Of Usury
A look at what Protestants of yore really said about the topic
With the recent controversial actions on the part of the Biden Administration to forgive student loan debt, the question of usury is receiving more attention among Christians. It is common knowledge that the church has historically forbidden charging interest on loans, based on the prohibitions found in the Old Testament. It is also commonly assumed that Protestantism, particularly John Calvin, opened the door to usury and Protestants receive blame from Roman Catholics for unleashing the modern debt economy on the world. And while it is true that many Protestant thinkers did not simply equate sinful usury with any and all lending at interest, the charge the Protestants are OK with usury is grossly oversimplified.
A study of commonly available confessions, commentaries, and other writings by prominent Protestant thinkers from the Reformation into the 19 Century shows that Protestant views of usury are often very similar to the views of historic Roman Catholic figures. The rift is greatly overstated.
First let us note that Angelic Doctor himself, while proscribing usury wholesale, does sort of allow a back door to profiting from lending:
Reply to Objection 5. He who lends money transfers the ownership of the money to the borrower. Hence the borrower holds the money at his own risk and is bound to pay it all back: wherefore the lender must not exact more. On the other hand he that entrusts his money to a merchant or craftsman so as to form a kind of society, does not transfer the ownership of his money to them, for it remains his, so that at his risk the merchant speculates with it, or the craftsman uses it for his craft, and consequently he may lawfully demand as something belonging to him, part of the profits derived from his money. (ST II-II.78.2)
Aquinas recognizes that when one entrusts money to another in a profit-making venture, he is entitled to share in the fruits of that venture. This is not strictly interest in Aquinas’ mind. He calls it a society rather than a loan, like a silent partner in a small business. But the similarity to lending is clear. Nineteenth and early twentieth century Roman Catholic thinker Hillaire Belloc, intentionally or not, seems to view such an arrangement as a form of non-usurious interest lending. John Buchmann notes:
“Unproductive loans, without question, are by definition consumed in their use. There is little point in arguing about the fruitfulness of money when, in point of fact, it has been less than fruitful. Interest in these cases is thus proscribed.
What of the other loans, those that are productive? Belloc recasts all of these loans as partnerships. That is, by requiring that the venture be productive in order for a return to be paid, he essentially transforms debt financing into a form of equity financing: the lender is a partner in a common venture, and they rise and fall together. The end result, then, of Belloc’s two-pronged proposal is that loans (in the strictest sense) are forbidden, whereas partnerships are permitted, and indeed encouraged.” (A Time for Reconsidering the Catholic Prohibition of Usury, https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/revisiting-the-catholic-prohibition-of-usury/)
Here is Belloc’s own explanation of the difference between productive and unproductive loans, and how the former may be subject to charging interest without being usurious:
“What are those circumstances? What are the conditions distinguishing a demand for payment of interest which is legitimate in morals from a demand which is illegitimate?
The distinction lies between a demand for part of the product of a productive loan, which is moral, and the immoral demand for either (1) interest on an unproductive loan, or (2) interest greater than the annual increment in real wealth which a productive loan creates. Such a demand "wears down"-----"eats up"-----"drains dry" the wealth of the borrower, and that is why it is called Usury. A derivation inaccurate in philology, but sound in morals, rightly connects "usura" "usury," with the idea of destroying, "using up," rather than with the original idea of "usus," "a use."
Usury, then, is a claiming of interest upon an unproductive loan, or of interest greater than the real increment produced by a productive loan. It is the claiming of something to which the lender has no right, as though I should say: "Pay me ten sacks of wheat a year for the rent of these fields" after the fields had been swallowed up by the sea, or after they had fallen to producing annually much less than ten sacks of wheat.
…
Strictly speaking, then, usury has nothing to do with the amount of interest demanded, but with the point whether there is or is not produced by the capital invested an increment at least equal to the tribute demanded.
If authority is asked for so obvious a position in morals it may be found in every great moral system sanctioned by the religious and permanent social philosophies adopted by men. Aristotle 1 forbids it, St. Thomas forbids it. The Mohammedan system of ethics condemns it [and in practice condemns it unintelligently because it forbids many loans that are useful]. 2 In particular we have the luminous decision of the Fourth Lateran Council [1215].” (On Usury, http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/belloc2-2.html)
So here we have a prominent Roman Catholic of a century ago arguably tweaking the definition of usury to allow a legitimate form of interest lending, but in a way that is essentially rooted in a very historic teaching of St. Thomas. It’s a semantic question whether or not lending productively is really lending or entering into a society or partnership, but it seems clear that whatever it is, it is not the same thing as lending for non-productive purposes to those seeking to purchase a home or some other needful good.
A survey of Protestant, particularly Reformed sources shows that while precise details and how terms are defined varies from source to source, a similar distinction to Aquinas/Belloc is usually in play. And if this is the case, it is not simply that Protestants abandoned historic church teaching at the Reformation nor did they excuse or bless interest lending wholesale. In fact, historic Protestant attitudes toward usury would be highly objectionable to many modern economists and financial thinkers.
Let’s start with the supposed ringleader of Protestant fleecing of the poor- John Calvin. Brad Littlejohn analyzes Calvin’s teaching in his Letter of Advice on Usury and notes the following:
“Loans at interest, Calvin goes on to say, are only legitimate if they are made for the benefit of both parties, not merely the creditor. Just because someone wants a loan and is willing to agree to a certain interest rate does not mean a creditor should give them the loan–only if they are confident that the debtor is in such a position of stability that he is almost certain to derive great benefit from the loan, even after repaying the interest.”
He then quotes seven criteria Calvin lists to determine if a loan is sinful usury or morally permissible lending for interest:
“The first is that no one should take interest (usury) from the poor, and no one, destitute by virtue or indigence or some affliction or calamity, should be forced into it. The second exception is that whoever lends should not be so preoccupied with gain as to neglect his necessary duties, nor, wishing to protect his money, disdain his poor brothers. The third exception is that no principle be followed that is not in accord with natural equity, for everything should be examined in the light of Christ’s precept: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This precept is applicable every time. The fourth exception is that whoever borrows should make at least as much, if not more, than the amount borrowed. In the fifth place, we ought not to determine what is lawful by basing it on the common practice or in accordance with the iniquity of the world, but should base it on a principle derived from the word of God. In the sixth place, we ought not to consider only the private advantage of those with whom we deal, but should keep in mind what is best for the common good. For it is quite obvious that the interest a merchant pays is a public fee. Thus we should see that the contract will benefit all rather than hurt. In the seventh place, one ought not to exceed the rate that a country’s public laws allow.” (John Calvin–Friend of Usury?, https://bradlittlejohn.com/2010/10/20/20101020john-calvin-friend-of-usury-html/)
As you can see, Calvin finds more criteria than simply whether the loan is productive or not, but also if society as a whole benefits, the poor would be exploited, the spiritual effects on the lender, etc. Clearly Calvin is not throwing wide the doors to twentieth century debt slavery.
We will revisit Calvin again as we examine comments made by Protestant theologians on specific passages regarding usury a little later. Before we get there, let’s stop and examine some other documents. Here is Heidelberg Catechism, question 110:
“HC 110. Q. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?
A. God forbids not only outright theft and robbery but also such wicked schemes and devices as false weights and measures, deceptive merchandising, counterfeit money, and usury; we must not defraud our neighbour in any way, whether by force or by show of right. In addition God forbids all greed and all abuse or squandering of His gifts.”
How is Ursinus defining usury here? Is it wholesale prohibition of interest lending? He explain in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism:
“Usury is the gain which is received in view of that which has been borrowed or loaned. All just contracts, the contracts of paying rent, a just compensation for any loss, partnership, buying, &c., are exempted from usury. There are many questions respecting usury concerning which we may judge according to the rule which Christ has laid down: Whatever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
While Ursinus is cautious about exploring the boundaries of usury and seeks to use the Golden Rule as a guide to know what is right in these matters, he clearly exempts from usury compensation for partnership- i.e. Belloc’s productive loans.
Moving forward in time, here is what Archbishop James Ussher, whose Irish Articles greatly guided the Westminster Assembly in its work, discussing usury in this Body of Divinity, 28th Head:
“What is that we call Usury?
It is a lending in expectation of certain gain
What do you think of it?
If you speak of that properly, which the Scriptures forbid and condemn; it is a wicked and unlawful contract, into which as a common sink, the filth of many other sins and unlawful contracts do run: a fruitful womb, in which many vices and corruptions are bred; and by which if we live and die in it without repentance, we are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven. Ps 15:5, Ezekiel 18:8; 22:13
But there is much question what this Usury is, which the Scripture condemneth?
Therefore it shall be our wisdom in matters concerning our salvation to take the surest and safest course: and that is, wholly forbear it, and not to put our souls, which are of more value than the whole world, upon nice disputes and subtle distinctions. Mark 8:36.”
Ussher is more cautious than even Ursinus, but surely a modern Roman Catholic would have no ground to say that this Protestant was an advocate of sinful economic exploitation. The men Ussher inspired at Westminster noted usury as a violation of the 8th commandment in Larger Catechism Question 142:
“What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.”
The entire answer is an indictment of modern finance and economics. While usury is not here defined, it seems unlikely it would be any broader than what Calvin had in mind.
We move now to commentaries on specific passages relating to usury in the Old Testament. We will see some variation in how usury is explained and how it is justified with Gentiles but forbidden with Israelites. Nevertheless, there is a great commonality in seeing charging of interest for loans to the poor or for necessities as illegitimate while seeing loans for profit-making ventures as valid, very similar to Thomas/Belloc.
It is clear that, whatever has happened in more recent centuries among Reformed and similar Protestants, historically there was a strong disdain for usury, at least usury for non-productive lending. To conclude, I present excerpts from commonly available commentaries on key passages related to usury. These will reinforce the general view among Protestants that accepts certain forms of lending as morally licit, yet condemns a form of lending as sinful usury with distinctions that are, if not identical, very close to those used by Aquinas and Belloc in the Roman Catholic tradition.
Exodus 22:25
Calvin:
“25. If thou lend money to any of my people Humanity ought to be very greatly regarded in the matter of loans, especially when a person, being reduced to extremities, implores a rich man’s compassion; for this is, in. point of fact, the genuine trial of our charity, when, in accordance with Christ’s precept, we lend to those of whom we expect no return. (Luk_6:35.) The question here is not as to usury, as some have falsely thought, as if he commanded us to lend gratuitously, and without any hope of gain; but, since in lending, private advantage is most generally sought, and therefore we neglect the poor; and only lend our money to the rich, from whom we expect some compensation, Christ reminds us that, if we seek to acquire the favor of the rich, we afford in this way no proof of our charity or mercy; and hence lie proposes another sort of liberality, which is plainly gratuitous, in giving assistance to the poor, not only because our loan is a perilous one, but because they cannot make a return in kind.
Before descending to speak of loans, God here adverts to poverty and distress, (Lev_25:35,) whereby men’s minds may be disposed to compassion. If any one be afflicted with poverty, he commands us to relieve his necessity. He makes use, however, of a metaphor, that he who is tottering should be strengthened, as if by catching hold of his hand. What follows about the stranger and sojourner extends and amplifies, in my opinion, the previous sentence; as if it were said that, since humanity is not to be denied even to strangers, much more is assistance to be given to their brethren. For, when it pleased God that strangers should be permitted to inhabit the land, they were to be kindly treated according to the rights of hospitality; for to allow them to live is to make their condition just and tolerable. And thus God indirectly implies, that such unhappy persons are expelled and driven away, so as not to live, if they are oppressed by unjust burdens. This, then, is the sum of the first sentence, that the rich, who has the ability, should uplift the poor man who is failing, by his assistance, or should strengthen the tottering.
A precept is added as to lending without interest, which, although it is a political law, still depends on the rule of charity; inasmuch as it can scarcely happen but that the poor should be entirely drained by the exaction of interest, and that their blood should be almost sucked away. Nor had God any other object in view, except that mutual and brotherly affection should prevail amongst the Israelites. It is plain that this was a part of the Jewish polity, because it was lawful to lend at interest to the Gentiles, which distinction the spiritual law does not admit. The judicial law, however, which God prescribed to His ancient people, is only so far abrogated as that what charity dictates should remain, i. e. , that our brethren, who need our assistance, are not to be treated harshly. Moreover, since the wall of partition, which formerly separated Jew and Gentile, is now broken down, our condition is now different; and consequently we must spare all without exception, both as regards taking interest, and any other mode of extortion; and equity is to be observed even towards strangers. “The household of faith.” indeed, holds the first rank, since Paul commands us specially to do good to them, (Gal_6:10;) still the common society of the human race demands that we should not seek to grow rich by the loss of others.
As touching the political law, no wonder that God should have permitted His people to receive interest, from the Gentiles, since otherwise a just reciprocity would not have been preserved, without which one party must needs be injured. God commands His people not to practice usury, and still lays the Jews alone, and not foreign nations, under the obligation of this law. In order, therefore, that equality (ratio analogica) might be preserved, He accords the same liberty to His people which the Gentiles would assume for themselves; for this is the only intercourse that can be endured, when the condition of both parties is similar and equal. For when Plato asserts that usurers are not to be tolerated in a well-ordered republic, lie does not go further than to enjoin, that its citizens should abstain from that base and. dishonest traffic between each other.
The question now is, whether usury is evil in itself; and surely that which heathens even have detested appears to be by no means lawful to the children of God. We know that the name of usurer has everywhere and always been infamous and detested. Thus Cato, (116) desiring to commend agriculture, says that thieves were formerly condemned to a fine of double, and usurers quadruple; from which he infers, that the latter were deemed the worst. And when asked what he thought of usury, he replied, “What do I think of killing a man?” whereby he wished to show, that it was as improper to make money by usury as to commit murder. This was the swing of one private individual, yet it is derived from the opinions of almost all nations and persons. And assuredly from this cause great tumults often arose at Rome, and fatal contentions were awakened between the common people and the rich; since it can hardly be but that usurers suck men’s blood like leeches. But if we come to an accurate decision as to the thing itself, our determination must be derived from nowhere else than the universal rule of justice, and especially from the declaration of Christ, on which hang the law and the prophets, — Do not unto others what ye would not have done to thyself. ( Mat_7:12.) For crafty men are for ever inventing some little subterfuge or other to deceive God. Thus, when all men detested the word foenus, another was substituted, which might avoid unpopularity under an honest pretext; for they called it usury, as being a compensation for the loss a man had incurred by losing the use of his money. But there is no description of foenus to which this specious name may not be extended; for whosoever has any ready money, and is about to lend it, he will allege that it would be profitable to himself if he were to purchase something with it, and that at every moment opportunities of gain are presenting themselves. Thus there will be always ground for his seeking compensation, since no creditor could ever lend money without loss to himself. Thus usury, since the word is equivalent to foenus, is but a covering for an odious practice, as if such glosses would deliver us in God’s judgment, where nothing but absolute integrity can avail for our defense. There was almost a similar mode of subterfuge among the Israelites. The name נש5, neschec, which is derived from biting, sounded badly; since then no one chose to be likened to a hungry dog, who fed himself by biting others, some escape from the reproach was sought; and they called whatever gain they received beyond the capital, תרבית, therbith, as being an increase. But God, in order to prevent such deception, unites the two words, (Lev_25:36,) and condemns the increase as well as the biting. For, where He complains of their unjust modes of spoiling and thieving in Ezekiel, and uses both words as He does here by Moses, there is no doubt but that He designedly cuts off their empty excuses. (Eze_18:13.) Lest any, therefore, should reply, that although he derived advantage from his money, he was not on that account guilty of usury, God at once removes this pretense, and condemns in general any addition to the principal. Assuredly both passages clearly show that those who invent new words in excuse of evil, do nothing but vainly trifle. I have, then, admonished men that the fact itself is simply to be considered, that all unjust gains are ever displeasing to God, whatever color we endeavor to give to it. But if we would form an equitable judgment, reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception. If the debtor have protracted the time by false pretences to the loss and inconvenience of his creditor, will it be consistent that he should reap advantage from his bad faith and broken promises? Certainly no one, I think, will deny that usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal, to compensate his loss. If any rich and monied man, wishing to buy a piece of land, should borrow some part of the sum required of another, may not he who lends the money receive some part of the revenues of the farm until the principal shall be repaid? Many such cases daily occur in which, as far as equity is concerned, usury is no worse than purchase. Nor will that subtle argument of Aristotle avail, that usury is unnatural, because money is barren and does not beget money; for such a cheat as I have spoken of, might make much profit by trading with another man’s money, and the purchaser of the farm might in the meantime reap and gather his vintage. But those who think differently, may object, that we must abide by God’s judgment, when He generally prohibits all usury to His people. I reply, that the question is only as to the poor, and consequently, if we have to do with the rich, that usury is freely permitted; because the Lawgiver, in alluding to one thing, seems not to condemn another, concerning which He is silent. If again they object that usurers are absolutely condemned by David and Ezekiel, ( Psa_15:5; Eze_18:13,) I think that their declarations ought to be judged of by the rule of charity; and therefore that only those unjust exactions are condemned whereby the creditor, losing’ sight of equity, burdens and oppresses his debtor. I should, indeed, be unwilling to take usury under my patronage, and I wish the name itself were banished from the world; but I do not dare to pronounce upon so important a point more than God’s words convey. It is abundantly clear that the ancient people were prohibited from usury, but we must needs confess that this was a part of their political constitution. Hence it follows, that usury is not now unlawful, except in so far as it contravenes equity and brotherly union. Let each one, then, place himself before God’s judgment-seat, and not do to his neighbor what he would not have done to himself, from whence a sure and infallible decision may be come to. To exercise the trade of usury, since heathen writers accounted it amongst disgraceful and base modes of gain, is much less tolerable among the children of God; but in what cases, and how far it may be lawful to receive usury upon loans, the law of equity will better prescribe than any lengthened discussions.
Let us now examine the words. In the first place, where we have translated the words, “Thou shalt not be to him as a usurer,” there is some ambiguity in the Hebrew word נש5, nashac, for it is sometimes used generally for to lend, without any ill meaning; but here it is undoubtedly applied to a usurer, who bites the poor; as also in Psa_109:11, “Let the usurer catch all that he hath.” The sum is, that the poor are to be liberally aided, and not to be oppressed by harsh exactions: and therefore immediately afterwards it is added, “neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” When again He repeats, “And if thy brother be waxen poor,” etc., we see that reference is everywhere made to the poor; because, although sometimes those who possess large properties are ruined by usury, (as Cicero says that certain luxurious and prodigal persons ill his days contended against usury with the fruits of their farms, because their creditors swallowed up the whole produce; still the poor alone, who had been compelled to borrow by want, and not by luxury, were worthy of compassion.
The third passage, however, admirably explains the meaning of God, since it extends usury to corn and wine, and all other articles. For many contracts were invented by artful men, whereby they pillaged the needy without ignominy or disgrace: and now-a-days no rapacity is more cruel than that which imposes a payment upon debtors, without any mention of usury; for instance, if a poor man should ask the loan of six measures of wheat, the creditor will require seven to be repaid; or if the same thing should happen as regards wine. This profit will not be called usury, because no money will pass; but God, indirectly casting ridicule upon their craftiness, shows that this plague of usury extends itself to various things, and to almost all sorts of traffic; whence it clearly appears that nothing else is prescribed to the Israelites, but that they should humanely assist each other. But, since cupidity blinds men, and carries them, aside to dishonest dealings, God sets His blessing in opposition to all such iniquitous arts, whereby they hawk, as it were, for gain; and commands them to look for riches rather to Him the author of all good things, than to hunt for them by rapine and fraud. “
Matthew Henry:
“Here is, I. A law against extortion in lending. 1. They must not receive use for money from any that borrowed for necessity (Exo_22:25), as in that case, Neh_5:5, Neh_5:7. And such provision the law made for the preservation of estates to their families by the year of jubilee that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity, and therefore it is generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger, whom yet they might not oppress, they were allowed to lend upon usury: this law, therefore, in the strictness of it, seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state; but, in the equity of it, it obliges us to show mercy to those of whom we might take advantage, and to be content to share, in loss as well as profit, with those we lend to, if Providence cross them; and, upon this condition, it seems as lawful to receive interest for my money, which another takes pains with and improves, but runs the hazard of, in trade, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pains with and improves, but runs the hazard of, in husbandry. 2. They must not take a poor man's bed-clothes in pawn; but, if they did, must restore them by bed-time, Exo_22:26, Exo_22:27. Those who lie soft and warm themselves should consider the hard and cold lodgings of many poor people, and not do any thing to make bad worse, or to add affliction to the afflicted.”
Leviticus 25:35-38
John Gill:
“Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury,.... Lend him money, expecting and insisting upon a large interest for it; this is to be understood of persons in poor and necessitous circumstances, of which the text only speaks; otherwise, if persons borrow money to gain by it, to carry on a greater trade, or to make purchase with it, it is but reasonable that the lender should have a share of profit arising from thence:”
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown:
“if thy brother be waxen poor, ... relieve him — This was a most benevolent provision for the poor and unfortunate, designed to aid them or alleviate the evils of their condition. Whether a native Israelite or a mere sojourner, his richer neighbor was required to give him food, lodging, and a supply of money without usury. Usury was severely condemned (Psa_15:5; Eze_18:8, Eze_18:17), but the prohibition cannot be considered as applicable to the modern practice of men in business, borrowing and lending at legal rates of interest.”
Deuteronomy 23:19-20
Geneva Bible notes:
“Unto a(k) stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
(k) This was permitted for a time because of the hardness of their hearts.”
1638 Dutch Annotations:
“Unto the stranger thou shalt lend usury [that is thou mayst lend upon usury because they had dealing with the Jews not as the poor Israelites had by reason of poverty but to trade and traffic with them and to be enriched by them] but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thy settest thine hand to [Heb. In all the setting or putting of thine hand in the land wither thou goest to inherit.”
John Gill:
“Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother,.... One of the same nation and religion, and who is in poor and necessitous circumstances, and wants either food for himself and family, or money to carry on his husbandry, till such times as the fruits of his ground will bring him in a sufficiency for his support, and the payment of what he borrows, and which is to be lent him without any interest: as the Jews were chiefly employed in husbandry, and not merchandise, they had but little occasion to borrow, and when they did could not afford to pay interest, as persons concerned in merchandise, whose gains are great, are able to do; and it is but reasonable that such persons should; but that the Israelites, when poor and in distress, might not be bowed down under their burdens, this law is made for their relief:
usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury; this takes in all sorts of usury, whether what is lent be money or food, or anything else, no interest was to be taken for it; See Gill on Lev_25:36; See Gill on Lev_25:37.”
…
“Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury,.... To any Gentile, though some Jewish writers except the Edomites and Ishmaelites, as being brethren, and restrain it to the seven nations of Canaan; but it seems to design one that was not an Israelite, or a proselyte of righteousness, and especially to regard such that traded and merchandised, as the Gentiles very much did, and especially their neighbours the Phoenicians; and of such it was lawful to take interest, as it was but reasonable, when they gained much by the money they lent them, and as it is but reasonable should be the case among Christians in such circumstances; this is to be regarded not as a precept, but as a permission”
Matthew Henry:
“III. The matter of usury is here settled, Deu_23:19, Deu_23:20. (1.) They must not lend upon usury to an Israelite. They had and held their estates immediately from and under God, who, while he distinguished them from all other people, might have ordered, had he so pleased, that they should have all things in common among themselves; but instead of that, and in token of their joint interest in the good land he had given them, he only appointed them, as there was occasion, to lend to one another without interest, which among them would be little or no loss to the lender, because their land was so divided, their estates were so settled, and there was so little of merchandise among them, that it was seldom or never that they had occasion to borrow any great sums, only what was necessary for the subsistence of their families when the fruits of their ground had met with any disaster, or the like; and, in such a case, for a small matter to insist upon usury would have been very barbarous. Where the borrower gets, or hopes to get, it is just that the lender should share in the gain; but to him that borrows for his necessary food pity must be shown, and we must lend, hoping for nothing again, if we have wherewithal to do it, Luk_6:35. (2.) They might lend upon usury to a stranger, who was supposed to live by trade, and (as we say) by turning the penny, and therefore got by what he borrowed, and came among them in hopes to do so. By this it appears that usury is not in itself oppressive; for they must not oppress a stranger, and yet might exact usury from him.”
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown:
“Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother ... Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury — The Israelites lived in a simple state of society, and hence they were encouraged to lend to each other in a friendly way without any hope of gain. But the case was different with foreigners, who, engaged in trade and commerce, borrowed to enlarge their capital, and might reasonably be expected to pay interest on their loans. Besides, the distinction was admirably conducive to keeping the Israelites separate from the rest of the world.”
Psalm 15:5
Calvin:
In this verse David enjoins the godly neither to oppress their neighbors by usury, nor to suffer themselves to be corrupted with bribes to favor unrighteous causes. With respect to the first clause, as David seems to condemn all kinds of usury in general, and without exception, the very name has been everywhere held in detestation. But crafty men have invented specious names under which to conceal the vice; and thinking by this artifice to escape, they have plundered with greater excess than if they had lent on usury avowedly and openly. God, however, will not be dealt with and imposed upon by sophistry and false pretences. He looks upon the thing as it really is. There is no worse species of usury than an unjust way of making bargains, where equity is disregarded on both sides. Let us then remember that all bargains in which the one party unrighteously strives to make gain by the loss of the other party, whatever name may be given to them, are here condemned. It may be asked, Whether all kinds of usury are to be put into this denunciation, and regarded as alike unlawful? If we condemn all without distinction, there is a danger lest many, seeing themselves brought into such a strait, as to find that sin must be incurred, in whatever way they can turn themselves, may be rendered bolder by despair, and may rush headlong into all kinds of usury, without choice or discrimination. On the other hand, whenever we concede that something may be lawfully done this way, many will give themselves loose reins, thinking that a liberty to exercise usury, without control or moderation, has been granted them. In the first place, therefore, I would, above all things, counsel my readers to beware of ingeniously contriving deceitful pretexts, by which to take advantage of their fellow-men, and let them not imagine that anything can be lawful to them which is grievous and hurtful to others.
With respect to usury, it is scarcely possible to find in the world a usurer who is not at the same time an extortioner, and addicted to unlawful and dishonorable gain. Accordingly, Cato of old justly placed the practice of usury and the killing of men in the same rank of criminality, for the object of this class of people is to suck the blood of other men. It is also a very strange and shameful thing, that, while all other men obtain the means of their subsistence with much toil, while husbandmen fatigue themselves by their daily occupations, and artisans serve the community by the sweat of their brow, and merchants not only employ themselves in labors, but also expose themselves to many inconveniences and dangers, — that money-mongers should sit at their ease without doing anything, and receive tribute from the labor of all other people. Besides, we know that generally it is not the rich who are exhausted by their usury, but poor men, who ought rather to be relieved. It is not, therefore, without cause that God has, in Lev_25:35, forbidden usury, adding this reason, “And if thy brother be waxen poor and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him; take thou no usury of him or increase.” We see that the end for which the law was framed was, that men should not cruelly oppress the poor, who ought rather to receive sympathy and compassion. This was, indeed, a part of the judicial law which God appointed for the Jews in particular; but it is a common principle of justice which extends to all nations and to all ages, that we should keep ourselves from plundering and devouring the poor who are in distress and want, Whence it follows, that the gain which he who lends his money upon interest acquires, without doing injury to any one, is not to be included under the head of unlawful usury. The Hebrew word נשך,neshek, which David employs, being derived from another word, which signifies to bite, sufficiently shows that usuries are condemned in so far as they involve in them or lead to a license of robbing and plundering our fellow-men. Ezekiel, indeed, Eze_18:17, and Eze_22:12, seems to condemn the taking of any interest whatever upon money lent; but he doubtless has an eye to the unjust and crafty arts of gaining, by which the rich devoured the poor people. In short, provided we had engraven on our hearts the rule of equity, which Christ prescribes in Mat_7:12, “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,” it would not be necessary to enter into lengthened disputes concerning usury.”
John Gill
“He that putteth not out his money to usury,.... To the poor, in an extravagant and exorbitant way, by which he bites, devours, and destroys his little substance, and sadly afflicts and distresses him; see Exo_22:25; otherwise, to lend money on moderate interest, and according to the laws, customs, and usages of nations, and to take interest for it, is no more unlawful than to take interest for houses and land; yea, it is according to the law of common justice and equity, that if one man lends money to another to trade with, and gain by, that he should have a proportionate share in the gain of such a trade; but the design of this passage, and the law on which it is founded, is, to forbid all exactions and oppressions of the poor, and all avaricious practices, and to encourage liberality and beneficence; and such who are covetous, and bite and oppress the poor, are not fit for church communion;
Matthew Henry:
“He putteth not out his money to usury, that he may live at ease upon the labours of others, while he is in a capacity for improving it by his own industry. Not that it is any breach of the law of justice or charity for the lender to share in the profit which the borrower makes of his money, any more than for the owner of the land to demand rent from the occupant, money being, by art and labour, as improvable as land. But a citizen of Zion will freely lend to the poor, according to his ability, and not be rigorous and severe in recovering his right from those that are reduced by Providence.”
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown:
“usury is derived from a verb meaning “to bite.” All gains made by the wrongful loss of others are forbidden.”
Ezekiel 18:8
Calvin:
“It follows, since he has not given on usury and has not received increase. Here, among other crimes, Ezekiel enumerates usury — though the word usury is not properly suitable to this passage נשך, neshek, is deduced from biting, and so the Hebrews name usury, because it gnaws and by degrees consumes the miserable. Ezekiel then says, that they are considered observers of the law who abstain from usury. But because men are very acute and cunning on this point, and devise subterfuges by which they may hide their cruelty, he adds, and has not received increase: for we know how various are the schemes for gain: for whoever devotes his attention to unlawful gains, will find out many monstrous things which no one would ever have thought of. Thus it happens that the usurer will deny that he exacts usury, and yet he will spoil the wretched and even suck out their blood. Under the name, תרבית, ther-bith, Ezekiel comprehends those more secret kinds of usury which the avaricious use with many disguises, and when they spread such coverings before them, think themselves free from all blame. Hence the Prophet says, even if the name of usury is removed and is not taken into account, yet it is sufficient to condemn men if they receive increase, that is, make a profit at the expense of others. A question arises here, whether usury be in itself a crime, since God formerly permitted his people to take interest of strangers, and only forbade it among themselves. And there was the best reason for that law. For if its just proportion had been overthrown, there would have been no reciprocity, since the Gentiles could exact interest of the Jews; and unless that right had been mutual and reciprocal, as the phrase is, the condition of God’s people would have been worse than that of the Gentiles. God therefore permitted his people to take interest, but not among each other, as I have said: this was only allowable with strangers. Besides, the law itself was political: but in this case the Prophet seems to condemn all kinds of interest, and exaggerates the weight of the sentence, when he adds increase, that is, whatever gains the avaricious mutually strive for. So also in the 15th Psalm, where a just mode of living is proscribed for us, David mentions, among other things — who has not lent his money on usury, (Psa_15:5.) It seems, then, from these two places, that usury is in itself unlawful. But because God’s law embraces complete and perfect justice, hence we must hold that interest, unless it is opposed to God’s law, is not altogether to be condemned, otherwise ignominy would clearly attach to the law of God if it did not prescribe to us a true and complete rule of living justly. But in the law there is that perfection to which nothing can be added. If then we wish to determine whether interest is unlawful we must come to the rule of the law, which cannot deceive us: but we shall not find all interest contrary to the law, and hence it follows that interest is not always to be condemned. Here, too, we must remember that we must regard the subject rather than the words, for men trifle by their own caviling, but God does not admit of such fallacies. Hence, as I said, the substance ought to be weighed, because the words alone will not enable us to decide whether interest be sometimes lawful or not. For example, among the Latin’s the word for interest is honorable in itself and has no disgrace attached to it, but that for usury is odious. What causes disgrace to be thus hidden under it, but they fancied that they abhorred usurers, hence the general term interest contains within it all kinds of usury, and there was nothing so cruel, so unjust, and so barbarous, which was not covered by that pretense. Now since the name for interest was unknown to the French, that for usury became detestable: hence the French devised a new craftiness by which they could deceive God. For since no one could bear the name of usury, they used “interest” instead: but what does this mean but something which interests us, and thus it signifies all kinds of repayment for loans, for there was no kind of interest among the ancients which is not now comprehended in this word. Now since we have said that interest cannot be totally and without exception condemned, (for we must not play upon words, but treat the real point,) we must see how far it can be proved not to be reckoned a crime. First of all, in a well regulated state, no usurer is tolerated: even the profane see this: whoever therefore professedly adopts this occupation, he ought to be expelled from intercourse with his fellow-men. For if any illiberal pursuits load those who pursue them with censure, that of the usurer is certainly an illiberal trade, and unworthy of a pious and honorable man. Hence Cato said that to take usury was almost the same as murder. For when asked concerning agriculture, after he had given his opinion, he inquired, But what is usury? Is it not murder? says he. And surely the usurer will always be a robber; that is, he will make a profit by his trade, and will defraud, and his iniquity will increase just as if there were no laws, no equity, and no mutual regard among mankind. This is one point: but there is another part of the occupation besides that of taking interest. When any one sets up his table he uses the same art as a farmer does in employing his labor in cultivating the fields. But any one may receive interest without being a professed usurer. For example, a person may have capital and put out a part of it on loan, and thus receive interest: and if he do that once, he will not be called a usurer; so that we must consider when and from whom a person exacts interest. But this sentiment ought to prevail here: “neither everywhere, nor always, nor all things, nor from all.” This indeed was said of offices, and that law was imposed upon the governors of provinces: but it agrees best with this subject. It is not suitable then to receive “all things,” because if the profit exceed moderation it must be rejected, since it is contrary to charity: we said also that the continual habit and custom is not without fault. Neither “everywhere,” since the usurer, as I have said, ought not to enter or be brought into the Church of God. Then again, not “from all,” because it is always wrong to exact usury from a poor man; but if a man is rich, and has money of his own, as the saying is, and has a very good estate and a large patrimony, and should borrow money of his neighbor, will that neighbor commit sin by receiving a profit from the loan of his money? Another borrower is the richer of the two, and might do without it and yet suffer no loss: but he wishes to buy a farm and enjoy its fruits: why should the creditor be deprived of his rights when his money brings profit to a neighbor richer than himself? We see, then, that it may sometimes happen that the receiver of interest is not to be hastily condemned, since he is not acting contrary to God’s law. But we must always hold that the tendency of usury is to oppress one’s brother, and hence it is to be wished that the very names of usury and interest were buried and blotted out from the memory of men. But since men cannot otherwise transact their business, we must always observe what is lawful, and how far it is so. I know that the subject might be treated at greater length, but I have shortly expressed what is sufficient for our purpose.”
Matthew Henry:
“A moderate usury they were allowed to receive from strangers, but not from their brethren. A just man will not take advantage of his neighbour's necessity to make a prey of him, nor indulge himself in ease and idleness to live upon the sweat and toil of others, and therefore will not take increase from those who cannot make increase of what he lends them, nor be rigorous in exacting what was agreed for from those who by the act of God are disabled to pay it; but he is willing to share in loss as well as profit.
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown:
“usury — literally, “biting.” The law forbade the Jew to take interest from brethren but permitted him to do so from a foreigner (Exo_22:25; Deu_23:19, Deu_23:20; Neh_5:7; Psa_15:5). The letter of the law was restricted to the Jewish polity, and is not binding now; and indeed the principle of taking interest was even then sanctioned, by its being allowed in the case of a foreigner. The spirit of the law still binds us, that we are not to take advantage of our neighbor’s necessities to enrich ourselves, but be satisfied with moderate, or even no, interest, in the case of the needy.”
Having read over this commentary a few common themes emerge:
There is a recognized difference between lending to the poor, presumably so they can purchase necessities and lending to the rich, or the foreigner, presumably so they can transact some sort of business and turn a profit. To charge interest on a loan to the former is viewed as heinous and immoral. To charge interest to the latter is seen as either not usury at all, or usury of a licit kind, depending on how one wishes to define terms.
In the case of lending for some kind of business activity, what is intended as a productive loan, in Belloc’s terms, it is only acceptable to charge interest if the venture actually turns a profit. If the venture fails and there is no return, then it ceases to be a productive loan and interest cannot be collected. This is obviously different from business loans in our time, which exact interest regardless of outcome. Under Aquinas’ idea of a society or Belloc’s idea of a productive loan this would be sinful usury. And this seems to be at least the implied, if not outright stated, view of the surveyed Protestant commentators.
It seems clear that the views of the Protestant and Reformed, at least into the 18th Century, is more or less the same as the views of Aquinas and Belloc when it comes to this topic. There are some semantic differences, of course, but in the main, they seem to be much more alike than different in how they view lending and interest.
Applying the views discussed above to modern financial practice, it seems safe to say that Aquinas, Calvin, Ursinus, Ussher, the Westminster Divines, Matthew Henry, and Hillaire Belloc would all be scandalized to see how lending operates today and how our entire economy is built on usurious lending to the needy to pay for necessities. Mortgages on primary residences, loans for personal vehicles, payday lending, credit cards, and so on. The careful distinctions and prohibitions they laid out have been exploded and our economy runs on exploitive lending practices. As Belloc notes in his essay, it is virtually impossible for anyone to escape entanglement in the system, even if they do not themselves loan their money to the needy for interest. Pagan, Catholic, or Protestant, the men of old would be horrified by the world in which we live. Let us desist with laying it at the feet of our Protestant forefathers.