Shall borrow – shall ask. The Egyptians had made the people serve with rigor, and the Israelites when about to leave the country for ever were to ask or claim the jewels as a just, though very inadequate, remuneration for services which had made their lives bitter. The Egyptians would doubtless have refused had not their feelings toward Moses (see Exo 11:3) and the people been changed, under Gods influence, by calamities in which they recognized a divine interposition, which also they rightly attributed to the obstinacy of their own king (see Exo 10:7). The Hebrew women were to make the demand, and were to make it of women, who would of course be especially moved to compliance by the loss of their children, the fear of a recurrence of calamity, perhaps also by a sense of the fitness of the request in connection with a religious festival.

Jewels – Chiefly, trinkets. These ornaments were actually applied to the purpose for which they were probably demanded, being employed in making the vessels of the sanctuary (compare Exo 35:22).

Sojourneth in her house – This indicates a degree of friendly and neighborly contact, in accordance with several indirect notices, and was a natural result of long and peaceable sojourn in the district. The Egyptians did not all necessarily share the feelings of their new king.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 22. Every woman shall borrow] This is certainly not a very correct translation: the original word shaal signifies simply to ask, request, demand, require, inquire, c. 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, Ex 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 , 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 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 pretence 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, Ge 46:1; Ge 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, c.] The word keley we have already seen signifies vessels, instruments, weapons, c., 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 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, 1Sa 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 ( mehashSHALAL) that we have RECOVERED, 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, colours, 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 , I am. On this inscription Plutarch, one of the most intelligent of all the Gentile philosophers, made an express treatise, , 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, , from , negative, and , many, because God is ONE, his nature simple, his essence uncompounded.” Hence he informs us the ancient mode of addressing God was, “EI ‘EN, Thou art One, , for many cannot be attributed to the Divine nature: , ‘ , , , , , in which there is neither first nor last, future nor past, old nor young; ‘ , 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., Know thyself; as if, under the name EI. THOU ART, the Deity designed to excite men to venerate HIM as eternally existing, , 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!

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Whether this was just or no, see Poole “Exo 12:36“.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

22. But every woman shall borrow. (47) Those who consider these means of enriching the people to be but little in accordance with the justice of God, themselves reflect but little how widely that justice of which they speak extends. I acknowledge that it is His attribute to defend every one’s rights, to prohibit theft, to condemn deceit and rapine; but let us see what every one’s property is. Who will boast that he has anything, except what is given him by God? And all is given on this condition, that each one should possess according to His will whatever God pleases, who is free to take away at any moment whatsoever He has given. The Hebrews spoiled the Egyptians; and should the latter complain that an injury is done them, they would argue against God that He had transferred His own free gifts from them to others. Would this complaint be listened to, that God, in whose hands are the ends of the earth, who by His power appoints the bounds of nations, and reduces their kings to poverty, had deprived certain persons of their furniture and jewels? Another defense is set up by some, that the Hebrews took nothing which was not their own, but only the wages which were due to them; because they were iniquitously driven to servile labors, and had subsisted meanly upon what belonged to themselves. And certainly it would have been just that their labor should have been recompensed in some way. But there is no need of weighing the judgment of God by ordinary rules, since we have already seen that all the possessions of the world are His, to distribute them according to His pleasure. Nevertheless I do not thus suppose Him to be without law; for although His power is above all laws, still, because His will is the most certain rule of perfect equity, whatever He does must be perfectly right; and therefore He is free from laws, because He is a law to Himself, and to all. Neither would I simply say with Augustin, (48) that this was a command of God which should not be canvassed but obeyed, because He knows that He commands justly, and that his servants must obediently perform whatever He commands. This indeed is truly said, and yet we must hold fast that higher principle, that, since whatever people call their own they possess only by God’s bounty, there is no juster title to possession than His gift. We will not therefore say that the Hebrew women purloined that which God ordered them to take, and which He chose to bestow upon them; neither will God be accounted unjust in bestowing nothing but what was His own. (49) The word which I have translated “ hospitem, ” or “hostess,” some understand as a “fellow – sojourner;” and this is not very important, because we gather from the other word, that the Egyptians were mixed among the Hebrews. In the end of the verse, because the original expresses, “ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters,” almost all interpreters expound it to mean that they should ornament them; but it seems to me that it only refers to the abundance of the spoil; as much as to say, you shall not only obtain as much as you can carry yourselves, but shall also load your sons and daughters.

(47) Lat. , “et postulabit mulier;” and every woman shall ask. It will be observed that C. has avoided the error of employing the word borrow here. The verb שאל, shal, means simply to ask or request, and cannot properly be rendered borrow, unless the context makes it incontestable that an engagement to return the thing asked for is implied. C. has followed S M. in employing the word postulabit; and apologizes for using hospes in the next clause, where S M. had used cohabitatrix — W

(48) Contra Faustum, lib. 22. cap. 71.

(49) Prof. Hengstenberg quotes this passage from C. , and calls it “the traditional vindication,” — “which leaves quite untouched the point in which the difficulty peculiarly lies.” He also notices the solution of Michaelis, viz., that the Israelites borrowed with the intention of returning the goods; as well as other no less unsatisfactory explanations. His own is, that the idea of a gift, and not a loan, is the only one which either the circumstances of the case or the language itself admits. “They, (the Israelites,)” he says, “asked,” and this reference leads to a contest of asking and giving, in which the latter gains the upper hand. It is immediately connected with “the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians,” and is marked as a consequence of it. The liberal giving of the Egyptians proceeded from the love and good-will which the Lord awakened in their hearts towards Israel. He traces the misapprehension to “an error in the very faulty Alexandrian version, which substitutes lending for giving. Jerome, who commonly follows it, was led by it to a similar mistake, and, through him, Luther, who alludes mostly to his translation — the Vulgate.” — Hengstenberg, vol. 2, pp. 417-432.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(22) Every woman shall borrow.Rather, shall ask (, LXX.; postulabit, Vulg.). That there was really no pretence of borrowing, appears from Exo. 12:33-36, where we find that the jewels were not asked for until the very moment of departure, when the Israelites were being thrust forth, and the people were urgent on them to be gone, certainly neither expecting nor wishing to see them again. Asking for presents is a common practice in the East, and persons who were quitting their homes to set out on a long journey through a strange country would have abundant excuse, if any had been needed, for soliciting aid from their rich neighbours.

Of her neighbour.Egyptians were mingled with the Israelites in Goshen, as we see by Exo. 2:3.

Of her that sojourneth in her house.Rosenmller supposes that Egyptians who rented houses which belonged to the Hebrews are intended; but the expression used is more suitable to lodgers or visitors, (Comp. Job. 19:15.)

Upon your sons.The Egyptian men of the Rameside period wore gold and silver ornaments almost as freely as the women. Their ornaments included armlets, bracelets, anklets, and collars.

Ye shall spoil, i.e., It shall be as if ye had conquered the Egyptians, and spoiled them. Compare the promise made to Abraham (Genesis 15, 14); and for the fulfilment, see below (Exo. 12:35-36).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

22. Every woman shall borrow Literally, ask, for this is always the meaning of the word ; and whether the thing asked for is to be returned or not the context must determine . Thus the thirsty Barak asks water, (Jdg 5:25,) and Gideon asks for the golden earrings of the Ishmaelites, (Jdg 8:26,) evidently not intending to return the things asked for; but the prophet’s widow (2Ki 4:3) asks empty oil vessels of her neighbours, possibly intending to return them . All the circumstances here show that the Israelites did not promise, and that the Egyptians did not expect, that these jewels and garments would ever be returned . See on Exo 11:2, etc .

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Exo 3:22. Every woman shall borrow It should be translated, shall ASK of her neighbour, and of her that sojourns in her house, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, &c. But, for a further justification of this matter, we refer to the event itself, ch. Exo 12:35. It appears by the expression in the text, of her neighbour, and her that sojourneth in her house,that the Hebrews and Egyptians lived intermixed; and so the former might the more easily carry some of the latter along with them, when they left Egypt. See ch. Exo 11:8.

REFLECTIONS.Moses is farther directed in his work.

1. He must assemble the elders of the people, and assure them of the fulfilment of God’s promise; and they shall hearken to it. Note; (1.) The faithful report of God’s word is every minister’s duty. (2.) When we do so, it is God’s work to make it successful, and we have God’s promise to assure us that he will, Mat 28:20.

2. He must speak to Pharaoh; and the request is most reasonable, but Pharaoh will not hearken. Learn hence, The obstinacy of the sinner’s heart, who turns a deaf ear to the kindest pleas and remonstrances.
3. God will bring his people out in spite of Pharaoh, and not only free, but enriched with the spoils of the Egyptians. Learn, (1.) Opposition against God is vain. (2.) Whether we have justice in this world or not, we know the day is near, when God will judge according to truth.

But let us, before we dismiss this chapter, consider this wonderful manifestation of God as a type of the Messiah. The appearances of the Deity, in that age of types, were most generally vouchsafed in such a manner, as to represent some hidden mystery, or important doctrine of the Gospel. They who think, that the flame of fire might signify the pure and spiritual nature of God, who appeared in it, are certainly not mistaken. And it is also not unfitly observed, that the burning bush may represent the state of Israel at that time, who were entangled in the thorny bush of adversity, in which they were near being consumed. But let us draw near, and consider with Moses this great sight with a closer attention; and perhaps it will be found a most significant emblem, both of Jesus Christ who was in the bush, and of the church which is his body, in every age of the world.

And, first, it seems very probable, that this was a prelusive vision both of the future incarnation and sufferings of Jesus Christ. That the bush may represent his human nature, is not unlikely, especially as the prophet Esaias compares him to a tender plant, and root out of a dry ground, in which, to the eye of sense, no form, comeliness, or beauty should be found. That the flame of fire may adumbrate or typify his Divine Nature, will be no less evident, when we consider how often the fiery element is, in the Scripture-style, an emblem of the Deity: yea, it is expressly said, “Our God is a consuming fire,” Heb 12:29. That the union of the flame of fire with the bush may denote the union of the Godhead and the Manhood, is not at all absurd to suppose: for why should Moses, in his dying benediction, be directed to speak of “the goodwill of Him that dwelt in the bush?” Deu 33:16. May it not signify, that the continuance of the flame of fire in the bush for a time, was a type of the fulness of the Godhead dwelling for ever in the man Christ Jesus? As the bush was in the fire, and the fire in the bush; yet still they were distinct things, though joined thus in one: even so the Man Christ Jesus is in the God, and the God is in the Man, though both these Natures, so mysteriously united, do still retain their own distinct properties. And if Moses was struck with admiration, that the bush was not consumed, though in such near neighbourhood with ruddy flame; much more may we be overwhelmed with amazement, to think how a portion of our frail humanity lives for ever in a state of the nearest approach unto, and most ineffable union with the glorious Godhead, in whose unveiled presence we mortals could not live, and even the angels cover their faces with their wings. Here also may be discerned a shadow of those direful sufferings, by which the Son of God was to expiate our sins. For the wrath of God is in innumerable instances in Scripture compared to fire: and Jesus Christ, who dwelt in the bush, dwelt also in the fierce fire of God’s indignation against sin, which flamed most intensely against him, while he bore the sins of many, and was compassed by this fire all the days of his humbled life: yet he was not consumed, because his Deity, like the Angel in the bush, supported his humanity, and bade him be a glorious Conqueror.

From the sufferings of the head, let us descend to the sufferings of the body. Let the bush be an emblem of the church, to which it may be compared on account of its weak, obscure, and contemptible state in the esteem of worldly men, who are taken with nothing but what dazzles the eye of sense. For though there is a real glory, and a spiritual magnificence, in this holy society, she cannot compare with earthly kingdoms in outward splendour, any more than a bush in the wilderness can vie with a cedar in Lebanon; for besides the comparative paucity of her true members, they are commonly to be found rather in smoky cottages than proud palaces; and sometimes they have been found in prisons, dungeons, dens, and caves of the earth. Let the fire in which the bush burned, signify the fiery trials to which the church has been no stranger in all ages. Sometimes, she has burned in the fire of persecution; and sometimes, of division. But as the bush was not consumed, so neither has the church been destroyed. In vain shall the great red dragon persecute this woman clothed with the sun; for a place is prepared for her in the wilderness by the great God, and there no necessary provision shall be wanting. How many times have bloody and deceitful men conspired her destruction? When were incendiaries wanting to foment and kindle those fires, which, without the immediate interposition of the Keeper of Israel, would certainly have wasted unto destruction, and completed the utter extinction of this humble bush? What society, but this alone, could have subsisted to this day, in the midst of a hating world? Where are now the mighty empires of antiquity? They are but an empty name, live only in history, having fallen to pieces by their own weight, or been crushed by bloody war. But the church of Christ, though she has undergone many revolutions, remains, and will remain, when the consumption determined by the Lord of Hosts shall come upon all the earth.
Ask you the reason? The angel of the Lord is in the bush; and though persecuted, she is not forsaken: therefore shall the fiery trials, instead of consuming her, serve to refine her, and add unto her glory, as the bush was only brightened by the flame.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

The word here translated borrow, might have been rendered crave or beg. Eze 39:10 .

REFLECTIONS

Enquire, O my soul, when did the visions of God begin in thy experience! And when did the Lord Jesus call to thee, as to Moses, by name; and make himself known to thee otherwise than he doth to the world? Oh! for special, distinguishing tokens of the divine love and faithfulness.

Reader! learn from that part of the life of Moses which hath been already brought before you in this and the foregoing chapter, how much more suited a life of retirement is for the enjoyment of communion with God, than a life of bustle. Moses saw and learnt more of God at the back part of a desert, than all the forty years before, in which he had been educated in a court.

But principally in this Chapter, let neither the writer or reader overlook the typical representation here made, of the Lord Jesus coming down from heaven to redeem his people. Dearest Saviour! thou hast surely seen, and heard, and known the afflictions of thy people, which are in spiritual Egypt. Oh! thou great, thou Almighty I AM, that art the same yesterday, and today, and forever, give me to rejoice in the firmness and unchangeableness of all covenant mercies: in the Father’s gift, the Saviour’s purchase, and the blessed Spirit’s application! How precious is it to reflect, that when by reason of the bondage and oppression of sin, our souls are bowed down and we are tempted to cry out, our strength and our hope are perished from the Lord; thou rememberest us in our low estate, for thy mercy endureth forever. Be thou still the great I AM to me, and with me, and for me. May I have the grace forever to know, to live upon, and to rejoice in, this great I AM, in all covenant relations that being brought up out of the Egyptian bondage of sin and death, I may, at length, through the same Almighty grace, be brought into the glorious Canaan of everlasting rest.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Exo 3:22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put [them] upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

Ver. 22. Ye shall spoil the Egyptians. ] By a special dispensation, which none could grant but the law maker. So Eze 39:10 . These jewels did afterwards become a snare to the Israelites in the matter of the golden calf.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

borrow. This is a most unfortunate rendering. Hebrew. sha’al, to ask. Out of 168 occurrences, only six times “borrow”, but 162 ask, beg, require, &c. Compare Exo 11:2; Exo 12:35, Exo 12:35-36. Psa 2:8. 1Sa 1:20; 1Sa 8:10. Gen 24:47, Gen 24:57; Gen 32:17; Gen 43:7. 1Ki 3:11.

jewels: or articles. Compare Gen 15:14 and Exo 3:21 above.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

borrow The use of little things. Cf. Jdg 3:31; 1Ki 17:12-16; Joh 6:9; 1Co 1:25-31

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

But: Exo 11:2, Exo 12:35, Exo 12:36, Gen 15:14, Psa 105:37

borrow: Or, rather ask or demand, as the word [Strong’s H7592] properly signifies; and is so rendered by the LXX, Vulgate, and Geneva and Barker’s Bible: the other ancient versions are the same as the Hebrew.

spoil: Job 27:16, Job 27:17, Pro 13:22, Isa 33:1, Eze 39:10

the Egyptians: or, Egypt

Reciprocal: Gen 24:53 – jewels 2Ch 20:25 – precious jewels Eze 16:7 – excellent ornaments 1Pe 3:3 – that

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Exo 3:22. Every woman shall ask, , shaalah, (not borrow,) jewels. And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians God sometimes makes the enemies of his people not only to be at peace with them, but to be kind to them. And he 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3:22 {p} But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put [them] upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

(p) This example may not be followed generally: though at God’s commandment they did it justly, receiving some recompence for their labours.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes