New Testament teaching on Interest/Usury

[Ken]

Let's remember that the subject of the thread is New Testament teaching, rather than how to explain away that teaching.

My argument is that MEANING behind the teaching is that we should not exploit the poor through debt peonage. Not that credit per se in a modern economy (with deliberately managed inflation) is inherently evil.

It's really a pity that Jesus couldn't articulate what he meant to say, and said something different instead.

Jesus said very little about usury. Most of those teachings on usury are from the Old Testament.

What specific New Testament verses are you referring to? The parable of the bags of gold in Matthew 25? What do you think the actual message of that parable is? Luke 6:34 talks about giving rather than lending, which isn't specifically about usury but being generous.

[Josh]

We should lend expecting nothing in return.

But a believer who borrows should attempt to repay as a matter of honesty - unless he can’t and then he can ask the deacons for help, and the lender can too.

Seems it’s very simple what Jesus taught and we should try to just do it. For what it’s worth early Anabaptists were opposed to usury as were the early church fathers.

[Ken]

We should lend expecting nothing in return.

But a believer who borrows should attempt to repay as a matter of honesty - unless he can’t and then he can ask the deacons for help, and the lender can too.

Seems it’s very simple what Jesus taught and we should try to just do it. For what it’s worth early Anabaptists were opposed to usury as were the early church fathers.

What exactly do you think Jesus taught on the specific subject of usury?

[Josh]

We should lend expecting nothing in return.

But a believer who borrows should attempt to repay as a matter of honesty - unless he can’t and then he can ask the deacons for help, and the lender can too.

Seems it’s very simple what Jesus taught and we should try to just do it. For what it’s worth early Anabaptists were opposed to usury as were the early church fathers.

What exactly do you think Jesus taught on the specific subject of usury?

He spoke to an audience that already believed charging interest was a sin.

He raised the bar to not expecting principal to be repaid either.

[mike]

Question of this thread: What does the New Testament teach about usury/charging interest on loans? Or, more specifically, do Jesus or the apostles forbid the practice of charging interest when loaning money?

I believe that Praxis and Josh have answered the question of this thread. I don't know if anybody else has. If you haven't answered, please address the question of the thread before engaging in further discussion.

[Soloist]

I think either we take Jesus at face value when He said

Luk 6:34  And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Luk 6:35  But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Or assume that most things weren’t meant to be applied.

Not a direct reference to interest but clear that we shouldn’t expect anything in return. It doesn’t say that you cannot charge interest or excessive interest. Jesus doesn’t indicate that the Old law on loaning was done away and I see it as very unlikely that Jesus would change it to “it’s okay to charge interest, except don’t do above inflation”
Secondly, inflation did happen in Scriptures and was not an unknown concept in the ancient civilizations.
Ultimately if you loan money to a business I think it’s reasonable to share in profit and also reasonable to share in loss.
As for the needed loans for actual earthly needs like medical, food and housing… I think we should be willing to loan expecting nothing back.
Now ask me again when I’m rich and judge if I actually “believe” it.
I have found it interesting that generally it’s the less well off that see Jesus literally saying these things.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

It should also be noted that in medieval Europe Jews were largely prohibited from owning property and participating in craft guilds (carpentry, masonry, textile making, etc.). And so were prohibited from farming and most ordinary trades that involved working with their hands unless they converted to Christianity. Meaning finance and trade (shop keeping) were the few means of making a living that were available to them.

The entirety of laws for Jewish people as opposed to "proper" citizens in medieval Christendom deserves it's own thread. To your point, Jews often had no real way to live except through lending at interest, often with others' money.

I would like to know what your opinion is, based on your view that Jesus forbad charging interest, of how loaning money (both as a borrower and lender) should look like in Christian society today.

Clarifying "Christian Society"
I'm not sure how exactly to answer this question. I'm opposed to the concept of a "Christian society" as that phrase would be commonly understood. A "society" meaning a group of people who freewillingly join together from common interests and for common goals would more or less describe a church, which is the furthest I want to extend my arguments.
But the normal understanding of "a Christian society" is not a church, but the larger group of people collected in a geographical region and subject to state (secular) laws. Instead of a society entered into freewillingly, one is subject to such a society by dint of living within its geographical borders. A "Christian society" meaning "Christendom" essentially. I don't want to go there.

My Attempt to Clarify My Position
I hope I'm clarifying and not muddying the waters more, but I see usury the same way I see violence (in fact, Jesus addresses both lending and refraining from violence in Luke 6 back-to-back). I think a "society" (that is, a geographical area with a secular national identity of some sort) needs to use violence in the form of military and police. But this admission doesn't naturally lead me to conclude that an individual follower of Christ may then join the ranks of this sanctioned violence, nor should a church develop it's own sort of sanctioned violence. However, I don't think ots always wrong for a Christian to make use of said police force to resolve crimes or to call for protection.

Similarly, I think many societies get to the point where charging interest on loans can be argued as "necessary" for that society in the same way that military conquest is "necessary". But, same as with violence, I don't think an individual Christ follower or a church may engage in lending for a profit (not even "at the rate of interest"). Similar to "making use of a police force" for protection, I don't think it's wrong for a Christian to take a mortgage with interest payments. I just don't think the Christian should be the one charging interest on anyone else.

I think Jesus said "lend without expecting anything in return, even to enemies." I think a follower of Christ ought to be able to assess what they "own" and honestly say "do I need this thing? Can I survive without it? If my brother needs it, can I lend it to him and, in my heart, truly let it go and not expect to get it back?" I think our true stance as Christians is that we are stewards of material wealth, never truly "owners" of anything. We should be able to see a need, and address that need by giving what we have to them. A simple prayer helps: "God, you have allowed me to be the steward of this for some time now. I now see a place where it is needed so much more than it is by me. Thank you for the chance to steward this money/object one last time by allowing it to pass into the hands of this person who truly needs it more than I."

Sure, I'll bite and talk about a "Christian society"
A thought experiment "Christian society" or "Christian economy" would work by constantly assessing two questions:
(1) "Do I have something I don't need?"
(2) "Do I need something I don't have?"

If and when the second person assess their need ("I need a tractor and I don't have it") and the first person assess the items under their stewardship (I have a tractor I'm not using"), then wealth (in this case, the tractor) passes to where its needed, like water flowing to the lowest point. The first person lends the tractor to the second person and truly, in their heart, releases the idea that it is "mine".

It's absurd to imagine this happening on a "societal" level, but I think it can and should happen on a church level (the only practical definition of a "Christian society" I'll accept is a local church body). At the very least, individual Christians ought to be more free and joyful at opportunities to give what they don't need to someone who needs what they don't have.

Practical Examples (Of an Individual Christ Follower, not of a "Society"
I don't want to toot my own horn, but to show you that it's not impossible or even impractical, my wife and I have made active strides to put this into practice. When we were convicted to cut down to one car instead of two, I put it up for sale, but when a brother in Christ posted on facebook that he needed a car, I realized the Lord was showing me a simple truth: "You've discovered that you have something you don't need, and that same thing is what your brother needs but he does not have. You know what I would do." We ended up selling it to him with the intention of giving it to him. We prayed over the decision and tore up the check he gave us to pay for the car.

A second example is when we took time off of our lives to explore anabaptist communities for 6 months. I was convicted that it would be less than ideal for our house to go unused (lots of people are homeless), but I also didn't want to charge anyone rent to live their, profiting off their need by letting then "use" something that really didn't cost me anything to give them. But finding someone to move in had a lot of barriers. The day before we left our next door neighbor asked us if we knew any landlords who would take month-to-month. This was in 2021, when rental prices were through the roof and it was impossible to find anything without a long lease. Our neighbors were tearing down their tiny house to build a new one in its place for their growing family, and needed a roof over their heads in the meantime. We were thrilled that the Lord put this circumstance in our lap as an answer to prayer. We told then they can stay in our house as long as they need to, no rent. They paid the utilities that they used each month they were there, nothing extra. Although we didn't know how long we'd be gone or how long they'd need a house, it just happened (the Lord made it happen) that it worked out for both of us. We were gone about 6-7 months, and they stayed there for about 6 months until they moved into another house they bought. The money they saved allowed them to put a down payment on a new house they could fit into, and we had the assurance of knowing that we weren't being neglectful stewards of a house left empty while so many go without.

I don't want to use these examples to demand that everyone act this way (these circumstances are all specific), I merely want to show that it is possible and practical to work towards actually putting the teachings of Jesus into real practice. We did our best to "lend, expecting nothing in return". I do want to note that both times, those we lent to were Christian's (neither from our church, but both of them were outspoken about their faith), so I will humbly admit that Jesus' other command (to act this way towards enemies/outsiders) has not been a challenge we've overcome just yet. But God has been faithful to challenge us in ways that allow us to be faithful to His Word in ways I, personally, would have thought impossible or impractical (I felt the same way about violence before discovering the anabaptist tradition).

[Ken]

I believe that Praxis and Josh have answered the question of this thread. I don't know if anybody else has. If you haven't answered, please address the question of the thread before engaging in further discussion.

I don't think either of them actually have answered the question because in point of fact, there are no New Testament teachings specifically on the topic of usury.

In Praxis's original post he combined an Old Testament verse from Deuteronomy (You should not charge interest to your brother) with an unrelated New Testament teaching (All Christians are your brother) to reach the conclusion that the New Testament teaches that we should not charge interest to anyone. That might well be a common Christian interpretation, but it is not explicitly found in the New Testament alone.

It is easy enough to combine a an Old Testament verse (all adulterers must be put to death) with a New Testament verse (all who divorce and remarry commit adultery) to reach a conclusion that isn't explicitly found in the New Testament.

Josh argues that Jesus was speaking to an audience that was aware of Old Testament law regarding usury and that he expanded this law to say that not only should you not charge interest, but that you should not expect repayment at all. That loans are instead gifts. This interpretation is also problematic. Does that mean some of Jesus' teachings were intended for a specific contemporary Jewish audience and are not universal? Does that mean we need to look at the historical context of each verse and interpret it in the context of the times? Does that mean anyone reading Jesus' words needs to have a comprehensive understanding of Jewish law in order to properly interpret the context of the verse? After all, when I suggested that we look at the meaning behind a particular verse, Ken Sylvania jumped in with

It's really a pity that Jesus couldn't articulate what he meant to say, and said something different instead.

In point of fact, context is important and we do not expect all debts to simply be forgiven or voluntary. Nor do we simply give to anyone who asks. I will give two examples to make the point.

EXAMPLE 1: Every one of us who works for a living are owed money from our employers for this work. I happen to get paid on the last Friday of the month for the work I did the previous month so at any given point in time my employer owes me anywhere from 1 to 2 months wages. that is an actual debt. Do any of you truly believe that Jesus is saying we should not expect to get paid for the work we have done and that it should be voluntary for our employers to pay us? That they are just gifting us the money and not repaying a debt? Or if we are employers ourselves, that the employees we owe money to should just treat their labor as a gift and not really expect payment?

Or that conversely, if we get paid in advance for our work, that we are free to do that work or blow it off because the person who paid us in advance shouldn't expect repayment of that debt in the form of labor but should treat it as a gift? Of course not.

EXAMPLE 2: Context also matters when we decide to give or loan money to others. Given the New Testament teachings about giving and loaning money how do Jesus' teachings apply to the following situation.

You have $100 in your bank account and the following people approach you:

Person A asks for $100 so that he can buy food to feed his family
Person B asks for $100 so that he can repay a gambling debt
Person C asks for $100 so that he can buy a gun and join the army
Person D asks for $100 so that she can buy designer clothes that she covets
Person E asks for $100 that you owe her for work that she did for you
Person F asks for $100 so that he can feed his drug addiction
Person G asks for $100 loan so he can buy a tool he needs to increase his income.

Do you give freely to everyone or do you apply a moral filter (context) to different people's requests?
Do you distinguish between loans and gifts? Does it depend on context? Are all exchanges voluntary or do some actually involve debts?

Which circles back to my original point that context does matter. And from my point of view, the important message from both the Old and New Testament is that: (1) we should not exploit the poverty or misfortune of others, and (2) we should be generous with those who are in need and when we are being generous with those in need we should not expect repayment or to profit from the exchange.

I don't think in the modern world it means that we avoid all lending and borrowing of money and that we go to convoluted efforts to avoid earning or paying interest in non-exploitative situations that simply reflect the fair cost of money.

Of course that is just my point of view, but I think it is the view that is most consistent with the meanings of both the Old and New Testament.

[mike]

I believe that Praxis and Josh have answered the question of this thread. I don't know if anybody else has. If you haven't answered, please address the question of the thread before engaging in further discussion.

I don't think either of them actually have answered the question because in point of fact, there are no New Testament teachings specifically on the topic of usury.

Please note my request a few posts up. I don't care whether you think they have answered the question. I'd just like those who are posting, you included, to discipline themselves to answer the question of the thread before further discussion. Would you be able to do that please?

I believe that Praxis and Josh have answered the question of this thread. I don't know if anybody else has. If you haven't answered, please address the question of the thread before engaging in further discussion.

[Ken]

I believe that Praxis and Josh have answered the question of this thread. I don't know if anybody else has. If you haven't answered, please address the question of the thread before engaging in further discussion.

I don't think either of them actually have answered the question because in point of fact, there are no New Testament teachings specifically on the topic of usury.

Please note my request a few posts up. I don't care whether you think they have answered the question. I'd just like those who are posting, you included, to discipline themselves to answer the question of the thread before further discussion. Would you be able to do that please?

I believe that Praxis and Josh have answered the question of this thread. I don't know if anybody else has. If you haven't answered, please address the question of the thread before engaging in further discussion.

The answer is no. There are no New Testament texts that explicitly address the issue of usury or interest earned on investments unless you want to count the parable of the gold coins in Luke and Matthew which treats usury or investment returns as a virtue.

So if you want to discern a New Testament message on usury you have to do some interpretation and contextual analysis.