느헤미야와 문무왕의 이자금지와 채무면제

Abstract

In Ancient Israel there existed the laws which prohibits charging interestand commands debt relief(Exod 22:24-26; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 23:20-21),and also the law which orders the remission of debt after 7 years(Deut15:1-3). Debates have existed as to whether these startling enactments,which had a power to freeze economic relations instantly, were actuallyenforced, and whether these were realistic measures or not. This article compares the cases of Nehemiah(Neh 5:1-13) with thoseof King Munmu of the ancient Shilla dynasty, who had implemented suchlaws. This article seeks to unveil the motivation and purpose lying behindthese institutions. The motivation lying behind prohibition of interest-charge and debtrelief can be summarized as follows. 1) Relief measures sought to savedebt slaves, who, after having taken out loans because of poverty andstarvation, fell into slavery. Natural disasters rendered them unable topay back their debts. 2) The monarch sought to weaken the power of thepolitical rivals and on the other hand to increase the power of the throneor ruling leadership by implementing the law of prohibiting interest andthe law of debt relief. 3) Prohibition of interest and debt relief signaled‘brotherly love’and served as a mechanism of social unification. Further,these laws served as a method by which the poor could be helped whilepreserving their honor and dignity. Therefore, while on surface level prohibition of interest and debt reliefmade little economic sense, in terms of political perspective and socialunity, these laws not only were realistic but also served a purpose, that isto cure previous economic illnesses and produce a healthier economy. Theunderstanding that such treatment was necessary to prevent communitybreakdown spurred members to enact such institutions. Also, the implementation of such laws was be made possible by thelimited enactment in certain sectors, which is analogous to a partial andlimited treatment of a particular disease, rather than all-out enactmentthroughout the entire economy. Therefore, we can conclude thatprohibition of interest and debt relief are realistic policies, capable ofbeing implemented according to need.