QUESTION BY BRO. DECKER by John Norton Loughborough

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 31, 1861

QUESTION BY BRO. DECKER.

By John Norton Loughborough

“BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH : I would like to have you answer the following question through the Review: Is it right to take interest on money?”

H. W. D.

ANSWER. That, I think, depends altogether upon circumstances. There are doubtless instances where it would be wrong to take interest, not because the principle of taking lawful interest is wrong in itself, but because the adverse circumstances of those from whom it is taken would make it our duty to render them assistance instead of oppressing them. The New Testament says comparatively nothing upon this subject, but leaves us with the injunction upon us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In the parable of Christ concerning the one that buried his Lord’s money, I think we get a strong intimation at least on the principle of taking interest. “That at my coming I might have required mine own with usury.” Luke xix, 11–22.

Those who reason against taking usury in any case refer us to the Old Testament scriptures for their proof on this point. As we refer to the Old Testament we shall find that usury was allowable in certain instances. “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” Ex. xxii, 25. If it was not right to take usury in any case, there would be no propriety in specifying in what cases they should not take it. The very fact that it is stated that in such cases they should not take interest, implies that in some cases they might. Some have said this shows that it is wrong in every case to take usury of your brethren. But it only touches the cases of those that are poor. But you may say, It says, “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury: unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury,” &c. Deut. xxiii, 19, 20. It has been claimed from this that it is right under all circumstances to take usury of those who are not your brethren; but we find by still another text that this is not the case. “And if thy brother be waxen poor and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner, that he may live with thee.” Lev. xxv, 35. Then it is not right under some extreme cases to take usury of a stranger. Then it will not answer to claim from the testimony of Deut. above quoted that we are never to take usury from our brethren, or always from strangers. When an exception is once fully expressed we understand it is afterward to be understood. So in reading such texts as Neh. v, 5–7; Ps. xv, 4, 5; Eze. xviii, 8, 17, we are not to understand that it is wrong to take usury in any case, but we must understand it in accordance with the principle laid down when the requirement was made. If you look at Neh. v, 5–7, you will see that the very ones spoken of had fallen into decay and had even lost their possessions. By looking at Eze. xviii, 17, you will see also that it is the case of the poor that is spoken of. And so we are to understand all these prohibitions against usury. The principle involved in this matter, as you will see by verse 8 of the above chapter, is to execute “true judgment between man and man.”

The great principle of dealing taught to Israel is stated in Micah vi, 7, 8. “To do justly, and to love mercy,” &c. Would it be doing justly for a man in moderate circumstances who might perhaps by hard labor accumulate a few hundred dollars, and having lent it to another, to receive nothing for the use of it, although the borrower makes such an investment of it in grain or something of the kind, that by the rise of the grain the $500 will turn into $1000, or $1500. The money has actually been worth to him one or two hundred per cent. Now does the scripture deprive him the privilege of paying the man from whom he borrowed it a just and reasonable interest for that money? It would be unjust dealing, it seems to me, if he did not pay him for the use of it.

On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that we are not to oppress the poor. Wisdom in this matter, and the exercise of judgment in accordance with the principle of loving our neighbor as ourselves, will guide us aright.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.