A: We should realize that members over the years, in following Church teaching, have declared bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a recognized and legal means in this world to free oneself from debts, under certain circumstances. Court decisions have been rendered, involving Church members, dealing with questions regarding tithes and offerings in bankruptcy procedures. Certain state laws allow churches to keep tithes, up to a certain amount and percentage, which were received from members who subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

More importantly, the Bible endorses the concept of declaring bankruptcy in certain circumstances. What is the biblical basis for the Church’s long-standing teaching that the declaration of bankruptcy is not against Scripture, under certain circumstances?

We have always taught that bankruptcy is not to be taken lightly, but that it is a very serious matter. Normally, a person should do everything he or she can to pay back any debts incurred by him (2 Kings 4:7), or to at least try to arrange an extension of time with the creditors. There are unforeseen circumstances, however, which justify and sometimes even necessitate the declaration of bankruptcy. These circumstances might involve debts incurred in a business transaction, inherited debts, unexpected debts, or even incorrect allegations, falsely claiming that debts are due and owing, leading to a lawsuit by the “creditor” against the “debtor,” against which the “debtor” has no financial means to defend him- or herself.

If a debtor finds him- or herself in such a situation, he or she is Scripturally allowed to file for bankruptcy in order to reorganize his or her debts or, failing this, to extinguish his or her debts. There are numerous Biblical passages which, judging by their spiritual implications, allow for the same.

These passages deal with God’s institution for ancient Israel of the “Sabbath” and the “Jubilee” Year.

(1) On the “Sabbath Year,” that is, at the end of every seventh year, “debts of fellow Jews [correctly: Israelites] were to be canceled” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, 24th ed., p. 139). One needs to note that this was an automatic release of debt, by God-given law. It was not required that an agreement was reached between creditor and debtor, or that the creditor agreed to release the debt of the debtor. Quite to the contrary, the debts had to be released every seventh year, whether the creditor liked it or not. This was not just a postponement of debts, either; it was, rather, a cancellation of debts.

Notice Deuteronomy 15:1-3, 9: “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor SHALL RELEASE IT; HE SHALL NOT REQUIRE IT OF HIS NEIGHBOR OR HIS BROTHER, because it is called the Lord’s release. Of a foreigner you may require it; but you SHALL GIVE UP YOUR CLAIM TO WHAT IS OWED TO YOUR BROTHER… Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye will be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing [knowing that by the time of the seventh year, the lender or creditor would never receive back what he gave] and he cry out to the Lord against you, and it become sin to
you.”

References to the Sabbath Year can also be found in Exodus 21:2, Nehemiah 10:31, and in Jeremiah 34:14. The release of debt was to occur automatically, without the necessity of an agreement between creditor and debtor. An interesting application of these principles can be found in Nehemiah 5:1-13.

(2) In addition, every fiftieth year, God’s civil law for ancient Israel demanded that ANOTHER release be granted. This was, again, not a matter of choice or agreement between creditor and debtor, but automatic. Halley points out on p. 139: “Jubilee Year was every 50th year. It followed the 7th Sabbatic Year, making two rest years come together. It began on the Day of Atonement. ALL DEBTS WERE CANCELED, slaves set free, and lands that had been sold returned.”

The Year of Jubilee is mentioned in several places, for instance in Leviticus 25 and Numbers 36:4. It is associated with the proclamation of “liberty” (Leviticus 25:10) and referred to as the “Year of Liberty” in Ezekiel 46:17. In Leviticus 25:24, 28, 39-41, it is stated:

“And in all the land of your possession you shall grant redemption of the land… But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee, and in the Jubilee it shall be RELEASED, and he shall return to his possession… And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you…, [he] shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you — he and his children with him — and shall return to his family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers.”

The New Testament does not abolish the principles set forth in these Scriptures. In fact, Jesus came to preach liberty, as expressed in the Year of Jubilee, at His first coming (Isaiah 61:1-3; Luke 4:17-21), applying it to total freedom of God’s people, including freedom from all sickness, disease, sin, death, and every curse (compare, for example, Edward Chumney, “The Seven Festivals of the Messiah,” p. 147). It is true that there are New Testament Scriptures describing how creditors freely forgave their debtors (compare, Luke 7:41-42; 16:5-8). These additional Scriptures do not negate the principle, however, that debts can be forgiven by law and in God’s sight, regardless of whether the creditor is agreeable to such cancellation or not. In conclusion, the concept of declaring bankruptcy is Biblical under certain circumstances.

A: In order to properly answer this question, we need to go back and review the biblical basis for a decision that the Worldwide Church of God made under Mr. Herbert Armstrong in 1974, involving divorce and remarriage. Prior to 1974, it had been the understanding of the Church that every marriage was bound in God’s eyes. This included civil marriages, whether or not the married couple “invited God into their lives,” and — arguably, it included even marriages of persons who didn’t even claim to believe in the God of the Bible. Mr. Armstrong explained our growth in Biblical knowledge regarding this point in a member letter, dated May 14, 1974:

“God has revealed HIS LAW OF MARRIAGE — His TRUTH about marriage — God’s PURPOSE in marriage, its sanctity, its PERMANENCY — to His Church. And we applied that truth to ALL marriages, ASSUMING that God entered into every marriage, EVEN THOUGH GOD HAD NOT ENTERED INTO THE LIVES OF THOSE we SUPPOSED He had bound… Unconverted people have never let GOD enter their lives. They live APART from God — CUT OFF from God — because sin cuts one off from contact with God (see Isa. 59:2). When they have never let God come into their lives — have been CUT OFF from contact with Him — could He enter into their MARRIAGE and BIND them?… The unconverted are BOUND by the state, but NOT DIRECTLY BY GOD! Their marriages are LEGAL. Their children are LEGITIMATE — in no sense bastards — but the children of the unconverted are not HOLY.”

Mr. Armstrong reiterated this understanding in the Pastor General’s Report, dated August 21, 1979: “Jesus gave fornication (prior to marriage) as the grounds for nullifying a marriage. This clearly was a form of fraud. When discovered (in nearly all cases) immediately after the marriage, it simply meant God, knowing of this ‘fraud,’ had actually not bound the marriage — and what followed therefore was actually an annulment, not a divorce. However this did not apply in cases of marriage by unconverted people. God never bound them anyway — they were bound by man’s law, and any divorce and/or remarriage would be according to man’s civil law. But the church would not apply this annulment if the couple had continued living together for a period of time. There could be other types of fraud — such as a marriage enforced at the point of a gun.”

The Church of the Eternal God, and its corporate affiliates, concur with and apply the Worldwide Church of God’s teaching, as set forth above. God created marriage. He married Adam and Eve. Christ later said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6). A marriage BOUND by God is for life (notice Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

When Adam and Eve sinned, God drove them out of the garden of Eden, and prevented their return whereby they could not eat from the tree of life and live forever (Genesis 3:22-24). Man was from that time forward CUT OFF from God. Man is, in general, still CUT OFF from God. Only those whom God specifically and individually calls out of this world find themselves in a different category. They respond to God’s call, and God DOES become a part of their lives. When THEY marry, they are making a covenant between themselves, AND with God, asking God to BIND their marriage. They WANT God to be a part of their lives, and they understand that their covenant is WITH God. If they divorce, they break their word and promise towards each other, AS WELL AS with God. (You may want to review our Q&A in Update #61, dated October 4, 2002, addressing the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:14.)

A minister of Christ will be happy to perform and officiate over a marriage of those who UNDERSTAND God’s Way of Life, and who want to obey God. Both marriage partners should already have been baptized. It would not be appropriate for a minister of Christ to perform a marriage of a “believer” and an “unbeliever.” The Bible CLEARLY states in 1 Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is BOUND by law [Paul is talking here about God’s law, and he is addressing a marriage that had been bound by God] as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, ONLY IN THE LORD.”

Most everyone agrees that Paul’s statement refers to a marriage between two Christians. Paul is CLEARLY stating here that a Christian is to marry only another Christian. The Ryrie Study Bible comments, “… only in the Lord, i.e., only to another Christian.” The Living Bible interprets the passage in this way, “The wife is part of her husband as long as he lives; if her husband dies, then she may marry again, but only if she marries a Christian.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, state: “… only in the Lord — Let her marry only a Christian (II Cor. 6:14).” The “New Bible Commentary: Revised,” points out, on p. 1062, “But only in the Lord, i.e., to another Christian; for she is a member of Christ’s body (cf. 6:15).”

Although it is generally understood that Paul requires of a Christian to marry only another Christian, some argue that Paul is just explaining a principle, or that it is just Paul’s opinion, which is not a binding commandment. They may say that marrying outside the Church may be ill-advised, but they claim there is no Scriptural basis to refuse to perform the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. Those who say this violate the clear Biblical COMMAND, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 7:39. To argue that Paul is just setting forth a principle is ludicrous. Paul says in verse 39, “She is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, ONLY IN THE LORD.” This is not just a principle that can be disregarded or neglected by the Church at whim — this is a clear and unequivocal COMMAND. To say that Paul was just uttering his personal opinion which can be disregarded or neglected by the Church at whim is equally ludicrous. With that rationale, we might as well tear out of the Bible whole pages of commandments set forth in Scripture, as they were communicated to us by God’s apostles, rather than by Jesus Christ directly. If we believe that Christ inspired the authors of the Bible to write down HIS WORD, then any argument that those words contain just personal opinions by those men is blatantly unbiblical.

Given the clear Biblical command only to marry “in the Lord,” the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates will not conduct or perform a marriage between a “believer” and an “unbeliever.”

In addition, given the clear Biblical teaching that God does not bind a marriage between two unbelievers, the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates will not conduct or perform a marriage between two unbelievers. You might want to read Judges 17:13, setting forth the example of Micah. Note the attitude Micah had in the midst of his idolatry, when he asked a Levite, perhaps a relative of Moses, to stay with him and to function as his priest: “Then Micah said, ‘Now I know that the LORD will prosper me, seeing I have a Levite as priest.'” We need to ask those who might want a minister of the Church of the Eternal God or of its corporate affiliates to perform their marriage, why they want them to do so. Is it because they want to live from now on lives which are pleasing to God, including the observance of all of God’s laws and statutes? If not, why do they want a minister of Christ to perform their marriage? If it is because of family approval or to just have a “nice wedding” with a “religious touch” to it, then this would not be sufficient reasons for a minister of Christ to perform such a marriage.

Worldly marriages are bound by the laws of the land. God’s ministry is not to wear the mantle of the justice of the peace. Jesus attended a wedding, but He did not officiate. Christ wants His ministry to administer matters within the Church — relating to those whom Christ calls out of this world. When the ministry of CEG and its affiliates perform a marriage, the following is stated during the ceremony: “Since marriage is a divine institution, and since we are asking God now to join you as husband and wife, it is fitting and right that each of you should faithfully promise before God to enter into the sacred marriage covenant according to the divinely-ordained conditions and laws enacted by God Almighty.” Later in the ceremony, the minister states, “Please now join your right hands and with the laying on of my hands, I will ask the Eternal God in prayer to unite you as husband and wife.”

As can be seen from the foregoing, it does not appear to be appropriate for a minister of Christ to say those words, and to ask God in prayer to “unite” an “unbelieving” couple as husband and wife, when we know that God does not bind such a marriage

A: Many Scriptures prohibit the charging of interest or usury in certain circumstances.

For example, Exodus 22:25 states, in the Authorized Version, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.”

The Hebrew word for “usury” is “neshek” or “neshech” and has the meaning of “biting” (Young’s Analytical Concordance). Its root word is “nashak” or “nashach.” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, under Nos. 5391 and 5392, gives the following explanation: “…to strike with a sting (as a serpent); fig. to oppress with interest on a loan.”

Soncino points out: “That which ‘bites’ (nashach) like a snake. The victim of a snake does not at first feel the bite, but soon the wound swells and spreads over the whole body; likewise it is with usury: at first the borrower does not feel its pinch, but little by little it grows until it amounts to a crushing sum. Do not impose usury on the borrower in consideration of an extended time limit for repayment.”

Commentaries disagree whether any kind of interest is prohibited, or just excessive interest (what we would call today “usury”). Also, depending on the understanding of the translator, the words “neshek” and “nashak” are rendered with “interest” or “usury,” respectively. While the Authorized Version translates “usury,” most other translations say “interest,” but not consistently so. Sometimes, they also say “usury.” In addition, the NIV translates “neshek” in Exodus 22:25 as “interest,” but states in a footnote, “Or excessive interest.”

In any event, the context of the prohibition is “exacting” or “demanding” interest or usury from a NEEDY or POOR Israelite. Although a few Scriptures, if read in an isolated way, may suggest that charging an Israelite with any kind of interest is prohibited under any circumstances, reading all the passages together shows that charging interest is only prohibited to a POOR or NEEDY Israelite.

We quoted Exodus 22:25, clearly involving a POOR Israelite. Note also Leviticus 25:35-37:

“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 [Hebr., “neshek”] or interest [Authorized Version: “increase”; Hebr. “tarbith” or “tarbuwth”; meaning “multiplication,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, No. 8636] from him… You shall not lend him your money for usury [Hebr., “neshek”], nor lend him your food at a profit” [Authorized Version: “for increase”, Hebr. “marbith” or “marbiyth”; i.e., “increase, abundance, multitude,” according to Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible; see also Strong’s, No. 4768]. This passage, too, only applies to a needy or poor Israelite.

A passage in Deuteronomy 23:19-20, if only read by itself, might give the impression that charging an Israelite interest is prohibited under any circumstances, even if the Israelite is not poor or needy. We read, in the Authorized Version, “Thou shalt not lend upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”] to thy brother; usury [Hebr., “neshek”] of money, usury [Hebr., “neshek”] of victuals [or food], usury [Hebr., “neshek”] of any thing that is lent upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”]: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”]; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”]…”

However, from the context with the other Scriptures already mentioned, and still to be mentioned, this prohibition only applies to a POOR Israelite. See, for example, what God says in Psalm 15:5 (Authorized Version): “He that putteth not out his money to usury [Hebr., “neshek”]…shall never be moved.”

Taking this Scripture out of context, without reading it together with other passages, one could conclude that one could never lend money out for interest (or usury), not even to foreigners. As we have seen, however, in other passages, charging foreigners interest is permitted.

WHY does the Bible permit charging interest to foreigners?

The ancient Israelites, not being a commercial people, were not accustomed to lending amongst themselves for the purpose of business, trade and commerce. “But the case was different with foreigners, who, engaged in trade and commerce, borrowed to enlarge their capital, and might reasonably be expected to pay interest on their loans” (Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1961, p. 159, commenting on Deuteronomy 23).

The New Bible Commentary agrees with this distinction, when it comments on Deuteronmy 23:19-20, as follows: “Loans to foreigners were usually of a commercial nature, and thus an interest charge could be levied without objection. When the loan was from a rich man to his poor neighbor, the imposition of interest violated the law of brotherly love.”

Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible also concurs. In its article, “Usury, Interest, Increase,” it states: “The loans here contemplated are therefore not advances required for trading capital, but for the relief of a poor ‘brother’ temporarily in distress, who would otherwise be compelled to sell himself as a slave.” In its article, “Trade and Commerce,” Hasting’s points out: “The Israelites seem to have become merchants only relatively late, and commercial dealings were for a long time in the hands of foreigners.”

Passages similar to Deuteronomy 23 and Psalm 15 can be found in Jeremiah 15:10 and Ezekiel 22:12 and must be read with all of the other Scriptures. Therefore, taking all the passages together, the Bible only prohibits to charge a brother interest, if that brother is poor or needy.

On the other hand, the spiritual intent of the Scriptures also clearly shows that no one should ever charge exorbitant amounts of interest or usury to anybody, including “foreigners.” This kind of greed is clearly condemned in the Bible. Further, the spiritual intent of those passages also prohibits to charge a poor and needy “foreigner” interest — that is, no interest should be charged to a poor “foreigner” when a loan is given to him to provide for his necessities. This means for us today, a true Christian should not charge any poor person interest for a charitable loan, whether or not the person is a Church member (Galatians 6:10).

Let’s review a few more Biblical passages regarding the prohibition to charge interest to an Israelite. Notice Proverbs 28:8 (Authorized Version): “He that by usury [Hebr., “neshek”] and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the POOR.” The context shows, that the lender exacted usury from a poor person, rather than showing mercy to the poor by not charging him interest.

In addition, note Ezekiel 18:8 (Authorized Version), “He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase…, he is just, he shall surely live.” Taken all by itself, this passage could cause misunderstanding. When we read on, the meaning becomes clear. It is stated in verses 14-17, “Now, lo, if he begat a son…that..hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, that hath taken off his hand from the POOR, that hath not received usury nor increase…, he shall not die…”

Another example can be found in Nehemiah 5:1-13. Verse 10 says specifically that the Jews should “leave off this usury.” The context is, that some Jews charged interest to other needy and poor Jews (vv. 2-5).

The New Testament confirms the understanding that charging interest under certain circumstances is not wrong.

In Matthew 25:27, Christ tells the unprofitable servant that he should have deposited the money with the bankers or “exchangers” (Authorized Version), so that the returning master would have received the money loaned to the servant “with usury” or “interest.” The Greek word here is “tokos,” and is defined by Young’s with “offspring” or “usury.” Strong’s writes, under No. 5110, “interest on money loaned (as a produce) — usury.” In the parallel passage in Luke 19:23, the word “tokos” is used again and translated as “usury” in the Authorized Version and as “interest” in most other renditions.

Without entering the debate whether the translation “usury” or “interest” is appropriate, we see, nevertheless, that Christ used, in this parable, the concept of gaining interest in an approving way. Since Christ spoke this parable to the Jews, some of the bankers or exchangers giving interest would have been Jewish. As commentaries, such as Rienecker, point out, at the time of Christ, many of the bankers were also Jewish “moneychangers” (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:14), as well as those who collected the temple tax (Matthew 17:24). So, in Christ’s mind, it would not have been a violation of Old Testament Scriptures to have Jewish bankers or “exchangers” grant Jews interest for loans. This is understandable, as the Jewish bankers were not “poor” or “destitute,” so that Jews loaning them their money were not prohibited to receive interest from them. This means that it is not Biblically prohibited that a Christian lender receives interest from a Christian borrower for a loan, as long as the loan was given as a business transaction.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary,” ed. 1966, page 1129, para. 1 and 2, captures this distinction well, when it states: “The Israelites not being a commercial people, money was not often loaned for the purpose of business, but rather to aid the struggling poor. This last is the only kind of usury forbidden in the law…The taking of usury in the sense of a reasonable rate of interest for the use of money employed in trade is different, and is nowhere forbidden; and is referred to in the New Testament as a perfectly understood and allowable practice.”

In an old (undated) document which had been published by the Worldwide Church of God, under Herbert W. Armstrong, on the issue of charging interest, the following conclusion was given, agreeing with the foregoing, “Based on all this information, the Church concludes that the prohibition on receiving interest applies to charitable loans, not to business investments in which the loan will be used to gain increase. When the loan is earning an increase, it is only fair that the lender receive a fair share of that increase as interest… The biblical instructions concerning usury… pertain to the poor and needy… True Christians should not charge the poor interest on a loan that is intended to provide necessities. However, a loan as a business deal — and this would include buying a home — is an entirely different matter.”

To summarize, the ancient Israelites were forbidden to charge interest to a poor Israelite. However, they were not forbidden to charge reasonable interest to a foreigner (as foreigners were usually receiving loans in a business context). They were also not forbidden to charge reasonable interest to another Israelite if the loan was not given to help a poor and needy brother, but as a business transaction, in a commercial context.

These same principles apply today regarding Church members. Judging from the spirit of the law, it would seem inappropriate for a converted Christian to charge a poor and needy person interest, whether or not the poor person is in the Church (Galatians 6:10). On the other hand, it would not be wrong for a converted Christian to charge another person or institution interest for a loan strictly given in a business context.