We Have Got to Talk About Usury (Part III): The New Testament
Sermon on the Mount, Cathedral of St. Michael and St. Gudula (Brussels). Photo: Adobe Stock
The following post is the third in a series on usury by the Rev. Vincent Shemwell. Rev. Shemwell serves as pastor of Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Johnson City, Tennessee. He graduated from Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne with the M.Div. in 2022, and received his STM from CTSFW in 2024, writing his thesis on Johann Georg Hamann. The previous post can be found here.
Matthew 5:38–48: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
Matthew 6:19–21, 24: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…. No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
Luke 6:27–36: “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”
Luke 16:13–15: “Jesus said to His disciples: ‘No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.’ Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. And He said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.’”
1 Corinthians 6:9–10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
In the previous part of this series (Pt. II), I noted that in the centuries following Luther, certain theologians began to interpret the Old Testament prohibition against lending at interest as pertaining to civil rather than moral law. This view, however, stands in contrast to the prevailing consensus throughout most of church history, and it was not shared by many faithful voices in the early years of the LCMS. Nonetheless, admittedly, some respected Lutheran theologians adopted this position (the rationale for which will be examined later in the series).
I also noted in the previous part that many of the church fathers grounded their opposition to usury in its Old Testament prohibition. But with most of them, the case did not rest there: they likewise appealed to the New Testament, which they saw as offering glaring evidence that usury remains prohibited for the Christian. And for Luther and Walther in particular, their condemnation of usury was foremost grounded on our Lord’s own words, specifically in Matthew 5 and Luke 6. Thus, even if we could set aside the Old Testament prohibition as strictly civil in nature and no longer binding on the Christian—which, it must be acknowledged, would be difficult to justify given the contexts of the prohibition in Psalm 15 and Ezekiel 18 and 22—we still have to wrestle with what our Lord says in the Gospels.
In short, our Lord in Matthew 5 commands us to lend to those who ask of us. Then in Luke 6, He expands upon this command by instructing us to lend without expecting anything in return. In both passages, this command is situated in the broader context of His command to do good to all, including our enemies. In lending, we are to hope for nothing in return, not even the principal back, let alone any interest, for to expect such return is to act as sinners do. If we receive back the principal, that is well and good. If we are cheated, or if the borrower for whatever reason cannot repay us, we are called to suffer that willingly. Such has been the church’s understanding of these passages throughout the greater part of her history.
As promised, we will delve further into Luther and Walther in subsequent parts of this series. But for the present, I do want to discuss how they interpreted these Gospel passages, because these verses so clearly form the basis of their fiery opposition to lending at interest.
Luther wrote about usury repeatedly over the course of his life. The first notable writings appeared in 1519–1520, when Luther was in his mid-thirties. The final major treatment on the subject, a passionate admonition to fellow pastors to preach against usury, was written in 1539, when Luther was in his mid-fifties, only around six years before his death. All that to say, the problem of usury remained a deep and abiding concern for Luther throughout his career. It is true that on some issues ostensibly related to lending he modified his views over time (we will get to that in due course). But for the most part, his opposition to usury in his works is remarkably consistent. And throughout his life, he based that opposition chiefly on Matthew 5 and Luke 6.
In his 1519 Short Sermon on Usury (WA 6, 3–8), his 1520 Long Sermon on Usury (LW 45, 273–310) and his 1539 To Pastors, That They Should Preach Against Usury (LW 61: 284–328, Kindle), Luther draws from Matthew 5 and Luke 6 several different ways in which the Christian ought to engage in economic matters, or with “temporal goods.” For now, we will just explore the “third way,” which he explains as follows (Long Sermon, LW 45:289–92): “[The third way] is this, that we should willingly and gladly lend without charge of interest. Of this our Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 5, ‘From him who would borrow from you, turn not away’; that is, do not refuse him. This [third way of dealing] … is commanded even in the Old Testament, where God says in Deuteronomy 15, ‘If any among your brothers in your town becomes poor, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against him, but you shall open your hand wide and lend him whatever he needs.’ [The Roman church has] allowed this … to remain a commandment. For all the doctors agree in this, that borrowing and lending shall be free, without charge or burden…. Christ excluded no one from this commandment; indeed, He included all kinds of people, even one’s enemies, when He said in Luke 6: ‘If you lend only to those from whom you expect a loan in return, what kind of goodness is that? Even wicked sinners lend to one another, to receive as much again.’ And again, ‘Lend, expecting nothing in return.’ I know very well that a good many doctors have interpreted these words as though Christ had therein commanded to lend in such a way as not to make any charge for it or seek any profit, but to lend gratis. This opinion is doubtless not wrong, for he who makes a charge for lending is not lending, and neither is he selling; therefore, this must be usury, because lending is, in its every nature, nothing else than to offer another something without charge, on the condition that one eventually get back the same thing or its equivalent, and nothing more. But if we examine the word of Christ closely, it does not teach that we are to lend without charge. There is no need for such teaching, since there is no other kind of lending except that which is without charge; if a charge is made, it is not a loan. What He wants is that we should lend not only to friends, to the rich, and to those we like, who can repay us again by returning the loan, or by lending to us, or some other favor; but that we lend also to those who are unable or unwilling to repay us, such as the needy and our enemies. Just as in His teaching about love and giving, so also our lending is to be done without personal gain or advantage.... [This] is what He means when He says, ‘Lend, expecting nothing in return,’ that is, you should lend to those who are neither willing nor able to lend to you in return…. Lending is not lending unless it is done without charge and without any advantage to the lender.”
Luther was firm in his conviction that Christ forbids the practice of lending at interest and he was indefatigable in defending this view. Many years later, he entertained an obvious objection to such a difficult teaching (To Pastors, LW 61: 306): “Here you say, ‘If that is so, who will or can be a Christian?’ Answer: Whoever wishes to have salvation in the kingdom of heaven can certainly be a Christian. ‘All right, then, who can have such salvation?’ Answer: Whoever wishes to be a Christian can have such salvation. Christ will not adjust, bend, twist, or turn His Word according to us…. We must conform and submit to Him.”
In his Long Sermon, he further argues from Luke 6:31—the Golden Rule—that lending at interest violates natural law, for no man in need of a loan would desire to be charged interest (LW, 45: 292). “Therefore,” Luther writes, usurers “are acting contrary to nature,” and “are guilty of mortal sin.” What is more, in the context of addressing usury and these Gospel passages, he reminds his reader that a Christian is not only commanded to treat his neighbor as himself, but he is furthermore commanded to become a servant to his neighbor (To Pastors, LW 61: 314). However, according to Luther, the usurer seeks the very opposite; he strives to become the god of his neighbor, a financial tyrant, and is therefore, “after the devil,” his neighbor’s worst enemy (LW 61: 314–315).
To quote the Rev. Dr. Benjamin Mayes, one of the few Lutherans in recent decades to publicly broach the topic of usury, and the editor of the American Edition who wrote the introduction to Luther’s To Pastors (LW 61: 280): “For Luther, loaning means giving money or property and receiving it back again without any interest or added value. Everything else is usury.” Or in Luther’s own words: “A loan is to collect no greater amount in return, but rather the same amount that was lent, as is the teaching of the prophets, Christ Himself, and secular laws as well” (LW 61, 285).
Luther was not alone in the sixteenth century in grounding his opposition to usury on the Gospels. Indeed, the following was reaffirmed at the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) in the context of formally condoning montes pietatis, institutions led by Franciscans that lent to the poor at very low interest rates upon the security of pawned goods: “Our Lord, according to the testimony of Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we must not expect to receive back anything beyond the principal when we grant a loan. For that is the proper definition of usury: namely, when one seeks to acquire gain or profit from a thing which produces nothing—without labor, without cost, and without risk.” (Note: these institutions, called “mounts of piety,” were originally established to protect the poor from exploitation by usurers outside the church who charged extortionate rates, and they permitted a modicum of interest solely to defray the cost of maintaining the institutions themselves. Conceived as a reform of lending practices, their guiding principle remained the welfare of the borrower rather than the profit of the lender. In continuity with earlier councils, this council likewise maintained the prohibition against profiting from interest and based this prohibition on both the Old and New Testaments. And even within its decrees, institutions were encouraged to lend entirely gratis, as this was acknowledged as more consistent with the Gospel—a practice made possible in some cases through charitable endowments. Yet for all their apparent good intentions, such institutions arguably opened the floodgates to usury and laid the groundwork for the eventual normalization of usury within the Roman church.)
Over three centuries later, a number of our forefathers in the LCMS continued this tradition of opposition, maintaining that Jesus commands the “true Christian” to be “dead to mammon” and to focus on the “reward of grace in heaven” through the “good work” of lending without any expectation of receiving even the principal back, let alone interest (see Die Wucherfrage: Protokoll der Verhandlungen der deutschen ev. luth. Gemeinde U.A.C. zu St. Louis, Mo., über diese Frage (1869), 50).
For these men, as it was for Luther, lending at interest turns a lender into an “idolatrous servant of greed or mammon [who] cannot be saved unless [he] repents” (To Pastors, 61: 285). Jesus warns against this idolatry in Matthew 6 and Luke 16, as does Paul in 1 Corinthians 6. These Lutheran pastors and theologians associated usury principally with idolatry, and they recognized the significance of the prohibition in Ezekiel 18—a moral law—being contextually connected with the condemnation of idolatry, as if to suggest that “these transgressions are equal” (Die Wucherfrage, 86). Additionally, they had little tolerance for pastors who neglect to preach against the idolatry inherent in usury (see Die Wucherfrage, 45–46).
So in Luther’s reading of Matthew and Luke, lending at interest is entirely forbidden by God, even if it is for the supposed sake of the church, since true service to God involves keeping His commandments (Long Sermon, LW 45: 306).
It has been suggested—or at the very least strongly implied—that Luther’s counsel on this matter is economically untenable and impractical, if not altogether naïve. But were Walther and many of our forefathers also naïve in following Luther, those much closer to us in history and context who went so far as to assert that any who teach contrary to the biblical prohibition against usury “shall be called least—even nothing!—in the kingdom of heaven” for disregarding Christ’s warning in Matthew 5:17–19 (Die Wucherfrage, 49; see also 45–46)? And finally, was our Lord Jesus Christ Himself naïve or somehow lacking in seriousness when He gave this command? Or is it rather the case that countless faithful Christians throughout the past few millennia have not misunderstood Him at all, but have instead dared to take Him at His word?
These teachers of the faith, echoing the words of Christ, exhort us to lay up our treasures in heaven rather than on earth. Lending freely to the needy borrower with zero expectations—and thus always lending with the readiness to simply give—is a means of doing this. Proverbs 19:17: “He who has pity on the poor lends to the Lord, and He will pay back what he has given.” And Luke 6:38 (a timely passage): “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” By contrast, lending at interest, lending usuriously, is to lay up treasures wastefully, where rust, moth, and thief inevitably lay claim.
Now one might object to this reading of the Gospels by pointing out that Jesus never explicitly talks about usury. Technically, this is true. But if the Christian is commanded to lend without even expecting the principal back, how much more does this preclude the expectation of interest. And one can hardly explain this passage away by arguing that is exclusively about almsgiving to the poor, for the Greek in Luke 6:35 is daneizo (δανείζω), meaning “to loan,” and in any lending the Gospel principle applies: one is not to love his neighbor only on the condition of receiving interest (see here the twenty-sixth thesis in Walther’s “Thesen über den Wucher,” Lehre und Wehre XII, 341–42). If we take our Lord at His word, usury remains forbidden for the Christian.
The last thing to address is the Parable of the Talents, which is occasionally cited by defenders of usury as biblical justification for its permissibility. Suffice it to say, the church’s many theologians over the centuries were well acquainted with this parable when they continued, with remarkable consistency, to condemn lending at interest. Nevertheless, due to its persistent misunderstanding, many—perhaps especially within Protestant circles—have evidently determined that this parable overrides the Old Testament moral prohibition and our Lord’s own words elsewhere in Matthew and Luke.
I presume, dear reader, that you are already familiar with this parable and that a recounting of its narrative is therefore unnecessary. On the surface, it is understandable how some might interpret this parable as an endorsement of shrewd stewardship, even to the extent of appearing to condone usurious practices. Yet within our Lutheran tradition, it is a key principle that Scripture must interpret Scripture. As a general rule, clearer passages, such as our Lord’s sermons, for instance, ought to govern the interpretation of more challenging ones, such as some of His parables, and not the other way around. If, as so many Christians over the years have argued, our Lord forbids lending with the expectation of receiving interest in return, then the Parable of the Talents cannot rightly be understood as giving license to usury.
Several pertinent observations may be made concerning this parable and its intended meaning. To begin with, the parable is obviously not about temporal means or earthly ends. It is about the kingdom of heaven, not about how Christians should handle material goods, nor even their God-given talents. And even if it were about such earthly things, the talents in the parable are entrusted to the servants for the benefit of the master (i.e., for the benefit of the kingdom), not for personal profit.
The most pertinent point to be made, however, is this: When the servant who receives the one talent and buries it is confronted by his master, he offers a defense: “Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hit your talent in the ground.” Now the adjective rendered as “hard” is skleros (σκληρός). Notably, we see a related word a few chapters earlier in Matthew 19, where Jesus explains to the Pharisees that God allowed the certificate of divorce only on account of their “hardness of heart,” or sklerokardia (σκληροκαρδία). In light of this lexical connection, I think the most coherent way to read this parable is by understanding that the master is accommodating himself to the false assumption of the faithless servant in order to reveal his self-condemnation, and through this, to allow our Lord to emphasize his loftier point. It is as if he were saying: “You assume that I am hardhearted, like the rest of the men of this world. Why, then, did you not at least act in keeping with this assumption and practice usury for my sake, according to the harsh ways of the world? Instead, through your utter faithlessness, you have condemned yourself.” The servant is judged according to the very standard he projected onto the master, a judgment that serves to underscore his lack of faith. This interpretive framework is confirmed by the parallel Parable of the Minas, in which the master declares (Luke 19:22): “I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant!” This parable is fundamentally about faithfulness, which is what the master repeatedly rewards in the other servants. To the faithful, who concern themselves with heavenly things, more will be given. But to the faithless, who primarily concern themselves with earthly things, even what they have will be taken away. You see, the fearful servant is not condemned for failing to practice usury for worldly gain, but rather for his lack of faith. This reading is the most evangelical, for it reflects the truth that it is faithlessness—and faithlessness alone—which condemns (Matthew 25:30).
So this, then, is a coherent and sensible way to read the parable, one which is consistent with what our Lord says elsewhere. The Parable of the Talents is about the kingdom of heaven and about faith, not about the management of temporal goods. The talents represent whatever the faithful are entrusted to steward in service of spiritual ends, rather than instruments of earthly gain. In telling the parable, Jesus accommodates Himself to the categories of a fallen world, not to endorse its values, but to employ its realities in order to redirect the hearer’s attention from the earthly to the heavenly. In this sense, Jesus is actually subverting the love of money and earthly riches in the parable, much like He does in the Parable of the Unjust Steward. I would argue that the entire thrust of this subversion finds its clearest articulation in the words of Paul in Galatians 6:8: “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” In view of the foregoing, we must conclude that there is no faithful reading of this parable which supports lending at interest. The reference to “interest” is merely a rhetorical device by which the master, through condescension, exposes the servant’s failure on the basis of his own faithless logic.
Usury is implicitly condemned by Christ precisely because the love of money is explicitly condemned throughout His teaching. It was for such teaching that the Pharisees, described by Luke as “lovers of money” (philargyroi; φιλάργυροι), once derided Him. And to them Jesus replied: “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” That which is highly esteemed by lovers of money, especially usury, is in God’s sight an abomination, like those other abominable acts of lawlessness (ἀνομίαι) mentioned in Ezekiel 18.
In His sermons and parables, Jesus reveals much about the nature of His kingdom. Although His parables draw on the realities of this world for the sake of comparison, the kingdom He proclaims is not of this world; indeed, it stands in stark contrast to many of its ways and values. In some cases, the ways of this world serve as obstacles to entering the kingdom and partaking in “the joy of the Lord” (Matthew 25:21,23). As Gregory of Nyssa observes in his Contra usurarios: “Usurers are those who close the gates to the kingdom of heaven.” And they are the idolaters and extortioners who will in no wise inherit this kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9–10), and the philargyroi from whom Christians are to turn away (2 Timothy 3:1–5).
I encourage you, the individual reader, to reflect seriously and come to your own conclusion about what exactly Jesus means in Matthew 5 and Luke 6. But in doing so, I urge you to remain attentive to the consistent testimony of the saints who came before us and mindful of what our forefathers thought and taught. And by all means, do not wait for the upcoming parts of this series. Go ahead and investigate for yourself what the church has said on the topic.
Allow me to close here with a few more quotes from our blessed reformer:
“[What Jesus says in Matthew 5 is] hard and bitter to those who have more taste for temporal than eternal goods; they have not enough trust in God to believe that He can or will sustain them in this wretched life. They therefore fear that they would die of hunger or be ruined entirely if they were to obey God’s command…. As Christ says, ‘He who does not trust God in a little matter, will never trust Him in something greater.’” (Long Sermon, LW 45: 280–281)
“Many things were once tolerated and left unpunished which Christ does not permit…. In this way Moses permitted divorce and many more things which Christ does not allow His Christians…. His law can endure no usury or any evil thing. And wherever it is kept and there are Christians, there is certainly no usury. Moreover, a Christian can no more be a usurer than he can be a pagan or a Jew.” (To Pastors, LW 61: 305–306)
Perhaps Luther’s words seem too stringent. Well, if so, prepare yourself for the early church fathers, who were equally as fiery in their opposition to usury. To say that they pulled no punches would be something of an understatement. God willing, we will get to them next time.
Stay tuned.