# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1864_S177
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Martin Chemnitz on Usury. 177

...asmuch as he prescribes for the authority the manner of maintaining external discipline, which crimes, and with what civil penalties (so far, namely, as can be done through political courts), they should keep within bounds — because the judgment of the authority and the judgment of God do not stand on the same level — permits what cannot be prevented without greater harm to civil society to be tolerated, not as something good before God according to conscience, but for a civil purpose and in a civil manner, namely, that it is not punished civilly. Thus he permitted, civilly, usury toward foreigners, so that it might not be practiced upon fellow believers. But so that this permission might not be drawn into the tribunal of conscience before God, God, with often-repeated emphasis, condemned usury in general and expressly with harsh words. This explanation shows the reasons why, in the Prophets, the disapproval of usury has been repeated so often with the harshest words. Thus usury is permitted in the Old Testament — civilly, that is — but condemned theologically, in the conscience before God.

In the New Testament, however, this distinction is taught more clearly and plainly by the Son of God himself. For because there are, namely, two concessions in the Old Testament which, as has been said, were misused by the Pharisees — namely, concerning the bill of divorce and usury — Christ sets against both concessions the everlasting rule of righteousness in God, Matt. 5:32, 42, as also 19:8, Luke 6:34–35. And indeed, the dispute of the Pharisees with Christ concerning the bill of divorce has been recorded precisely so that the grounds of the interpretations might be set in a clearer light. For thus they object: How can a divorce for any cause be a sin, an evil thing, and displeasing to God, when God himself, through Moses, commanded that the bill of divorce be given and that one may divorce, etc.? Note the words; they do not say: he has permitted it, but: he has commanded it; and since it is certain that in the commandments the rule of righteousness in God is revealed, they thus defend divorce on the basis of the passage that contains this provision. But Christ answers: Moses permitted you, etc. On every word here lies a particular emphasis which, if one attends to it rightly, reveals the sources of the true explanation. 1. It is customary that by "Moses" one understands the form and constitution of the Israelite state. The sense is therefore that Moses, as political lawgiver, established that provision concerning the bill of divorce. 2. He does not say: he has commanded it, but: he has permitted you. But we have already spoken of the distinction between moral commandments and civil concessions. 3. "Because of the hardness of your heart he permitted you," that is, for political reasons, so that nothing worse might happen. 4. He says: "From the beginning it was not so," that is, it is not the eternal rule of righteousness in God; rather, although it has been permitted in the civil court, it nevertheless conflicts with the will of God. Luther