Thou shalt take no interest of thy brother, interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that can be lent upon interest
An Israelite could not charge a fellow Israelite interest — not on money, not on food, not on anything lent. Yet the next verse allows it with a foreigner, so why the difference, and what does it mean for lending today?
In older English this was called "usury." Today that word means a crushing rate. Scripture uses it far more widely, and the New Testament raises it once more.
This word does not in Scripture mean, as it does now, excessive interest, but simply interest of any kind. The Israelites were forbidden to charge interest to their brothers. The rule always assumes the borrower was poor, since otherwise he would not need to borrow. To strangers, however, they were allowed to lend at interest. Scripture strictly commands the rich to help the poor. The only mention of interest in the New Testament is in the parables of the Talents and the Pounds. There the master blamed the servant for not putting the gifts to use, so that he might have received his own back with interest (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23).
Interest was not wrong in itself. What ruled it out inside Israel was the bond between the two men. This was one of several laws that stopped an Israelite losing everything for good.
Charging interest was forbidden among the Israelites toward one another. It was not wrong in itself. It did not fit their exceptional standing, or their relation as brothers by birth. They were free to lend at interest to Gentiles, but not to Jews. And if a Jew sold himself into servitude, he was set free in the seventh year. So the law checked and guided a failing people on the Lord's behalf.
A second difference is why each man borrowed. Behind that lies what Israel was meant to be as a nation.
The need of the poor comes next. The law commanded generosity toward them, so taking interest from them is forbidden. Taking interest from the stranger was allowed, and he probably borrowed for trade. But Israel were not meant to be a trading people, and certainly not to grow rich on the needs of their brothers.
Israel did not keep this rule. In a famine the poor pledged their fields for food, and their own brothers profited.
Others said, "We have had to pledge our fields, our vineyards and our houses to get grain in the famine." So who took advantage of them when they were hungry and needed bread? It was their brothers — and yet the law of Moses forbade them to do this. The Israelite could lend to the nations, but he could not charge his brother interest (Deut. 23:19-20; Ex. 22:25). So the love of money led them into this great sin.
Does this touch Christians? One writer draws a line between a loan made in a crisis and ordinary business.
When lending money or goods to a fellow Israelite, the Jews were not allowed to charge interest (v.19). Christians too should think it wise not to charge interest to another Christian or a close relative, when the loan meets a real need. Business arrangements such as mortgages are of a different character, of course. But the Lord takes account of the unselfish treatment we show to others, and will repay it in His own way (v.20).
The law drew a boundary — no gain from a brother's need. Jesus removes that boundary, and the reason is God's own generosity.
Even under the law the Jew was forbidden to lend anything to his brother at interest (Lev. 25:35ff; Deut. 23:19); instead he was to open his hand wide to him (Deut. 15:7-8). The Lord Jesus here places no restrictions on giving and lending. For God, the great Giver, did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all. He who freely gives us all things along with Him loves a cheerful giver (Rom. 8:32; 2 Cor. 9:7).
- Brother. The ban was about the relationship, not the rate. Interest was wrong between Israelites because they were brothers, not because interest is wrong in itself.
- Need. The borrower in view is poor — "otherwise he would not need to borrow" — so the loan met hunger, not ambition.
- Gain. Israel was never meant to grow rich on the needs of its own. The foreigner, who borrowed for trade, fell outside that.
- Failure. Israel later dropped this rule. In a famine, brothers pledged their fields while brothers profited, and the love of money produced a great sin.
- Grace. Christ lifts the limit. Give and lend freely, because God the great Giver did not spare His own Son. He repays such kindness in His own way.
of a foreigner thou mayest take interest, but of thy brother thou shalt not take interest; that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all the business of thy hand in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
The rule here has two sides. Israel could take interest from a foreigner, but not from a fellow Israelite. And God ties His blessing on all their work in the new land to that difference. Why draw a line between two kinds of borrower? And does that line still speak to us?
The old word "usury" now makes us think of loan sharks. The Bible uses it more simply. And the borrower in view is a neighbour in need, not a business partner.
In Scripture this word does not mean excessive interest, as it does today. It means interest of any kind. The Israelites could not take interest from their brothers. The one taking the loan was always assumed to be poor, since otherwise he would not need to borrow. From strangers, however, they were allowed to take interest.
The two rules do not clash, because the two loans are not the same. One writer suggests the foreigner borrowed to trade. A fellow Israelite borrowed because he had run short.
Next comes the need of the poor. The law commands generosity toward them, so it forbids taking interest from them. The stranger, from whom they were allowed to take it, probably borrowed for trade. But Israel were never meant to be a trading people, and certainly not to prosper on the needs of their brothers.
Israel could charge the foreigner. So the ban inside Israel does not rest on interest being sinful in itself. It rests on who these people were to each other.
Israelites could not charge each other interest. This was not because interest is wrong in itself. It was because charging it did not fit their special standing, or their relationship as brothers by birth. They were free to lend at interest to Gentiles, but not to Jews. So the law held in check and guided a failing people on Jehovah's behalf.
Scripture speaks of interest elsewhere too — once in rebuke, once in a parable where the servant's fault was taking none.
When the Jews returned from exile, Nehemiah sharply rebuked the nobles and the rulers for taking interest from their poorer brothers. Scripture strictly commands the rich to help the poor. The only mention of interest in the New Testament is in the parables of the Talents and the Pounds, where the master blamed the servant for not putting the gifts to use, so that he might have received his own back with interest.
The word does not mean close family. Under the law every Israelite counted as a brother. That is why an expert in the law of Moses once tried to keep the word "neighbour" just as narrow.
If the lawyer had answered his own question, he would surely have limited the word neighbour to someone of his own nation. He would have all but treated neighbour and brother as the same thing. The law counted all Israelites as brothers (Deut. 23:19-20). But neighbour is a wider word. The Samaritan's act brings this out.
The verse does not end with the permission. It ends with God's promise over everything they turn their hand to. He keeps account of kindness Himself.
The Jews could not charge a fellow Israelite interest on money or goods (v.19). Christians too should think it wise not to charge interest to another Christian, or to a close relative, when lending because of a real need. Business deals such as mortgages are a different matter, of course. But the Lord takes account of the unselfish treatment we show to others, and He will repay it in His own way (v.20).
Nehemiah's generation broke this rule for money. One writer names what lay under it: not ignorance of the command, but the pull of gain.
They had received grace themselves, so they were to show that grace to their brothers... Instead they denied the truth of their redemptive position. They acted with harshness and oppression for the sake of gain, and broke the plainest instructions of the word of God... In short, these Jews walked as men — men in a hurry to get rich at the expense of their brothers! And is this sin unknown in the church of God?
Commentators apply the verse to believers by raising the standard, not lowering it. The law forbade profiting from a brother's poverty. So what does grace ask?
The Jews under law could not charge interest when lending to a poor fellow Israelite. Now that we are under grace, should we ignore such instruction? Rather, under grace we might go much further, by giving instead of lending.
- Interest — "usury" here means interest of any kind, not just high rates. The borrower in view is poor.
- Brother — the ban rests on relationship, not on interest being wrong in itself. Every Israelite counted as a brother.
- Stranger — the foreigner likely borrowed to trade, so the same charge meant something else.
- Blessing — God ties His blessing on all their work to one refusal: no profit from a brother's need.
- Grace — Nehemiah's generation broke the rule for gain. Grace goes further than not charging interest: it gives outright.