p. 192 | To Correspondents by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 13, 1856

To Correspondents.

By Editor

USURY.

L. LATHROP:—You ask an explanation of Deut. xxiii, 19. "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury."

In what sense shall we understand the term, usury; for it appears that it is not now used as formerly. It used to signify any legal interest; but in this sense the word is no longer in use: it being employed at the present time to denote illegal or unlawful interest on anything lent. With this latter sense however we have nothing to do; as no christian will be at a loss to know his duty with this meaning of the term. But giving the word its former signification, is it right for a brother in the church to lend his money to a brother on usury? If we let the Scriptures have their bearing on this point, we think we are safe in answering most emphatically, No!

The Bible is very definite and speaks out very plain on this subject. It is everywhere denounced as a heinous sin to be practiced among brethren. "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother." See Ex. xxii, 25; Lev. xxv, 36, 37; Neh. v, 7, 10.

In Ps. xv, 5, it is classed with the sin of taking reward against the innocent. The psalm opens with this important inquiry: "Lord who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill!" A portion of the answer, as given in verse 5, is, "He that putteth not out his money to usury nor taketh reward against the innocent;" or accepteth a bribe to pervert justice and judgment.

In Prov. xxviii, 8, it is classed with unjust gain: "He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance," &c.

In Jer. xv, 10, it is intimated to be a sin worthy of cursing: "I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me." The complaint here is, that though he had committed no sin worthy of cursing, yet they cursed him: as much as to say that if he had lent on usury, their cursing would have been just, and given no cause of complaint. See Eze. xviii, 8, 13, 17; xxii, 12.

Perhaps some one may here say, This was a regulation given to the Jews with which Christians have nothing to do.

But we inquire, Is not a Christian commanded to love his neighbor as himself, as much as a Jew? And if a Christian in dealing with his brethren, violates any of those rules by which the people of God were anciently required to manifest their love one to another, does he not become a violator of the great principle, "Love thy neighbor as thyself?" Now for a Jew to lend his money upon usury to his brother, would be considered, according to the above scriptures, a plain violation of that law. Is it any the less so among Christians?

Again, admitting that a brother should not lend to a brother on usury, the question may arise, if, having lent money to people of the world, we may take usury from them. On this point we will only say that it is very evident that the above scriptures, as far as relating to the Jews, were designed to regulate their conduct among themselves alone, from the fact that they had plain permission to lend to the stranger on usury. Deut. xxiii, 20. How far may we reason from analogy from this fact in reference to the conduct of a Christian?