Adam Clarke

On Exodus 3:22

Every woman shall borrow - This is certainly not a very correct translation: the original word שאל shaal signifies simply to ask, request, demand, require, inquire, etc.; but it does not signify to borrow in the proper sense of that word, though in a very few places of Scripture it is thus used. In this and the parallel place, Exo 12:35, the word signifies to ask or demand, and not to borrow, which is a gross mistake into which scarcely any of the versions, ancient or modern, have fallen, except our own. The Septuagint has αιτησει, she shall ask; the Vulgate, postulabit, she shall demand; the Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, Samaritan Version, Coptic, and Persian, are the same as the Hebrew. The European versions are generally correct on this point; and our common English version is almost the sole transgressor: I say, the common version, which, copying the Bible published by Becke in 1549, gives us the exceptionable term borrow, for the original שאל shaal, which in the Geneva Bible, and Barker's Bible of 1615, and some others, is rightly translated aske. God commanded the Israelites to ask or demand a certain recompense for their past services, and he inclined the hearts of the Egyptians to give liberally; and this, far from a matter of oppression, wrong, or even charity, was no more than a very partial recompense for the long and painful services which we may say six hundred thousand Israelites had rendered to Egypt, during a considerable number of years. And there can be no doubt that while their heaviest oppression lasted, they were permitted to accumulate no kind of property, as all their gains went to their oppressors.

Our exceptionable translation of the original has given some countenance to the desperate cause of infidelity; its abettors have exultingly said: "Moses represents the just God as ordering the Israelites to borrow the goods of the Egyptians under the pretense of returning them, whereas he intended that they should march off with the booty." Let these men know that there was no borrowing in the case; and that if accounts were fairly balanced, Egypt would be found still in considerable arrears to Israel. Let it also be considered that the Egyptians had never any right to the services of the Hebrews. Egypt owed its policy, its opulence, and even its political existence, to the Israelites. What had Joseph for his important services? Nothing! He had neither district, nor city, nor lordship in Egypt; nor did he reserve any to his children. All his services were gratuitous; and being animated with a better hope than any earthly possession could inspire, he desired that even his bones should be carried up out of Egypt. Jacob and his family, it is true, were permitted to sojourn in Goshen, but they were not provided for in that place; for they brought their cattle, their goods, and all that they had into Egypt, Gen 46:1, Gen 46:6; so that they had nothing but the bare land to feed on; and had built treasure cities or fortresses, we know not how many; and two whole cities, Pithom and Raamses, besides; and for all these services they had no compensation whatever, but were besides cruelly abused, and obliged to witness, as the sum of their calamities, the daily murder of their male infants. These particulars considered, will infidelity ever dare to produce this case again in support of its worthless pretensions?

Jewels of silver, etc. - The word כלי keley we have already seen signifies vessels, instruments, weapons, etc., and may be very well translated by our English term, articles or goods. The Israelites got both gold and silver, probably both in coin and in plate of different kinds; and such raiment as was necessary for the journey which they were about to undertake.

Ye shall spoil the Egyptians - The verb נצל natsal signifies, not only to spoil, snatch away, but also to get away, to escape, to deliver, to regain, or recover. Spoil signifies what is taken by rapine or violence; but this cannot be the meaning of the original word here, as the Israelites only asked, and the Egyptians with out fear, terror, or constraint, freely gave. It is worthy of remark that the original word is used, Sa1 30:22, to signify the recovery of property that had been taken away by violence: "Then answered all the wicked men, and men of Belial, of those that went with David, Because they went not with us we will not give them aught of the Spoil (מהשלל mehashShalal) that we have Recovered, אשר הצלנו asher Hitstsalnu. In this sense we should understand the word here. The Israelites recovered a part of their property - their wages, of which they had been most unjustly deprived by the Egyptians.

In this chapter we have much curious and important information; but what is most interesting is the name by which God was pleased to make himself known to Moses and to the Israelites, a name by which the Supreme Being was afterwards known among the wisest inhabitants of the earth. He who Is and who Will Be what he Is. This is a proper characteristic of the Divine Being, who is, properly speaking, the only Being, because he is independent and eternal; whereas all other beings, in whatsoever forms they may appear, are derived, finite, changeable, and liable to destruction, decay, and even to annihilation. When God, therefore, announced himself to Moses by this name, he proclaimed his own eternity and immateriality; and the very name itself precludes the possibility of idolatry, because it was impossible for the mind, in considering it, to represent the Divine Being in any assignable shape; for who could represent Being or Existence by any limited form? And who can have any idea of a form that is unlimited? Thus, then, we find that the first discovery which God made of himself was intended to show the people the simplicity and spirituality of his nature; that while they considered him as Being, and the Cause of all Being, they might be preserved from all idolatry for ever. The very name itself is a proof of a Divine revelation; for it is not possible that such an idea could have ever entered into the mind of man, unless it had been communicated from above. It could not have been produced by reasoning, for there were no premises on which it could be built, nor any analogies by which it could have been formed. We can as easily comprehend eternity as we can being, simply considered in and of itself, when nothing of assignable forms, colors, or qualities existed, besides its infinite and illimitable self.

To this Divine discovery the ancient Greeks owed the inscription which they placed above the door of the temple of Apollo at Delphi: the whole of the inscription consisted in the simple monosyllable Ei, Thou Art, the second person of the Greek substantive verb ειμι, I am. On this inscription Plutarch, one of the most intelligent of all the Gentile philosophers, made an express treatise, περι του ΕΙ εν Δελφοις, having received the true interpretation in his travels in Egypt, whither he had gone for the express purpose of inquiring into their ancient learning, and where he had doubtless seen these words of God to Moses in the Greek version of the Septuagint, which had been current among the Egyptians (for whose sake it was first made) about four hundred years previously to the death of Plutarch. This philosopher observes that "this title is not only proper, but peculiar to God, because He alone is being; for mortals have no participation of true being, because that which begins and ends, and is continually changing, is never one nor the same, nor in the same state. The deity on whose temple this word was inscribed was called Apollo, Απολλν, from α, negative, and πολυς, many, because God is One, his nature simple, his essence uncompounded." Hence he informs us the ancient mode of addressing God was, "ΕΙ ΕΝ, Thou art One, ου γαρ πολλα το θειον εστιν, for many cannot be attributed to the Divine nature: και οὑ προτερον ουδεν εστιν, ουδ' υστερον, ουδε μελλον, ουδε παρωχημενον, ουδε πρεσβυτερον, ουδε νεωτερον, in which there is neither first nor last, future nor past, old nor young; αλλ' εις ων ενι τῳ νυν το αει πεπληρωκε, but as being one, fills up in one Now an eternal duration." And he concludes with observing that "this word corresponds to certain others on the same temple, viz., ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ Know thyself; as if, under the name ΕΙ. Thou Art, the Deity designed to excite men to venerate Him as eternally existing, ὡς οντα διαπαντος, and to put them in mind of the frailty and mortality of their own nature."

What beautiful things have the ancient Greek philosophers stolen from the testimonies of God to enrich their own works, without any kind of acknowledgment! And, strange perversity of man! these are the very things which we so highly applaud in the heathen copies, while we neglect or pass them by in the Divine originals!

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

On Exodus 3:10-22

Come now therefore, and I will send thee - Considering the patriotic views that had formerly animated the breast of Moses, we might have anticipated that no mission could have been more welcome to his heart than to be employed in the national emancipation of Israel. But he evinced great reluctance to it and stated a variety of objections [Exo 3:11, Exo 3:13; Exo 4:1, Exo 4:10] all of which were successfully met and removed--and the happy issue of his labors was minutely described.

Next: Exodus Chapter 4

John Gill

On Exodus 3:22

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house,.... Or "shall ask" (f), desire them to give or lend, what follows; and by this it appears, that the Israelites by reason of their great increase were spread about, and mixed with the Egyptians; and hence it was that there was such a mixed multitude that went up with them out of Egypt, who either were in connection with them in civil things, or were proselyted by them:

jewels of silver, and jewels of gold; that is, jewels set in silver and in gold; or "vessels of silver, and vessels of gold" (g), plate of both sorts, cups, dishes, &c:

and raiment; rich and goodly apparel, which they might borrow to appear in at their feast and sacrifices in the wilderness, whither they asked leave to go to:

and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and so deck and ornament them with them at the time of their departure:

and ye shall spoil the Egyptians; and very justly, for the hard service they put them to; for which all this was but their wages due unto them, and which they would stand in need of in their travels to Canaan's land, and for the erection of the tabernacle, and providing things appertaining to it in the wilderness.

(f) Sept. "postulabit", V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, Tigurine version, Drusius; "petet", Junius & Tremellius. (g) "vasa", V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, Piscator, Tigurine version, Drusius.

Keil & Delitzsch

On Exodus 3:21-22

Not only would God compel Pharaoh to let Israel go; He would not let His people go out empty, but, according to the promise in Gen 15:14, with great substance. "I will give this people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians;" that is to say, the Egyptians should be so favourably disposed towards them, that when they solicited of their neighbours clothes and ornaments of gold and silver, their request should be granted. "So shall ye spoil the Egyptians." What is here foretold as a promise, the Israelites are directed to do in Exo 11:2-3; and according to Exo 12:35-36, it was really carried out. Immediately before their departure from Egypt, the Israelites asked (ישׁאלוּ) the Egyptians for gold and silver ornaments (כּלים not vessels, either for sacrifice, the house, or the table, but jewels; cf. Gen 24:53; Exo 35:22; Num 31:50) and clothes; and God gave them favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, so that they gave them to them. For אשּׁה שׁאלה, "Let every woman ask of her (female) neighbour and of her that sojourneth in her house" (בּיתהּ גּרת, from which it is evident that the Israelites did not live apart, but along with the Egyptians), we find in Exo 11:2, "Let every man ask of his neighbour, and every woman of her (female) neighbour." - ושׂמתּם, "and put them upon your sons and daughters." על שׂוּם, to put on, applied to clothes and ornaments in Lev 8:8 and Gen 41:42. This command and its execution have frequently given occasion to the opponents of the Scriptures to throw contempt upon the word of God, the asking being regarded as borrowing, and the spoiling of the Egyptians as purloining. At the same time, the attempts made to vindicate this purloining from the wickedness of stealing have been in many respects unsatisfactory.

(Note: For the different views as to the supposed borrowing of the gold and silver vessels, see Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. pp. 419ff., and Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, vol. ii. 319ff.)

But the only meaning of שׁאל is to ask or beg,

(Note: Even in Kg2 5:6; see my commentary on the passage.)

and השׁאיל, which is only met with in Exo 12:36 and Sa1 1:28, does not mean to lend, but to suffer to ask, to hear and grant a request. ישׁאלוּם (Exo 12:36), lit., they allowed them to ask; i.e., "the Egyptians did not turn away the petitioners, as not wanting to listen to them, but received their petition with good-will, and granted their request. No proof can be brought that השׁאיל means to lend, as is commonly supposed; the word occurs again in Sa1 1:28, and there it means to grant or give" (Knobel on Exo 12:36). Moreover the circumstances under which the שׁאל and השׁאיל took place, were quite at variance with the idea of borrowing and lending. For even if Moses had not spoken without reserve of the entire departure of the Israelites, the plagues which followed one after another, and with which the God of the Hebrews gave emphasis to His demand as addressed through Moses to Pharaoh, "Let My people go, that they may serve Me," must have made it evident to every Egyptian, that all this had reference to something greater than a three days' march to celebrate a festival. And under these circumstances no Egyptian could have cherished the thought, that the Israelites were only borrowing the jewels they asked of them, and would return them after the festival. What they gave under such circumstances, they could only give or present without the slightest prospect of restoration. Still less could the Israelites have had merely the thought of borrowing in their mind, seeing that God had said to Moses, "I will give the Israelites favour in the eyes of the Egyptians; and it will come to pass, that when ye go out, ye shall not go out empty" (Exo 3:21). If, therefore, it is "natural to suppose that these jewels were festal vessels with which the Egyptians furnished the poor Israelites for the intended feast," and even if "the Israelites had their thoughts directed with all seriousness to the feast which they were about to celebrate to Jehovah in the desert" (Baumgarten); their request to the Egyptians cannot have referred to any borrowing, nor have presupposed any intention to restore what they received on their return. From the very first the Israelites asked without intending to restore, and the Egyptians granted their request without any hope of receiving back, because God had made their hearts favourably disposed to the Israelites. The expressions את־מצרים נצּלתּם in Exo 3:22, and וינצּלוּ in Exo 12:36, are not at variance with this, but rather require it. For נצל does not mean to purloin, to steal, to take away secretly by cunning and fraud, but to plunder (Ch2 20:25), as both the lxx (σκυλεύειν) and Vulgate (spoliare) have rendered it. Rosenmller, therefore, is correct in his explanation: "Et spoliabitis Aegyptios, ita ut ab Aegyptiis, qui vos tam dura servitute oppresserunt, spolia auferetis." So also is Hengstenberg, who says, "The author represents the Israelites as going forth, laden as it were with the spoils of their formidable enemy, trophies of the victory which God's power had bestowed on their weakness. While he represents the gifts of the Egyptians as spoils which God had distributed to His host (as Israel is called in Exo 12:41), he leads us to observe that the bestowment of these gifts, which outwardly appeared to be the effect of the good-will of the Egyptians, if viewed more deeply, proceeded from another Giver; that the outwardly free act of the Egyptians was effected by an inward divine constraint which they could not withstand" (Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 431). - Egypt had spoiled Israel by the tributary labour so unjustly enforced, and now Israel carried off the spoil of Egypt-a prelude to the victory which the people of God will one day obtain in their conflict with the power of the world (cf. Zac 14:14).

Matthew Henry

On Exodus 3:16-22

Moses is here more particularly instructed in his work, and informed beforehand of his success. 1. He must deal with the elders of Israel, and raise their expectation of a speedy removal to Canaan, Exo 3:16, Exo 3:17. He must repeat to them what God had said to him, as a faithful ambassador. Note, That which ministers have received of the Lord they must deliver to his people, and keep back nothing that is profitable. Lay an emphasis on that, Exo 3:17 : "I have said, I will bring you up; that is enough to satisfy them, I have said it:" hath he spoken, and will he not make it good? With us saying and doing are two things, but they are not so with God, for he is in one mind and who can turn him? "I have said it, and all the world cannot gainsay it. My counsel shall stand." His success with the elders of Israel would be good; so he is told (Exo 3:18): They shall hearken to thy voice, and not thrust thee away as they did forty years ago. He who, by his grace, inclines the heart, and opens the ear, could say beforehand, They shall hearken to thy voice, having determined to make them willing in this day of power. 2. He must deal with the king of Egypt (Exo 3:18), he and the elders of Israel, and in this they must not begin with a demand, but with a humble petition; that gentle and submissive method must be first tried, even with one who, it was certain, would not be wrought upon by it: We beseech thee, let us go. Moreover, they must only beg leave of Pharaoh to go as far as Mount Sinai to worship God, and say nothing to him of going quite away to Canaan; the latter would have been immediately rejected, but the former was a very modest and reasonable request, and his denying it was utterly inexcusable and justified them in the total deserting of his kingdom. If he would not give them leave to go and sacrifice at Sinai, justly did they go without leave to settle in Canaan. Note, The calls and commands which God sends to sinners are so highly reasonable in themselves, and delivered to them in such a gentle winning way, that the mouth of the disobedient must needs be for ever stopped. As to his success with Pharaoh, Moses is here told, (1.) That petitions, and persuasions, and humble remonstrances, would not prevail with him, no, nor a mighty hand stretched out in signs and wonders: I am sure he will not let you go, Exo 3:19. Note, God sends his messengers to those whose hardness and obstinacy he certainly knows and foresees, that it may appear he would have them turn and live. (2.) That plagues should compel him to it: I will smite Egypt, and then he will let you go, Exo 3:20. Note, Those will certainly be broken by the power of God's hand that will not bow to the power of his word; we may be sure that when God judges he will overcome. (3.) That his people should be more kind to them, and furnish them at their departure with abundance of plate and jewels, to their great enriching: I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, Exo 3:21, Exo 3:22. Note, [1.] God sometimes makes the enemies of his people, not only to be at peace with them, but to be kind to them. [2.] God has many ways of balancing accounts between the injured and the injurious, of righting the oppressed, and compelling those that have done wrong to make restitution; for he sits in the throne judging right.

Tyndale Study Notes

On Exodus 3:20-22

3:20-21 God’s power would be obvious, and the Egyptians would not only allow the Hebrews to leave, they would pay them to do so.

Tyndale Open Study Notes · CC BY-SA 4.0