Deuteronomy 23:19 · Bible study
Deuteronomy 23:19 Commentary: No Interest Among Brothers
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does God forbid interest on loans to fellow Israelites but permit it to foreigners?
Research Summary
- Meaning: God forbids charging interest on loans to fellow Israelites to protect the poor and preserve community solidarity.
- Key words: Brother (fellow Israelite), interest/usury (neshek, 'biting'), stranger/foreigner (non-Israelite trader).
- Main debate: Whether this command is a universal moral law or a temporary civil statute for Israel, and how it applies to modern lending.
- Tehological theme: God's concern for justice, mercy, and the integrity of the covenant community over profit.
- Best use: To teach the priority of love over profit within the community of faith; to examine our financial ethics.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Do not charge your brother interest on money, food, or any other type of loan.
WEB World English Bible 2000
You shall not lend on interest to your brother: interest of money, interest of food, interest of anything that is lent on interest.
KJV King James Version 1769
Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother; interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent upon interest.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`Thou dost not lend in usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of food, usury of anything which is lent on usury.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Thou shalt take no interest of thy brother, interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that can be lent upon interest:
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
No tomarás de tu hermano logro de dinero, ni logro de comida, ni logro de cosa alguna de que se suele tomar.
Não tomarás de teu irmão juros de dinheiro, nem juros de comida, nem juros de coisa alguma que se costuma tomar.
Tu n’exigeras de ton frère aucun intérêt ni pour argent, ni pour vivres, ni pour rien de ce qui se prête à intérêt.
[23:20] Du sollst von deinem Bruder nicht Zinsen nehmen, weder Geld noch mit Speise noch mit allem, womit man wuchern kann.
Gij zult aan uw broeder niet woekeren, met woeker van geld, met woeker van spijze, met woeker van enig ding, waarmede men woekert.
Non farai al tuo fratello prestiti a interesse, né di danaro, né di viveri, né di qualsivoglia cosa che si presta a interesse.
Nie dasz na lichwę bratu twemu, ani pieniędzy, ani żywności, ani jakiejkolwiek rzeczy, którą dawają na lichwę.
Не отдавай в рост брату твоему ни серебра, ни хлеба, ни чего—либо другого, что можно отдавать в рост;
「你借給你弟兄的，或是錢財 或是糧食，無論甚麼 可生 利 的物，都 不可 取利。
Do not take interest from an Israelite on anything, money or food or any other goods, which you let him have:
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree on the basic meaning. The verse prohibits an Israelite from charging interest (usury) on any loan, whether money, food, or anything else, to a fellow Israelite ('brother'). Calvin emphasises that this command flows from a call to 'humanity and mercy in the relief of the poor.' Lange notes that the Hebrew word for interest (neshek) literally means 'something biting, oppressive,' suggesting the law targets exploitation of the needy. Gill adds that borrowers were likely poor farmers needing help until harvest, not merchants seeking profit. The distinction between brother and foreigner (v.20) is understood as reflecting the covenant community: within Israel, lending was to be an act of charitable support, not a business transaction. John Wesley observes that since land was divided and commerce minimal, loans were mainly for subsistence; thus charging interest would oppress a brother rather than share God's blessing. The consensus is that the core principle, not to profit from a fellow believer's poverty, reveals God's concern for mercy and solidarity within his people.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Literal application to all lending: Some Christian traditions hold that all charging of interest is sinful, citing this verse and Psalm 15:5, Ezekiel 18:8.
- Limited to Israel's theocracy: Many Reformed and modern commentators see this as a civil law for ancient Israel, not binding on Christians as law; the principle of mercy remains.
- Only oppressive interest forbidden: Some argue the Hebrew term neshek implies biting/excessive interest, so only exploitative interest is condemned.
What is clear: God commands his people not to profit from the financial need of a fellow community member, revealing his heart for justice and mercy.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The meaning of 'brother' | All commentators agree 'brother' refers to a fellow Israelite, a member of the covenant community. | Some Christians extend this to all fellow believers as spiritual brothers; others restrict it to the original national context, arguing the law does not directly apply to Christians. |
| The definition of usury | Usury means charging interest on a loan. | Some argue the word implies excessive or oppressive interest (based on the Hebrew 'biting'), while others see it as any interest at all, given the context of poverty. |
| Applicability today | The principle of not exploiting the poor is universally affirmed. | Some Christians believe charging any interest to a fellow believer is sinful; others permit reasonable interest on commercial loans but prohibit it for personal needs; still others see the law as entirely ceremonial and not binding. |
| The distinction between brother and foreigner | The distinction shows God's special concern for the covenant community. | Some see this as reflecting Israel's temporary theocracy; others find a missional principle of setting an example of generosity within the people of God. |
Historical & Cultural Context
This verse sits within a section of Deuteronomy (23:15, 25) that moves from worship and holiness to social justice. Lange comments on 'the profound understanding of the law, of the connection between the two tables.' After laws about fugitive slaves and cultic prostitution, the prohibition on interest appears alongside rules for vows, linking love of God and neighbor.
Israel was an agrarian society. Most loans were not for capital investment but for survival: seed for the next planting, food for a family, or means to carry on until harvest. Gill notes that 'the Jews were chiefly employed in husbandry, not merchandise,' so borrowing was a sign of genuine need. The law assumes a situation where a fellow Israelite is poor (Leviticus 25:35; Exodus 22:25). To charge interest in such circumstances would add to the burden.
The permission to charge a 'foreigner' (v.20) is not a blanket approval of usury. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown explain that foreigners were 'engaged in trade and commerce' and borrowed to enlarge capital, so they could reasonably pay interest. The distinction also helped maintain Israel's separation from surrounding nations. Keil and Delitzsch note the 'stranger' here is likely a traveling merchant, not the resident alien (ger) who often received protection.
This law was not merely theoretical. In Nehemiah 5, the governor rebukes nobles for charging interest to fellow Jews, showing the law was enforced to preserve community integrity. The surrounding context ties this concern for the vulnerable to Israel's identity as God's holy people.
Textual Notes
The consulted commentaries and translations note no significant textual variants for Deuteronomy 23:19. The verse is stable across manuscripts.
Reception History
This verse became a key text in the historical debate on usury. Early church fathers such as Basil and Ambrose condemned all interest as contrary to Scripture. In medieval Europe, Thomas Aquinas argued that charging interest on loans to the poor is sinful, but he allowed some returns on partnership-type investments. During the Reformation, John Calvin distinguished between usury (oppressive interest) and moderate interest, arguing that the Old Testament law was specific to Israel's agrarian context and did not forbid all interest in commercial societies. Wesley's notes reflect this view, focusing on the simple agrarian setting. Today, the verse continues to provoke reflection on how Christians handle money within the community of faith. Some traditions maintain a strict prohibition on all interest among believers, while others apply the principle of mercy without the specific civil penalty.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God's heart for the poor. The prohibition protects the vulnerable from exploitation. Lending at interest to a struggling brother would 'bite' him (the image behind neshek).
- The priority of covenant community. The law creates an economic ethic within the people of God: generosity, not profit, should mark relationships among brothers and sisters.
- From letter to principle. While the civil law no longer binds directly, the principle warns against any practice that profits from another's need, whether charging interest, inflating prices, or taking advantage.
Five-point outline
- The context: a simple agrarian society where loans met urgent needs, not business ventures (Gill, Wesley).
- The meaning of 'brother': fellow Israelite, but by extension all who are part of God's covenant family.
- The word 'usury': not merely interest, but biting, oppressive interest (Lange).
- The exception for foreigners: commercial loans are permissible because they are voluntary and for profit, not for survival (JFB).
- The modern application: a call to examine our financial practices with fellow believers and the poor, ensuring we do not exploit the vulnerable.
Illustration hooks
- A church member loses a job and needs a short-term loan for rent. A fellow Christian lends the money but asks for interest, or offers it freely. Which reflects the heart of this law?
- A community credit union offers low-interest loans to those with low income, while payday lenders charge high rates. The difference between provision and exploitation is as stark as brother vs. stranger.
- In a small group, a family shares that they are overwhelmed by credit card debt. How can the group respond not by profiting but by supporting?
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is it a sin to charge any interest today, even to a non-Christian, or is only excessive interest forbidden?
- Should Christians ever charge interest to other Christians, even on business loans? What about lending from a church fund?
- How does this Old Testament law apply to modern financial systems like banks, credit cards, and mortgages?
Leading a Discussion
This verse is part of the civil law given to ancient Israel, but its underlying principle speaks to all who seek to live as God's people. It calls us to examine how we handle money, especially with those in need. As you discuss, consider both the original context and what this might mean for your relationships today.
Discussion questions
- What does the command reveal about God's character and his concern for the poor? (Calvin: humanity and mercy)
- Why do you think the distinction between 'brother' and 'foreigner' was made? How does this challenge or affirm your understanding of community?
- In what ways could a loan that charges interest become exploitative? How does the image of 'biting' (neshek) illustrate this?
- How would this law work in practice in an agrarian society? What kinds of situations would prompt a loan? (Gill, Wesley)
- Read Nehemiah 5:1, 7. How does this later incident show the importance of this law?
- If we apply the principle, not the letter, what does it mean for us today? Should we ever charge interest to a Christian in genuine need?
- What practical steps can your group take to support one another financially without creating dependency or profit from need?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 22:25 | “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor. You shall not charge him interest. |
| Leviticus 25:35 | “‘If your brother has become poor, and his hand can’t support himself among you, then you shall uphold him. He shall live with you like an alien and a temporary resident. |
| Leviticus 25:37 | You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. |
| Nehemiah 5:1 | Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brothers the Jews. |
| Nehemiah 5:7 | Then I consulted with myself, and contended with the nobles and the rulers, and said to them, “You exact usury, everyone of his brother.” I held a great assembly against them. |
| Psalms 15:5 | he who doesn’t lend out his money for usury, nor take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be shaken. |
| Ezekiel 18:7 | and has not wronged any, but has restored to the debtor his pledge, has taken nothing by robbery, has given his bread to the hungry, and has covered the naked with a garment; |
| Ezekiel 18:8 | he who hasn’t lent to them with interest, hasn’t taken any increase from them, who has withdrawn his hand from iniquity, has executed true justice between man and man, |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that righteousness demands more than just not stealing from others. It also requires actively helping the poor, because human society depends on mutual kindness. A person who can relieve a neighbor's need but refuses is, in God's eyes, unrighteous.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note highlights that the command against usury reaches beyond money to include food and any other item lent for profit. The prohibition is comprehensive: nothing that can be put out at interest is exempt when the borrower is a fellow Israelite.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights that the prohibition on interest applies specifically to loans made to a poor fellow Israelite for basic needs like food or farming, not to commercial loans where profit is expected. The law aims to prevent the poor from being crushed under debt, so no interest at all, whether on money, food, or anything else lent, was permitted.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that the command distinguishes between two types of borrowers. Fellow Israelites lived in a simple agrarian society and lent to each other for need, not profit. Foreigners, engaged in trade, borrowed to expand capital and could reasonably pay interest, a rule that also reinforced Israel's separation from other nations.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch highlights a legal distinction based on membership in Israel: an Israelite could not charge interest to a fellow countryman on any loan, but was permitted to take interest from foreigners. This difference reflects the separate theocratic rights of those inside the covenant community.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
For Matthew Henry, the command to shelter an escaped servant turns the land of Israel into a sanctuary for the oppressed. The law protects a fugitive from a harsh master, granting him freedom to settle where he chooses. Israel's borders become a place of refuge for the abused, not a place to return them to bondage.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley argues that lending without interest to fellow Israelites was practical because their land-based economy rarely required large loans. Lending at interest to foreigners was permitted, since they lived by trade and made profit from borrowed money, making it fair for the lender to share in that gain.