Too my surprise even paying student debt may be biblically motivated.
Jesus’ reference to debt forgiveness was not rote. It was a reference to a growing economic crisis in the Galilee of his day. That crisis involved very wealthy citizens loaning money to the young, poor and desperate, observed
Martin Goodman, an Oxford historian on the political, social and religious history of the Jews in Roman Palestine. These loans were often impossible to repay, and so land was confiscated from the poor and transferred to the rich.
While college students are, understandably, enthusiastic about the prospects of massive debt relief, many conservatives are skeptical about the wisdom of forgiving the debts of countless college students, who presumably knew what they were getting themselves into when they applied for the loans—or so the logic goes. For these conservatives, forgiving student debt creates a “
moral-hazard problem” that
rewards poor financial decisions and provides incentives for the intemperate behaviors that created the crisis in the first place.
Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education, has
dismissed out of hand any forgiveness of college debts. “We’ve heard shrill calls to cancel, to forgive, to make it all free,” said Ms. DeVos in a speech she gave at a Federal Student Aid Training Conference on Dec. 1. “Any innocuous label out there can’t obfuscate what it really is: Wrong.” In this view, forgiving student debt would be immoral.
Ms. DeVos is a Christian and has often spoken of her activism and policy goals in religious terms. She once claimed that her primary motivation in education reform is to “
advance God’s kingdom.”
But taking God’s kingdom seriously means more. It requires returning to the Scriptures.
Jesus’ reference to debt forgiveness was not rote. It was a reference to a growing economic crisis in the Galilee of his day. That crisis involved very wealthy citizens loaning money to the young, poor and desperate, observed
Martin Goodman, an Oxford historian on the political, social and religious history of the Jews in Roman Palestine. These loans were often impossible to repay, and so land was confiscated from the poor and transferred to the rich.
Observant Jews in this period, however, were well aware that the Mosaic laws included something known as the Sabbatical laws—laws requiring, among other things, thatall debts be canceled once every seven years (Dt 15:1).
Enterprising wealthy lenders appealed to Rabbi Hillel during this time for a suspension of the laws. They claimed this was necessary to unfreeze credit, which would allow the poor access to the resources they need to survive bad harvests. Because debtors would be released from payment in a maximum of seven years, the moneylenders argued, as long as Sabbatical laws were in place there was no incentive to lend money. Persuaded by the argument, the rabbi suspended the Sabbatical laws in a proclamation known as the
Prosbul.
Thus when Jesus declared that it was “year of the Lord’s favor” (Lk 4:19), which indicated it was time to release Jews from their debts, among other provisions, he naturally found a receptive audience among the debtors—and a less receptive audience among the city’s elite, some of whom ultimately arranged for his execution.
Along these lines, there is a passage from Luke, in which Jesus dines in the house of Simon, one of the Pharisees. Shortly after sitting down to eat, a beggar appears. She proceeds to weep, bathe Simon’s feet, dry them with her hair and anoint them with oil. The Pharisee, outraged by this disruption, calls her a “sinner” (Lk 7:39). But Jesus replies with a story:
A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five thousand denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more? (Lk 7:40-41).
The question Jesus poses to Simon is almost rhetorical, but Simon acknowledges that the greatest love comes from the debtor who is forgiven the largest debt. This parable is especially important not only because it recalls the Sabbatical law of debt remittance, but because it also hints at the social benefits of following that law. It builds good will.
One may argue, as people did in those days, that remitting debts is bad for the credit industry. But its social benefits are significant. Not only does it reduce the radical inequalities between the poorest and wealthiest citizens; it also fosters a culture of forgiveness and love. Under such conditions, wealthier citizens no longer look to their neighbors as a source of their own potentially enhanced wealth, but rather as human beings deserving of love and forgiveness. Similarly, the poor no longer view the wealthy as oppressors, but rather as generous and loving fellow citizens.
Jesus’ insistence on adherence to the Mosaic laws is often forgotten; more likely, it is never really learned. Yet it may well prove to be especially pertinent for our political moment. Where many Christian conservatives have stressed the threat of moral hazard, they would do well to give equal, if not greater, consideration to the lessons stressed by Jesus.
The Biblical case for forgiving student loan debt | America Magazine
