The Cancellation Of Debts

In one of the passages that would likely be most shocking to or dismissed by the contemporary conservative evangelical, Deuteronomy 15:1-3 says that there is to be a cancellation of debts every seventh year.  Verses 7-10 add that it is evil to refrain from lending to the poor among you because the cancellation of debts is near.  Conservatives who identify as Christians would probably insist that this would devastate the economy of countries like America.  The truth is that if Christianity is true, then those economies deserve to fall apart because they operate on the oppression of debtors.  Of ironic relevance is that many conservatives might associate business dealings, labor, and financial gain with men, but the male language in some translations of Deuteronomy 15:1-3 does not teach any such complementarian stereotypes or prescriptions.  This actually touches upon something far more foundational and broad than just the contents of this one passage.

Many translations of the Bible that still retain broad male wording in reference to all people, male and female, would in this very chapter also provide confirmation that it is not just possible for the Bible to use words like "brother" and "he" in this way (though this is a matter of logical possibility independent of Biblical statements), but that it also does this immediately after addressing debt.  To clarify, this does not mean that if it did not do this, the Bible would otherwise be teaching that women cannot have personal assets or debts or that their debts are not to be cancelled (see Genesis 1:26-27 and note that it never mentions a differing moral standard for men and women, which is consistent with the objective logical equivalence of the same actions done by each).  Even so, Deuteronomy 15:12-17 introduces Hebrew men and women using the word brother, mentions both men and women distinctly, and then defaults to male language in reference to people of both genders.

Clearly, like how Exodus 21:20-21 and 26-27 refer to men and women and then summarize them both (in some translations) with the words "him" and "he"--and thus would clarify regardless of other affirmations from reason and the Bible that the "man," "he" and "him" of passages like Exodus 12:12-14 or 18-19 encompasses perpetrators or victims of both genders--Deuteronomy 15:12-17 reminds readers that of course the "brother" of Deuteronomy 15:1-3 is a man or a woman of one's nationality.  Also, in saying that foreigners can be charged interest, Deuteronomy 15:1-3 does not contradict what other passages say about the treatment of foreigners needing to be the same as the at of the native-born (Leviticus 17:10-16, 24:22, and so on).  While Deuteronomy 15 says that foreigners can have their debts retained, which does mean they must not be annulled, the foreigner living among one's country as an ongoing, long-term resident rather than a mere visitor is to be treated just like native residents even in the handful of issues like the cancellation of debts where foreigners are not universally to be treated exactly the same (Leviticus 19:33-34).

Also, a foreigner from one country or another might or might not have the same skin color as a given person from one's own region.  These commands have nothing in themselves to do with race as opposed to nationality.  The emphasis is on someone's foreign nationality or residence, as the latter is what triumphs even over the otherwise rare matter the Bible says distant foreigners can be treated differently on.  An equivalent example would be how the Torah treats charging interest.  Charging interest to poor people is prohibited outright (Exodus 22:25), and charging interest to one's own countrypeople is prohibited, yet not imposing it on foreigners (Deuteronomy 23:19-20), but Leviticus 25:35-38 nonetheless says that a poor person of one's own countrypeople is to be treated like a foreigner or stranger: they are to be helped, charged no interest, and sold food without any inflated prices for the sake of profit.  The difference between a foreigner living among you and visiting briefly from abroad, though in almost all regards they are to be treated the same anyway, is key here.

Between the kinds of assistance Mosaic Law says is obligatory towards the poor (see Leviticus 19:9-10, 25:35-38, Deuteronomy 15:7-10), the opportunity for people of one's own country or foreign residents to work as protected servants for up six years rather than starve (Exodus 21:2, 26-27, Deuteronomy 15:12-17), and the cancellation of debts every seven years, it is no wonder that the Bible declares that there does not need to be anyone poor in the land (Deuteronomy 15:4).  The acknowledgement in Deuteronomy 15:11 that the poor will indefinitely be among us, shortly after verse 4 says poverty need not be present, is foreshadowing that the Israelites would not uphold their obligations, or else poverty could be rather easily eliminated.  The obligation to cancel debts in the aforementioned manner is still Biblically obligatory in all times and places (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Matthew 15:17-19, and so on), so the avoidable failure of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 30:11-15) does not mean that moderners would be free to keep people of their own community indebted to them for life.