemy. Government authorities must not enforce any unlawful, immoral usurious contract against citizens because to do so would turn law and justice upside down. Adding more and more regulations, taxes, inflation and police power to the mix cannot save a practice that is unsustainable and sinful by its very nature. All false laws that provide for usury must be abandoned.
Second, we must accept that according to God’s Law usury is sin, but debt is not. Debt may be unwise in many cases, but it is not a priori a sin to enter into debt. However once a person enters into voluntary debt, it is a sinful form of theft to shirk repayment. It should be obvious that loaned principal must be repaid to a lender. Given the unlawfulness of usury, no borrower owes usury, but this fact does not relieve the borrower from the obligation to repay the principal amount borrowed.
Third, since usury is a form of theft and is therefore immoral, justice demands that if borrowers have paid any usury or interest, this portion of their payments should be credited toward the principal amount still owed. Any usury paid in excess of the principal amount must be refunded.
Fourth, individuals who own usurious lending institutions, including stockholders, must be held personally liable for usury and fraud committed on their watch. If a lending business does not have the means to compensate victims, then justice requires that shareholders must proportionately compensate victims of usury as a percentage of ownership in the unrighteous corporation. Justice recognizes no limited liability from such damages and government cannot pass ‘laws’ to further any practice that is immoral. What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
Saving faith requires the sinner to turn away from sin and it requires restitution for wrongs suffered. Without this kind of repentance one should not expect salvation. Usurers might falsely imagine they can commit frauds upon the innocent and extort usury with impunity, keep the booty and still inherit eternal life. They are wrong. If usurers remain unrepentant, church attendance and the practice of sacraments cannot save them. Usurers not only oppress real people, but they also offend the Lord by despising His Commandments. Thus, without repentance no sinner can escape God’s judgment. Since Jesus was judged in the place of His people, it is immeasurably better to trust in His forgiveness and identify with the Savior now, than it is to stand alone before God and be judged for one’s own sins on Judgment Day.
NOTE: The book "New and Ancient Justice" can be downloaded at this website: