At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts. This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord’s remission has been proclaimed (Deuteronomy 15:1–2).

Every seven years debtors were to be released from their debts. One might wonder if this were not subject to abuse. Couldn't the debtor just hold out in paying until the seventh year and get off without paying anything? I suppose they could, but if they did this, who would ever loan money to them again?

This is perhaps the basis of our modern bankruptcy laws. People can declare bankruptcy and not have to pay their debts and even find legal protection against those that would still try to collect the money. Why wouldn't more people do this? Well, it would really damage their credit rating, which would prevent them from easily obtaining any future loans, especially from lenders that rely on credit history to determine credit worthiness. Now, some like Donald Trump, appear to have found some loophole around this, so that he can repeatedly declare bankruptcy without much impact to his credit standing. I know others that have done this through ghost corporations, and while it may be legal, it seems to me unethical.

How we handle loans, debts, collection, and the forgiveness of debts reflect not only our understanding of credit but also the integrity of our character. With respect to loaning to others, Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you (Matthew 5:42).

Does this mean that Christians should always give anything that is sought from them? I don't think so. The context suggests that rather than a specific ordinance, Jesus sought to teach a general principle. In contrast to retributive justice ("eye for an eye..."), Jesus encouraged His disciples to seek instead to win the wicked over by unexpected and overflowing kindness and generosity. This goes hand in hand with Paul's instruction,

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19–21).

Thus, Jesus elevates the whole matter of loans and debts to the level of Christian witness. A Christian should look beyond the immediate concern for being paid what is due and consider what kind of witness is achieved in giving and even forgiving debt. Related to this, Paul addresses the matter of lawsuits, arguing,

Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? (1 Corinthians 6:5–7).

On the other side, since Christians are not only lenders but also debtors, Paul counsels,

Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another (Romans 13:7–8).

Thus, there is nothing more honorable about being a debtor over being a creditor. Both are accountable to God as stewards of God's provision. In the OT, the Bible calls all debtors "slaves" because they are, in God's sight, enslaved to their lenders (Proverbs 22:7; cf. Proverbs 6:1–5). While Christian creditors are urged to consider forgiving debts owed to them, Christian debtors are commanded to pay what they owe.

I have forgiven a number of debts in my life. Even so, my heart is burdened in part because I loaned money to Christians, some of whom repeatedly promised to repay and never did while others somehow felt it was my Christian duty to have given them money and were angry that I did not give them more. What is more, even when they came into money, they still did not repay what they owed.

When I witness this kind of attitude, I recognize that people in distress can justify all kinds of things. Even so, while I do not demand repayment from any of these people, my heart would rejoice, for their sake, if even one of them repaid their loan.

Another friend of mine boasted to me of how he was able to stick it to the credit card companies by negotiating to pay only 50 cents on the dollar of what he owed to them. He told me that even though he had the money to pay off his debt, he deliberately held off so that he would have greater negotiating advantage.

He thought I would be impressed, but I was more ashamed of him. As a Christian brother I rebuked him, because it was not right not to pay what we owed. Then he indicated to me how the credit card company had "unjustly" tried to extort a high interest and fees from him. But I replied to him that even if this were so, it did not justify his revenge. And I challenged him further because I presumed that he must have agreed to such an arrangement of payment and fees with them when he first sought credit from them.

Friends, we must stop thinking as the world thinks. We lose our spiritual saltiness this way. Rather than being the conscience and moral compass for the world as a people living by the Bible, we may find ourselves setting our standards by this world system, which God says is both evil and passing away.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Deuteronomy 15 addresses more than the release of debts. It anticipates the creditor's temptation to refuse help when the year of release approaches and explicitly condemns that calculation. The purpose is to prevent poverty from hardening into permanent exclusion within the covenant community. The chapter joins generosity with remembrance of God's provision. Its challenge is therefore not only whether debtors might exploit the arrangement, but whether lenders will use the prospect of financial loss to close their hands against a neighbor in need. Deuteronomy 15:7–11 supplies that essential context.

The comparison with modern bankruptcy can illustrate debt relief, but it should not be treated as an established historical derivation or an exact legal equivalent. Modern systems distinguish individuals, corporations, liquidation, and reorganization. A company's proceedings are not simply its owner's personal bankruptcy, and negotiated repayment is not automatically a fraudulent loophole. The original's personal and political examples express the author's moral concern; they do not by themselves establish those legal details. The U.S. Courts' explanation of Chapter 11 specifically distinguishes a corporation from its owners. This distinction is offered to clarify the analogy, not to determine anyone's particular financial obligations.

Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 challenges retaliatory self-protection and invites generosity beyond what an opponent expects. Romans 12 places that generosity within the refusal of personal vengeance. The creditor's question becomes larger than recovering money: how can conduct bear truthful witness to God's mercy? Yet kindness does not require financing destructive behavior or pretending that deception is harmless. A gift, a carefully defined loan, practical assistance, or a refusal accompanied by another form of help may serve different circumstances. Discernment should express love rather than provide a respectable cover for indifference.

The debtor bears a corresponding responsibility for honesty. A promise to repay should not be used simply to obtain help, and another believer's generosity should not become an entitlement to exploit. The original's grief over broken promises is understandable. At the same time, inability and unwillingness must be distinguished. A negotiated settlement honestly disclosed and accepted is not the same as concealing resources or boasting about manipulation. We should evaluate conduct from known facts rather than assume that every unpaid balance proves a corrupt heart.

First Corinthians 6 addresses believers injuring one another through disputes and litigation. Its willingness to suffer loss is a challenge to pride, not a command to conceal crimes or deny protection to people being harmed. Paul's words should not become another instrument by which a wrongdoer pressures the injured party. Similarly, Proverbs 22:7 describes the power imbalance created by debt; it need not be read as a claim that every debtor has the same legal or moral status as an enslaved person.

Romans 13:7–8, the corrected reference for the final quotation, places payment of what is due beside the continuing obligation of love. These belong together. A creditor can release a debt without declaring the borrower's conduct admirable, and a debtor can pursue restitution even after demands have ceased. Christian witness includes both open-handed mercy and dependable truthfulness. Before money changes hands, clarity about whether it is a gift or a loan can prevent confusion; afterward, honest communication can protect trust even when circumstances deteriorate. The gospel calls neither party to use the other's duty as an excuse to neglect their own.

Dear brothers and sisters! At the start of chapter 15, Moses says there need be no poor people in the land, since the LORD would richly bless Israel there, provided they fully obeyed His commands — blessed enough to lend to many nations without ever needing to borrow, ruling over many nations without any ruling over them (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 15:4–6). But by the end of that very same passage, we read what Moses already foresaw coming — the grim reality that would actually unfold in the land where God intended a theocracy: there would always be poor people in the land, which is exactly why Israel is commanded to be openhanded toward their own poor and needy (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 15:11).

God's practical solution for breaking any possible generational cycle of poverty was the Sabbath year, resetting everything back to a level starting point. But even though God's law was holy and perfectly designed for Israel's own wealth and health, its intended outcome depended entirely on Israel's own obedience. So what happened? Of course, they failed — driven by insatiable greed to accumulate things for themselves, as though they'd live forever and keep it all indefinitely. Just as Israel failed to meet God's expectation here, we're no different when it comes to our own material possessions. Even knowing everything comes from Him, we never fail to claim ownership over whatever surrounds us. But if we truly believed nothing actually belongs to us, and that we're simply stewards over what He's entrusted to us, sharing His blessings with others wouldn't feel like such a difficult task. Isn't Jesus Himself our actual portion anyway? Let's pray fervently about this, so others might come to know God among us through our obedience.

In Christ, Stephen

AI-Expanded Reflection

The apparent tension this comment notices — "there need be no poor" immediately followed by "there will always be poor" — resolves once the conditional clause attached to the first promise is taken seriously: the "no poverty" outcome was always contingent on full obedience Moses already knew, even as he spoke, wouldn't actually be sustained. Jesus later echoes the second half of this same passage almost verbatim, telling His disciples "the poor you will always have with you" (Mark 14:7), quoting Deuteronomy's own realistic acknowledgment rather than its idealistic opening promise. Both statements were always true simultaneously — poverty's elimination was genuinely possible under perfect obedience, and its persistence was equally certain given the obedience that would actually follow.

From our reading so far, there appear to be three distinct tithes: the Levitical tithe, the festival tithe, and the tithe for the poor.

The first is described in Leviticus 27:30 — a tenth of everything from the land, whether grain or fruit, belonging to the LORD as holy to Him (a paraphrase). Numbers 18:21 shows this tithe going to the Levites, given as their inheritance in exchange for their service at the Tent of Meeting (a paraphrase). Numbers 18:25–28 then instructs the Levites to give a tenth of what they receive to the priests specifically, treated as their own offering to the LORD (a paraphrase).

The second tithe appears in Deuteronomy 14:22–23 — setting aside a tenth of each year's produce, to be eaten in God's presence at the place He'll choose, so Israel would learn to revere Him always (a paraphrase). This tithe was brought to the three annual festivals described in Deuteronomy 16, each requiring pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem, with the offerings consumed during the festivities themselves.

The third tithe appears in Deuteronomy 14:28–29 — every three years, storing that year's tithe locally, so the Levites (who had no land inheritance), along with foreigners, the fatherless, and widows, could come and eat their fill, so the LORD would bless all of Israel's work (a paraphrase). This was a tenth given specifically every third year for the community's needy.

Altogether, Israel was required to give roughly 20% in the first and second years, and 30% in the third. Yet it seems Israel didn't actually keep up with this — in Malachi 3:8–12, God accuses them outright of robbing Him by withholding tithes and offerings. Most modern Christians don't fully understand the Mosaic Law's actual tithing requirements — most assume it was simply 10%, when in reality it was considerably higher.

The question now is whether Christians today are obligated to pay tithes as the Mosaic Law required. Really, the question isn't about tithing specifically, but about the entire Mosaic Law itself — are we under it at all? God told Jeremiah He'd make a "new covenant" with His people, since they'd broken the old one — a covenant unlike the one made when He led their ancestors out of Egypt by the hand, since they broke that earlier covenant despite His faithfulness to them as a husband (a paraphrase of Jeremiah 31:31–32). Hebrews quotes this same passage, noting that by calling this covenant "new," the old one was made obsolete, and what's obsolete and outdated will soon disappear entirely (a paraphrase of Hebrews 8:13). For New Testament believers, we're no longer under the Mosaic covenant — the new covenant has rendered the old one, and its requirements, obsolete.

Does that mean Christians are no longer obligated to tithe? Yes — we're no longer under that legalistic requirement. Does that mean we shouldn't give anything at all? No — how much each of us gives to the Lord and the local church's work is a spiritual matter, not a legalistic one fixed in stone. Our giving should be proportionate to our income (1 Corinthians 16:2) and given as each person decides in their own heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, since God loves a cheerful giver (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 9:7). Before understanding this, I used to ask questions like whether tithing should come from pre-tax or after-tax income — a question that becomes irrelevant once this larger principle is understood.

Whether in the Old or New Testament, God's own heart consistently goes out to the poor and needy — since He cares for them, shouldn't our hearts too? Paul quotes the psalmist's description of the righteous freely scattering gifts to the poor (a paraphrase of Psalm 112:9), and tells the Corinthians their generosity will be enriched in every way so they can give generously on every occasion, with their giving resulting in thanksgiving to God, supplying real needs while also overflowing into praise from those who benefit, who'll praise God for the obedience accompanying their confession of the gospel, and for their generosity toward everyone (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 9:11–15).

As a confession of our faith, let's be generous, so God's name may be praised by all. We thank You, Lord, because everything we have is Yours, and our increase comes from You alone. Help us be faithful stewards as You let us participate in advancing Your kingdom — to God be all the glory!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The higher-than-expected total this comment calculates (20-30% rather than a flat 10%) is a genuinely useful corrective to a common assumption, and it's worth adding one more dimension to the "are we obligated" question this comment raises so carefully — the New Testament's own pattern of giving, exemplified by the Macedonian churches Paul describes giving generously "beyond their ability" out of genuine joy despite severe poverty (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 8:1–5), suggests the New Covenant's actual expectation may not simply be "less than the Old Covenant's total," but a giving motivated by love that isn't bound by a percentage ceiling at all in either direction — freed from a mandated minimum, but also freed from any assumption that grace-driven generosity should necessarily total less than the Law once required.