DEBT, n. det. L. debitum, contracted.

See loan .

1: ὀφειλή (Strong's #3782 — Noun Feminine — opheile — of-i-lay' ) "that which is owned" (see Note, below), is translated "debt" in Matthew 18:32 ; in the plural, "dues," Romans 13:7 ; "(her) due," 1 Corinthians 7:3 , of conjugal duty: some texts here have opheilomenen (eunoian) "due (benevolence)," AV; the context confirms the RV. See DUE. 2: ὀφείλημα (Strong's #3783 — Noun Neuter — opheilema — of-i'-lay-mah ) a longer form of No. 1, expressing a "debt" more concretely, is used (a) literally, of that which is legally due, Romans 4:4 ; (b) metaphorically, of sin as a "debt," because it demands expiation, and thus payment by way of punishment, Matthew 6:12 . 3: δάνειον (Strong's #1156 — Noun Neuter — daneion — dan'-i-on ) "a loan" (akin to danos, "a gift"), is translated "debt" in Matthew 18:27 (RV, marg., "loan"), of the ten thousand talents debtor. Cp. daneizo, "to lend," and daneistes, "a money-lender, a creditor." Note: In Matthew 18:30 , opheilo, "to owe," is translated "debt" in the AV (RV, "that which was due."). See DUE.

Because debts place a person under obligation to his creditors, Paul sometimes used the word ‘debt’ to refer to a person’s spiritual obligations. Paul considered that his obligation to preach the gospel was a debt he owed to people everywhere (Romans 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:16). He believed also that Gentile Christians, having received the gospel by way of the Jews, owed a debt to their Jewish brothers. The Gentiles had an obligation to help the Jews in their poverty (Romans 15:27). More frequently, however, the Bible uses the illustration of debt to refer to something bad, such as sin in general (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 18:32-35) or bondage to the sinful human nature (Romans 8:12). Debt in this sense is a reminder of the difficulties of life in the everyday world, where debts can easily bring a person to ruin. The poor can easily be exploited, and for this reason Israelite law aimed at protecting them from greedy money-lenders. (For details see LENDING.)

The Mosaic law encouraged the practice of lending (Deuteronomy 15:7 ; Psalm 37:26 ; Matthew 5:42 ); but it forbade the exaction of interest except from foreigners. Usury was strongly condemned (Proverbs 28:8 ; Ezekiel 18:8,13,17 ; 22:12 ; Psalm 15:5 ). On the Sabbatical year all pecuniary obligations were cancelled (Deuteronomy 15:1-11 ). These regulations prevented the accumulation of debt.

DEBT 1. In OT. Loans in the OT period were not of a commercial nature. They were not granted to enable a man to start or extend his business, but to meet the pressure of poverty. To the borrower they were a misfortune ( Deuteronomy 28:12 ; Deuteronomy 28:44 ); to the lender a form of charity. Hence the tone of legislation on the subject. Usury is forbidden in all three codes (Exodus 22:25 ^[1] ], Deuteronomy 23:19 , Leviticus 25:36 ^[2] ]); it was making a profit out of a brother’s distress. In Dt. it may be taken from a foreigner. Pledges were allowed, but under strict limitations ( Deuteronomy 24:10 , Job 24:3 ). In Deuteronomy 15:1-23 is a remarkable law providing for the ‘letting drop’ of loans every seventh year (see Driver, ad loc. ). Its relation to the law of the Sabbatical year in Exodus 23:10 (JE ^[3] ), Leviticus 25:1 (H ^[4] ) is not clear, but the cessation of agriculture would obviously lead to serious financial difficulties, and debtors might reasonably look for some relief. This consideration makes for the modern view, that the passage implies only the suspension for a year of the creditor’s right to demand payment. It must be admitted, however, that apart from a priori considerations the obvious interpretation is a total remission of debts (so the older, and Jewish commentators). Foreigners do not come under the law. The other codes have no parallel, except where the debt may have led to the bondage of the debtor’s person. Historically the legislation seems to have been largely ignored. In 2 Kings 4:1-7 a small debt involves the bondage of a widow’s two sons (cf. Isaiah 50:1 , Matthew 18:23 ), and Elisha helps her not by invoking the law, but by a miracle. In Nehemiah 5:1-19 mortgaged lands and interest are restored under the pressure of an economic crisis. Nehemiah himself has been a creditor and taken usury. There is an apparent reference to Deuteronomy 15:1-23 in Nehemiah 10:31 . In later times the strictness of the law was evaded by various legal fictions: Hillel introduced a system of ‘contracting out.’ That loans played a large part in social life is shown by frequent references in the Prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs ( Isaiah 24:2 , Psalms 15:5 ; Psalms 37:21 , Proverbs 19:17 ; Proverbs 28:8 ). Jeremiah 15:10 shows that the relation between debtor and creditor was proverbially an unpleasant one. In Psalms 37:21 it is part of the misfortune of the wicked that he shall be unable to pay his debts; there is no reference to dishonesty. Proverbs 22:7 , Sir 18:33 warn against borrowing, and Sir 29:1-28 has some delightful common-sense advice on the whole subject. 2. In NT. Loans are assumed by our Lord as a normal factor in social life ( Matthew 25:27 , Luke 16:5 ; Luke 19:23 ). Luke 6:34-35 suggests that the Christian will not always stand on his rights in this respect. Debt is used as a synonym for sin in Matthew 6:12 (cf. the two parables Matthew 18:23 , Luke 7:41 ; and Colossians 2:14 ). The context of these passages is a sufficient warning against the external and legalistic view of sin which might be suggested by the word itself. Christ does not imply that it is a debt which can be paid by any amount of good deeds or retributive suffering. The word is chosen to emphasize our duty of forgiveness, and it has a wide meaning, including all we owe to God. The metaphor of the money payment has ceased to be prominent, except where it is implied by the context. C. W. Emmet.

DEBT, DEBTOR.—The Jews, being an inland people, and not directly interested in the world’s trade, were slow to gain touch with the credit-systems of more commercial communities. But by Christ’s day their business ideas, modified already in part by the Phœnicians, are seen overlaid and radically affected by Roman domination. The people, on the one hand, as they listened to the reading of the Law in public, had the OT ideal before them, which was one of notable mildness, backed by humanitarian ordinances. Debt in their old national life had been regarded as a passing misfortune, rather than a basal element in trading conditions. In the popular mind it was associated with poverty (Exodus 22:25), a thing that came upon the husbandman, for instance, in bad seasons (Nehemiah 5:3). Being thus exceptional, and a subject for pity, little or no interest was to be exacted (Exodus 22:25), and a strict tariff excluded many things from the list of articles to be taken in pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6; Deuteronomy 24:17, Job 24:3, Amos 2:8, etc.), while in the Seventh or Fallow year (Exodus 23:10-11 ff., Leviticus 25:1-7), and again amid the joys of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:30 ff.), the poor debtor had ample reason to rejoice. There was harshness in the tone, on the other hand, of the Roman methods, which were developed more on the lines of modern commerce. Often the more impoverished the debtor, the greater the exaction, as Horace expressly puts it (Sat. 1, 2, 14), 5 per cent. a month (60 per cent. per annum) being cited by him as a rate of interest not unknown. In the Gospels we have suggestions of the money-customs of the day at Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18, Luke 19:45-48, and John 2:13-17. There are pictures of indebtedness in the parables of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-42), the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), and the Pounds (Luke 19:11-27). Lending and repaying are seen in practice at Luke 6:34; also a credit system at Luke 16:6-7, if the reference there be to merchants, and not simply to those who paid rents in kind. Imprisonment for debt appears in Matthew 5:25-26; and in unmitigated form in the story of the Two Creditors (Matthew 18:21-35), with selling into slavery, accompanied by the horror of ‘tormentors’ (Matthew 18:34), although the whole passage is to be interpreted with caution, because Jesus in the fancied features of His tale may be reflecting, not the manners of His own land, but the doings of some distant and barbaric potentate. Enough that in the time of Christ there was seizure of the debtor’s person, and the general treatment of him was cruel. But whatever the law and custom, it was not the manner of Jesus to attack it. The civil code was left to change to higher forms in days to come. The exhibition of a certain spirit in face of it was what His heart craved, a spirit which should do justice to the best instincts of a true humanity. We can transcend in loving ways the nether aims even of bad laws; and it was the evasion of clear duty in this respect, by those in the high places of the religious world, which moved Jesus most. He was the champion of the merciful essence of the old enactments (Matthew 5:17), while others around Him, prating of orthodoxy the while, were harsh to those unfortunately in their power (Matthew 23:14), all in the name of an ancient law whose real inwardness they missed. The Sadducees, whose love of money was whetted by enjoyment of the Temple dues, were not the men to show mercy to a debtor, nor were the Pharisees behind them, more Puritanic in zeal, and rigidly enforcing the letter of their writs. ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ (Matthew 5:38), as an old catchword, would infect the spirit in which, in the name of ‘righteousness,’ they complacently sued. Jesus lays down no outward rules such as might bear upon the modern business world. There fair and square dealing must be a first postulate; but, in the light of His gospel, men should be keener than they are to note hardships, and their hearts warmer towards cases of distress. In the spirit of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31-36) merciful dealings will show themselves in undefined ways; and the love of brothermen should counteract the love of money which prompts to stem exactions in every case alike. The soul saved by Christian feeling from sordid views of life adds to its true treasure by making the circumstances of unfortunate ones an exercise-ground for tender, pitying grace. The metaphors of Jesus in Matthew 5:39-42 are exceeding bold, and the generous treatment there inculcated may sound almost incredible, not to say subversive of social order; but the enlightened heart will recognize at once the kindly and sacrificing spirit meant to be strongly emphasized. The dynamic in the whole matter, with Jesus, is the remembrance of the pitiful nature of our own plight before God, to whom on the strict requirements of law we are indebted in countless ways. The more this inward situation is brought home to us, the more we shall outwardly be compassionate in turn. Here comes in the moral grandeur of the Beatitude on mercy (Matthew 5:7), a principle which melts into prayer when we connect it with the tender breathing of the Petition on forgiveness (Matthew 6:12). The humble and the contrite heart holds the key to magnanimity. See, further, art. ‘Debt’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. Debtor.—There remains the question of debt as the emblem of moral short-coming (ὁφείλημα, Matthew 6:12. See Lord’s Prayer), and the Supreme Creditor’s way with men in this regard, especially as depicted in certain well-known parables. The image is natural which pictures the Deity sitting like a civil judge, to try men for defaults; and while some think more of the majesty of the law, and what must be exacted to satisfy the interests of order, others love to dwell on the prerogative of mercy, and favour judgments which are ameliorative as well as punitive. No reader of the Gospels can fail to see the latter characteristic strong in the teaching of the Master. Pardon befits the royal clemency, and God is known in the kingdom for sovereign displays of grace. Yet due weight is given to the other aspect of the image also—the satisfaction of the law; for Jesus teaches that it is only the pure in heart who see God (Matthew 5:8); the holiness that avails must be inward, not that of the legalist (Matthew 5:20), and only they who are merciful obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7). But what is characteristic in the Gospel treatment of the subject is not any dwelling upon absolute judgments—these are left to the Searcher of Hearts; rather we are taken by Jesus to the sphere of proximate evidence, and shown that in the individual life the presence or absence of the forgiving spirit is sure token of the presence or absence of the Divine condescension as regards the person himself. In other words, principles discovered in the relations of men with each other are a fortiori valid for their relationship to God (Matthew 6:14-15). The elder brother of the Prodigal (Luke 15:25-32) illustrates the point; representing as he does the Pharisaic type of mind—common in all ages and pronouncedly so in the time of Jesus—which complacently fancies itself well within the Kingdom, but shows by its harsh attitude to fellow-mortals that it is inwardly not right with God. The elder brother is pictured, not without point, as remaining outside the banquet-hall, so long as he continued in his implacable mood. The story of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:36-50) shows the vital contrast of the matter in the persons of the Woman who was a Sinner—truly gracious in her doings, because full now of penitence and faith and love—and Simon, hide-bound and censorious like his class, with no disciplined sense of having been humbled like her before God. The latter, like the debtor of the trivial fifty pence, had little reaction of wholesome feeling in his mind; the former had manifestly much, like the man over-joyed to find himself relieved from a financial peril ten times greater. This is a concrete instance of the method of the Master. Certain visible acts of the woman at the banquet bespoke the inward action of God’s Spirit, and argued a state of reconciliation with Him. From the scanty graciousness of Simon, on the other hand, one inferred just as truly a heart imperfectly attuned to goodness, and knowing little of the joy of pardon. ‘To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little’ (Luke 7:47). As to which is the root and which the fruit, rival systems of theology may battle; but the fact is, the two graces are eternal co-relatives, and either may be first in the order of thought when neither is entitled to absolute precedence in fact. See Forgiveness. The parable of the Two Creditors (Matthew 18:23-35) shows the other side of the shield from the Woman’s case, in a person of downright inhumanity concerning whom it is equally clear that he had no saving experience of God’s mercy himself. The story, as a story, is remarkable for simple force; we feel the horror of the implacable attitude of the servant forgiven for a great indebtedness, who failed to show goodwill in turn to a subordinate for a default infinitely less. Nemesis descends (Matthew 18:34) when he finds he is not forgiven after all—he loses that which he had seemed to have (Matthew 18:27). ‘So likewise shall my Heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses’ (Matthew 18:35). Jesus saw many around Him glorying in fancied privilege and very zealous for the Law, yet omitting its essential matters—justice, mercy, faith. To such especially this Gospel message was addressed; broadening out in what for Him was the supreme truth, that love to God is seen and tested in love to man. To be sympathetic, sacrificing, generous, is not only the pier from which the heavenward arch springs, but the pier to which it returns. The forgiving God cannot possibly be seen in those who hide themselves from their own flesh (Luke 6:36). Literature.—Besides art. ‘Debt’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, the Comm. on the passages referred to, and the standard works on the Parables, the following may be consulted:—Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. p. 268 ff.; Schurer, HJP ^[1] ii. 1. 362f.; Expositor, i. vi. (1877) p. 214 ff.; Ker, Serm. 1st ser. p. 16 ff. George Murray.

The Acts and the Epistles give few glimpses of the trade of the time (cf. James 4:13 ff., 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:8 ff., Acts 19:24 ff., 1 Corinthians 7:30, Romans 13:7 ff., Revelation 18:4-20). This may seem all the more remarkable since Christianity touched the commerce of the Roman world at so many points and used the fine Roman roads (see article Trade And Commerce). The allusions to debt are quite incidental, and come in generally in the metaphorical use of words. 1. Literal use.-The word ‘debt’ signifying a business transaction is found in Philemon 1:18 (ὀφείλει), where St. Paul delicately refers to money or valuables stolen from Philemon by Onesimus. St. Paul here uses the technical language of business-τοῦτο ἑμοὶ ἐλλόγα. We meet ἐλλογέω in pagan inscriptions and in an Imperial papyrus letter of the time of Hadrian (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East2, 79f.). Dibelius (‘Kol.’ in Handbuch zum NT, 1912, p. 129) quotes various examples, as ὑπὲρ ἀρραβῶνος ^[1]ιμῇ ἐλλογουμέν^[2]υ (Grenfell and Hunt, ii. 67, 16ff.). In the rest of St. Paul’s half-humorous sally with Philemon (ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί) he probably has in mind τὸ χειρόγραφον (Colossians 2:14). The debtor could have another to write for him if unable to write himself (cf. specimen of such a note by an ἀγράμματος from the Fayyûm papyri ^[3]). The common word for ‘repay’ is ἀποδίδωμι (cf. Romans 13:7), but St. Paul here uses ἀποτίσω, ‘which is much stronger than ἀποδώσω’ (Deissmann, p. 335 n. ^[4] ; cf. also Moulton and Milligan, in Expositor, 7th ser., vi. ^[5] 191f.). St. Paul thus gives Philemon his note of hand to pay the debt of Onesimus. In Philippians 4:18 St. Paul uses, perhaps in playful vein again, the technical word for a receipt, ἀπέχω, in expressing his appreciation of the liberal contribution sent to him by the Philippians (cf. ἀπέχω for a tax-receipt on an ostracon from Thebes ^[6]). The term εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν (Philippians 4:17) has the atmosphere of book-keeping (cf. also εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως in Philippians 4:15). In Romans 4:4 we find the figure of credit for actual work as a debt-κατὰ ὀφείλημα. This is simply pay for work done (wages). The word ὁ μισθός, hire for pay, is the common expression (cf. the proverb in 1 Timothy 5:18 and μίσθωμα (hired house) in Acts 28:30). In James 5:4 the curtain is raised upon the social wrong done to labour by grinding employers who kept back (ἀφυστερέω) the wages of the men who tilled the fields. James rather implies that there was little recourse to law in such cases, but consoles the wronged workers in that God has heard their cries. There was imprisonment for debt, as was the case in England and America till some 50 years ago, but it was only with difficulty that the workman could bring such a law to bear on his employer. In Romans 13:6-8 St. Paul expressly urges the Roman Christiana to pay taxes, a form of debt paid with poor grace in all the ages. Christianity is on the side of law and order, and recognizes the debt of the citizens to government for the maintenance of order. ‘For this cause ye pay tribute also’ (Romans 13:6), φόρους τελεῖτε. In Romans 13:7 he urges the duty of paying (ἀπόδοτε) back in full (perfective use of ἀπό as in ἀπέχω above) one’s taxes. φόρος is the tribute paid by the subject nation (Luke 20:22, 1 Maccabees 10:33), while τέλος represents the customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support of the civil government (Matthew 17:25, 1 Maccabees 10:31). So Sanday-Headlam, Romans, in loco. In Romans 13:8 St. Paul covers the whole field by μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε. We are not to imagine that he is opposed to debt as the basis of business. The early Jewish prohibitions against debt and interest (usury) contemplated a world where only the poor and unfortunate had to borrow. But already, long before St. Paul’s time, borrowing and lending was a regular business custom at the basis of trade. Extortionate rates of interest were often charged (cf. Horace ^[7], who expressly states that interest at the rate of 5 per cent a month or 60 per cent a year was sometimes exacted). Jesus draws a picture of imprisonment, and even slavery, for debt in the Parable of the Two Creditors (Matthew 18:23-35; cf. also Matthew 5:25 f.). But the point of view of St. Paul here is the moral obligation of the debtor to pay his debt. In few things do Christians show greater moral laxity than in the matter of debt. Evidently St. Paul had already noticed this laxity. He makes this exhortation the occasion of a strong argument for love, but the context shows that liberal financial obligations (ὀφειλή, common in the papyri in this sense) are in mind as well as the metaphorical applications of ὀφείλω. 2. Metaphorical uses.-The examples in the apostolic period chiefly come under this heading. The debt of love in Romans 13:8 is a case in point. It may be noted that ἀγάπη can no longer be claimed as a purely biblical word (cf. Deissmann, op. cit. p. 70). None the less Christianity glorifies the word. The debt of love is the only one that must not be paid in full, but the interest must be paid. For other instances of ὀφείλω see Romans 15:1-27, 1 Corinthians 5:10. In Romans 13:7 ὀφείλω covers all kinds of obligations, financial and moral (cf. also 1 Corinthians 7:3 ^[8]). The metaphorical me of ὀφειλέτης appears in Romans 1:14, Galatians 5:3 etc. The metaphor of debt is found in various other words. Thus, when St. Paul speaks of Christians being ‘slaves of Christ,’ he is thinking of the obligation due to the new Master who has set us free from the bondage of sin at the price of His own blood. The figure need not be overworked, but this is the heart of it (cf. Romans 6:18-22, Galatians 2:4; Galatians 5:1, 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23, Romans 3:24, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14; cf. also 1 Peter 1:18, Hebrews 9:12). (See Deissmann, op. cit. pp. 324-44 for a luminous discussion of the whole subject of manumission of slaves in the inscriptions and papyri, as illustrating the NT use of words like ἀπολύτρωσις, λυτρόω, λύτρον, ἀντίλυτρον, ἀγοράζω, τιμή, ἐλευθερόω, ἐλεύθερος, ἐλευθερία, δοῦλος, δουλεύω, καταδουλόω, etc.) The use of ἀποδίδωμι with the figure of paying off a debt is common (cf. Romans 2:6; Romans 12:17, etc.). ἀρραβών (Ephesians 1:14) presents the idea of pledge (mortgage), earnest money to guarantee the full payment (Deissmann, op. cit. p. 340). In Hebrews 7:22 in the same way ἔγγυος is surety or guarantor. It seems clear that διαθήκη in Hebrews 9:16 f. has the notion of a will (testament) which is paid at death. Deissmann (op. cit. p. 341) argues that ‘no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century a.d. would have thought of finding in the word διαθήκη the idea of “covenant” St. Paul would not, and in fact did not,’ That sweeping statement overlooks the Septuagint , however. Cf. article Covenant. The figurative use of ἐλλογάω occurs in Romans 5:13. Literature.-articles in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , Jewish Encyclopedia , and Catholic Encyclopedia , and Commentaries on the passages cited; A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, Eng. translation , 1901, and Light from the Ancient East2, 1911; A. Edersheim, LT ^[9] ii. p. 268ff.; E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] ii. i. 362f. A. T. Robertson.

(1): (n.) An action at law to recover a certain specified sum of money alleged to be due. (2): (n.) That which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods, or services; that which one person is bound to pay to another, or to perform for his benefit; thing owed; obligation; liability. (3): (n.) A duty neglected or violated; a fault; a sin; a trespass.