From my point of view, the seed idea of central banking was the same as that of the money changers before the temple.
Usury was already practiced before that... Lending at excessive interest rates (when the lender knows he is doing so).
Now of course, when we lend something to our own relatives, we usually don't try, let alone think to do that, if we otherwise claim to love them. It's then about help, not exploiting. Is lending at interests to strangers a sin? To each their own morality ... Who am I to judge a priori if neither lender or borrower are to complain eventually? I'm just happy I can make a good living without being a banker, that's it. Their own morality and reputation is their problem, not mine.
My main point is money changing was essentially another evil improvement, promising to last, as it did, IN ADDITION TO that legacy habit of usury practiced by the greediest.
Thus, money changing became complementary to usury, for more injustice between creditors and debtors. Both can work independently or combine together.
Of course, I certainly don't mean to defend either. I just think it is useful and wise to distinguish the two for what they really are, specifically, and how much harm, indeed, they have always brought because of their similar but non identical natures.
Proverbs 11 had also warned against dishonest scales and weights, btw.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius