against the sin of usury - lutheran witness, june 7, 1888

8/14/2019 Against the Sin of Usury - Lutheran Witness, June 7, 1888

1/10

(This is in the public domain. Do whatever you want with it.)From page four through five of the Vol. 7, No. 1 Lutheran Witness, June 7,

1888:

Against the Sin of Usury.

A Catechetical Lecture in three parts, read before the Cleveland Pastoral

Conference in July 1880, by Rev. Pres. H. C. Schwan.

PART I. WHAT IS USURY.

He that augumenteth his sub-stance by usury and increase,gathereth it for him that hathpity on the poor. Prov. 28, 8.

Formerly Christians, Jews and Gentiles knew what usury is and that itis wrong. But, alas, at the present time most of the very Christians nolonger know this, and a great number, too, do not want to know. For thisreason, beloved children, lay well to heart our present lesson.

In the first place, then, What is usury? In our Bible and in allbooksof the Hebrew, Greek and Latin tongues and with all German and Englishauthors up to the second half of the sixteenth century the word usury

denotes an augmenting of one's substance by premiums stipulated for theuse of money or of other goods.

REQUIRING IN REPAYMENT OF MONEY OR GOODSLENT ANYTHING MORE THAN WAS LENT,

IS USURY.

This was the doctrine of the whole world, thus Jews, Gentiles andChristians always understood it till the later part of the 16. century. Thesame idea is conveyed by the word increase, namely every thing westipulate beyond the principal lent. The only difference which someexpounders make between usury and increase, is that usury refers to acompensation stipulated for the use of money, increase to a compensationstipulated for the use of goods. In every other respect they denote thesame. Now repeat the definition of usury. We must pay close attention tothe several members of our definition.

1. Our definition refers us to money and goods LENT. Now, if my


2/10

transaction does not refer to things lent, but, for instance to things boughtand sold, if in my sale of goods I ask somewhat more than I paid, wouldthat be usury? No. Usury, therefore, is practised only in which things? Inthings lent. Now bear in mind, people sometimes call things lent, which infact were not lent. Let me give you a pertinent illustration. A laboring man

has saved $100. His neighbor is a merchant. Says the merchant to thelaboring man: Invest your money in my business. Of what I gain, you shallhave your share of profit. If I lose, you must bear your share of loss, too.The risk of my labor and money shall also be the risk of your money.Well,the laboring man lets the merchant have his money. What, then, did thelaboring man do with his money? He lent it to the merchant. No, he did notdo this. Heput it out, but he did not lendit. People may term this a lending,but it is no lending. Mind this first. Now another instance. Suppose themerchant would say, I am just now in distress, help me out for a while withyour $100. I shall see to it that your money is made safe and at such andsuch time you shall receive it back duly. Now the laboring man lets him

have his $100 on this condition. Now, did he advance his money in thesame manner in both instances or is there a difference? There is adifference. Certainly. a) In the first instance his money should benefithimself; in the second instance it should aid his neighbor. b) In the firstinstance he remains possessor of his money; in the second instance themerchant becomes the possessor, though indeed only for a certain time. c)If the money is lost, in the first instance the laboring man is the loser. Nowmind! In the firstinstance the laboring man entered into partnership withthe merchant, entered into business with him. In the secondinstance heLENT him his money. And only the latter is in truth lending proper: giving to

another the temporary use of a thing so that it becomes during this time theproperty of the borrower. *

Now to proceed, Only for the use of what money should we not ask apremium? Only for the use of the money lent. Does God, then, require us todraw no gain from our money, not that even of honest business? Godrequires no such thing. But in what manner shall we indeed draw NO gainfrom our money? Not by lending. For how is the gain termed that isstipulated for the use of the money lent? Usury. And this God hath expresslyand severely prohibited.

2. Our definition says: Requiring any thing MORE than was lent. Is itwrong, therefore, to require even the repayment of the principal, or is itright? It is right. Correct! Else it were not lent, but simply given. Lendingpresupposes repayment. But because the Lord Jesus saith, Lend, hoping fornothing again (Luke 6, 35), we must indeed, if we would be His disciples,not only lend when we have certain hope of receiving the principal again,but in many cases we must run the risk of receiving it again or of losing it.The principal lent we may indeed hope to receive again. But are we allowed


3/10

to require more than was lent? No. For what would that be? Usury, increase.

3. Our definition says:Any thing more than was lent. Does it matter thenwhether the premium stipulated be of a high or low rate? Is it usury only,

when we stipulate a compensation beyond the rate of interest establishedby law? No. Of course, in the present case asking two per cent is as muchusury as asking twenty per cent. or does a difference perhaps rest in theperson of the lender? Is it no sin for apoor man to require more than helent? It is a sin for him too, the wrong is the same. Or does the person ofthe borrower perhaps change the face of the matter? Is it right to requirefrom a rich man any thing more than was lent him? No.

4. Our definition says: REQUIRING any thing more than was lent. Is itwrong then for the lender to accept what the borrower give him voluntarily,though the lender stipulated no repayment of anything save the principal?

Such is not usury. When is it usury? When repayment of more than was lentis required. Correct; may this Requiring be made in explicit terms, or byintimation or by the hidden desire of the heart.

5. Our definition says: Requiring in repayment of MONEY or GOODS lent.Is there a difference then in the matter that was lent? whether this bemoney, grain, flour, or anything else that was lent? Is it wrong to require apremium for lending money, but right to require a compensation for thelending of corn, hay, and the like? It is allowed in nothing.

Observe, then, these points; nothing more and nothing less did Godprohibit when he prohibited usury, and God didprohibit usury. For how doesour proof-passage, Prov. 28, 8. read? He that augmenteth his substance byusury and increase, gathereth it for him that hath pity on the poor. Whatdo we name a man that augmenteth his substance by usury? A usurer. Andwhat does our passage say of such a one? He gathereth it for him that hathpity on the poor. Why, this does not read at all like a prohibition andthreat, on the contrary it reads more like a promise, a praise! If the usurergathers for the poor, he does a good work, as it would seem! But can suchbe the sense of our passage? No. Mind, one may gather in pity of the poor,and one may gather without any such pity. One may gather with the

intention of benefiting the poor, and one may gather without any suchintention. Now, on which side, do you think, will the usurer be found? Hehas no desire of gathering for the poor. Indeed not; and yet he must gatherfor the poor without knowing and desiring it. When the usurer shall havefilled his hands with the gain of usury, God will visit him unexpectedly andstrike it from his hands to make it fall to the ground that it may be gatheredby the poor. That is to say, God will at last deprive usurers of theirmammon and oftentimes they must see their wealth go to such parties as


4/10

would never have been favored by them. Such is the punishment whichGod, in our proof-passage, threatens to inflict upon the usurer.

That such is really the true sense of our proof passage, yea thatusurers will be visited by a still greater punishment, you will learn from the

following quotation. What do we read in Ezekiel 18, 13? He that hath givenforth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall notlive: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his bloodshall be upon him.

In these words usury is called an abomination and a deadly sin;therefore they must refer to usury wilfully practised against betterknowledge. If such a usurer then does not sincerely repent, may he expecteternal life, or do death and eternal condemnation await him? Only deathand eternal damnation. Is usury then, in the face of God, a small or a greatsin? It is a great sin.

(To be continued.)


5/10

(This is in the public domain. Do whatever you want with it.)From page twelve of the Vol. 7, No. 2 Lutheran Witness, June 21, 1888:


A Catechetical Lecture in three parts, read before the Cleveland PastoralConference in July 1880, by Rev. Pres. H. C. Schwan.

PART II. WHY GOD PROHIBITED USURY.

He that augumenteth his sub-stance by usury and increase,gathereth it for him that hathpity on the poor. Prov. 28, 8.

But right here a great many people say, they could not conceive in theleast, Why God prohibited the requiring of interest from money lent. But thegood will to see the point in the question will soon remove the difficulty.God prohibited usury:

1. Because usury militates againstjustice. If a business-transaction, acontract or bargain should be just; must it then be just for one party or forboth parties? For both parties. That's the bearing of the wordjust. But daresuch an action be unequal or must it be equitable? It must be marked by adue consideration for what is just and fair for both parties. Now if I invest

my money in another man's business under condition: If he gains, I want toshare in the gain, of course in the proper proportion; if he loses, I shallshare in the loss, of course in proper proportion; if he loses his wholeinvestment, I am willing to lose my whole investmentis this contract equalfor both parties, or not? is it, therefore, just or unjust? It is equal and just.Observe, for this reason God in no way prohibited such business-contracts.But if I place my money in another man's hand and stipulate: You mustbear the burden of labor, risk and loss, not I; you may lose even so much, Iwant to lose nothing; I want my money safe, I want my money fully repaidin due time, and in addition I require THIS AND THAT MUCH MORE than theprincipalis such a bargain fair and just for both sides? No, it is unfair and

unjust. Observe now that such is the very character of the usury-contract,and this is the first reason why God prohibited the same.

2. The second reason is, because usury militates against true charity.God requires of a Christian not only to act according to justice. God requiresstill more. A Christian must also act conformably to charity. What is,therefore, the sum and substance of the second table? Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself. Now tell me, Does true charity apply to herself, or only


6/10

to whom? To our neighbor. What does Scripture say, Does charity seek herown or rather what? She seeks her neighbor's good. Does he, then, whoseeketh his own good, caring nothing for his neighbor's lossdoes he actcharitably or uncharitably? Uncharitably. And whose good does the usurerseek by his usurious contract? Only his own good. How, then, does usury

agree with charity? It does not agree at all. The usurer, of course, says, hewere practising charity by lending his money to the other party. But tell me,do we requirepaymentfor any service rendered from pure charity? No. Anyservice for which we require payment, ceases to be what in itself? It ceasesto be a charitable act. Why? Because we render it for remuneration and notfor charity's sake. Now tell me, does the usurer ask pay for his services ornot? He asks pay. His lending on interest can therefore impossibly be aservice of what kind? Of a charitable kind. True, God never commanded thatwe should require no pay for any work whatever. But He wants us not toask payment for all services we render. Some services should indeed remainwhich men shall render one to another gratuitously and from charity.

Among such services He hath numbered lending without which humansociety cannot thrive. Lending shallbe and remain a charitable act. See, thisis the second reason why usury is sin, because it militates against charity.Even if God had nowhere prohibited usury in express terms, yet itsprohibition would be comprised in the sum of the second table. But in orderto render us fully excuseless, God added in Scripture also some expressprohibitions. Whence, then, does it flow that people require contrary tojustice and charity payment for lending? From avarice, from love of money.And whence floweth the love of money? From unbelief. And notwithstandingthis fact people continue to inquire, Why God should have prohibited usury.

3. And now, children, if you observe how usury renders the hearts ofmen so cold and hard, how it misleads into lying, deceiving and all kinds ofinjustice; how it ruins innumerable men in body and soul; yea, threw intodistress whole nations, for which reason all intelligent pagans havecondemned it time and again; if you knew what distress and misery iscaused thereby in the commerce of our country; if you knew, for instance,that it is only because of those usurious corners in wheat, corn, coffee, etc.,that poor people must continue to pay the same price for bread, corn,coffee, etc., though God Almighty causes three times more to grow than isnecessaryif you knew all these things you would not be surprised at the

fact that it is this very usury against which God threatened such severepunishments.

(To be continued.)


7/10

(This is in the public domain. Do whatever you want with it.)From page twenty through twenty-one of the Vol. 7, No. 3 Lutheran

Witness, July 7, 1888:


A Catechetical Lecture in three parts, read before the Cleveland Pastoral

Conference in July 1880, by Rev. Pres. H. C. Schwan.

PART III. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.He that augumenteth his sub-stance by usury and increase,gathereth it for him that hathpity on the poor. Prov. 28, 8.

But usurers have all kinds of objections and subterfuges wherewiththey attempt to justify their doings. Their main objections I shall nowmention, and yourselves shall say whether their excuses are acceptable ornot.

1. They say: If God hath once in former days suffered the lending ofmoney upon usury, at least unto a foreigner (Deut. 23, 20), this cannothave been a sin then. For God never suffers anything that is sinful. If inthose days usury was no sin, neither is it a sin now; for with God there is noshadow of turning. But bear in mind, in those days it was also suffered to

abruptly give one's wife a writing of divorcement (Matth. 19, 7). Now ifsome one would say at thepresentday: If they were suffered to do suchdivorcing in former days, I am suffered to do the same nowtoo, would suchreasoning be right or wrong? Wrong. For what does Christ say, why Mosesmust for a time suffer the Jews to do this? Because of the hardness of theirheart. Correct; this was the very cause why God suffered it, that is, suchdivorcement was not then punished by the civil authorities. Civil authoritiesmay also in other cases punish only the grossest sins. Now if a husband hadeven in those days wickedly given his wife a writing of divorcement and inso doing had reasoned, because God does not insist on having me punishedfor this act by the civil authorities, therefore it must be lawful also beforeGod, would such reasoning have been right or wrong? Wrong. Certainly anyone that would be a child of God, was not permitted to do such divorcingeven under the Old Dispensation, and less still are we permitted to practiceit under the New Dispensation. In which words does our Savior clearly teachthis? In these: But from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shallmarry another, committeth adultery. Now mind,just so it hold also with


8/10

usury. Though God suffered, under the old Dispensation, various cases ofusury to be practiced without visiting them by externalpunishments, in Hisjudgment be always reproves it. And if the civil authorities of the presentday punish usury only in its grossest form or rather no longer punish usuryanywhere. Christians must not therebyscreen themselves, for God reproves

it in His Word.

2. Another objector will say: Oh, the prohibitions of usury pertain to thecivil law of the Old Testament and this law no longer obtains, as is known.But this objection even you, children, may certainly refute. For you havealready learnt the three marks by which we may know that a commandmentreally belongs to the moral lawwhich never ceases and is binding upon allmen. Which is the first mark? Answer: If the transgression of acommandment be also reproved in the heathen, because suchcommandment was indeed also written in the heartof the heathen. Butwhat is proved by the very fact that also the intelligent pagans always

condemned usury? It proves that this too is written in the heart of men,that usury is really prohibited by the natural or moral law. Which is thesecond mark? Answer: That a commandment of prohibition necessarily flowsfrom the sum of the commandments. And what have we already observedconcerning theprohibition of usury? That it necessarily flows from thecommandment of love and charity. Which is the third mark? Answer: Thatsuch commandment or prohibition be also repeated in the New Testamentfor Christians, Now in which words does Christ repeat the prohibition ofusury? In these words: Lend, hoping for nothing again. Luke 6, 35. Now ifChrist forbids, in lending to hope for anything again, he of course thereby

also forbids to hope for the interest of usury.

3. Some objectors adduce Exodus 22, 25 and Leviticus 25, 35, 37, If thybrother be waxen poor . . . take thou no usury of him or increase; but fearthy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thymoney upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase,and arguethus: We must accordingly not lend upon usury to such as would therebybecome still poorer. But there is no danger of this as far as rich people areconcerned; this makes it patent that we are not forbidden to lend uponusury to rich people. True, it is a twofold cruelty to extort usury from a apoor man, but it is and remains wrong too to derive usury from the very

richest. Or does God, when he forbids us to oppress the widow and theorphan, does he thereby give us permission to torment all other men thatthey are not widows and orphans? Certainly not. Does He then allow to layusury upon all such as are not made poor thereby? Most certainly not.

4. Other objectors argue on this wise: It is lawful to rent out houses andto hire our horses and the like and to require a compensation for their use.Now we cannot see why it should be wrong to do the same with our capital.


9/10

We can see no difference between renting and lending. Answer: There is adifference between renting and lending. First in this respect that houses,horses, etc. require a continual outlay to keep them in proper condition,they are such perishable goods as put their owner under a running expense.This is certainly not the case with money. Hundred dollars will be hundred

dollars in hundred years from now. But money may be lost. So may housesand horses. But money must be paid on money. So on houses and horses.Therefore this feature remaineth that money remains in its condition offixed value and does not deteriorate by being used. There is therefore anaturaldifference between renting and lending. We are indeed required tolend our distressed neighbor our house, horse, etc. without asking anycompensation. For thus God saith in Isa. 58, 7: Is it not to deal they breadto the hungry, and that though bring the poor that are cast out to thyhouse. In these words God certainly bids us to give free shelter to ourafflicted neighbor until his distress be relieved. And the good Samaritancertainly lent his beast of burden to the man that was half dead, for thus we

read Luke 10, 33: He had compassion on him . . . and set him on his ownbeast and brought him to an inn and took care of him. The good Samaritanpaid rent for a room to lend it to the ill-used Jew and he also lent him hisbeast of burden. If the Samaritan had asked a compensation from the Jewfor room and horse, why the Jew must have perished and the Samaritanwould never have been recorded as an example of compassionateness. Butif such people as are not in distress ask the use of my house or horsebecause they are not minded to build and keep one of their own; or becausethey squander their money, which they might save by industry andfrugality; or because theypreferto invest their money in other enterprises:

in such cases we are not bound to deal with them according to the preceptsof charity, but according to the justice and equity of business. Hence it isplain that we are required to lend our house, horse, etc. to our afflictedneighbor without any compensation; but if he is able to hire and to rent, itis perfectly lawful also with God to require the compensation of it and rent.

5. Another objector will say: Why, the debtor is perfectly willing to paythe stipulated interest, therefore it cannot be a sin for me to require theinterest. But do you really believe, your debtor would still be so willing if hecould borrow the needed money absolutely without paying the interest ofusury?A proverb saith: He doeth it very willingly with compulsion. The

high priests also gave to Judas those thirty pieces of silver very willingly;but did their willingness justify Judas in receiving or requiring them? Equallythen does the objection mentioned excuse usury.

6. Another objector will say: If I am bound to lend to everyone that askme for a loan, in compliance with the passage Matth. 7, 42, 'From him thatwould borrow of thee turn not away,' and moreover, I shall ask nocompensation for lending: why, everybody will want to borrow my money,


10/10

even those who need it not, and thus all others will draw that benefit frommy money except myself, the owner. But tell me, please, Where is itwritten that we must lend our money without any exception to each andevery one, though such borrowers want our money only for the purpose oflending it upon usury and for other speculations and nontwithstanding the

fact that ourselves need the money and our family? Nowhere is such a thingwritten. In what case then shall we not turn away from him that wouldborrow of us? Only in case of real distress on his part and in case of abilityto aid him on our part. Correct; more than this is not required by God. Butthis you must now also put intopractice whenever an occasion offers itself;and you must do it with singleness of heart, that is, from love towards Godand your neighbor.

7. In conclusion, beloved children, you must not forget to observeanother point. One may refrain from usury externallyand yet be a twofoldusurer in heart. Reversely, one may have money on interest and yet in his

heart and in the face of God he is not numbered among condemned usurers.Perhaps he does not know better, because the pure doctrine concerningusury has been sadly obscured for ages. If he knew better, he would dobetter. You know better now. Do then above all things guard your hearts,lest earthly-mindedness and the love of money gain the ascendancy therein.And thereafter if money and property increase with you, beware of alltransactions and of all business which are in the least tainted with manifestusury. One the other hand lendwillingly whenever you may. Though thennothing accrue to you from men, be of good cheer still. The Lord will respectit as lent unto Himself and He will make up the difference here and reward

you openly hereafter.

against the sin of usury - lutheran witness, june 7, 1888

Documents