John Calvin Commentary Exodus 3:22

"But every woman shall ask of her neighbor, 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 despoil the Egyptians." — Exodus 3:22 (ASV)

But every woman shall borrow.⁴⁷ Those who consider these means of enriching the people to be little in accordance with the justice of God, themselves reflect little on how widely the justice they speak of extends.

I acknowledge that it is His attribute to defend everyone’s rights, to prohibit theft, and to condemn deceit and plunder; but let us see what everyone’s property is. Who will boast that he has anything, except what is given to 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 whatever He has given.

The Hebrews spoiled the Egyptians; and if the latter were to complain that an injury was done to them, they would be arguing 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 boundaries of nations and reduces their kings to poverty, had deprived certain people of their furniture and jewels?

Some offer another defense: that the Hebrews took nothing that was not their own, but only the wages due to them, because they were unjustly driven to servile labor and had subsisted meagerly on what belonged to them. And certainly, it would have been just that their labor should have been recompensed in some way.

But there is no need to weigh 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 therefore 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. Therefore, He is free from laws, because He is a law to Himself and to all.

Nor would I simply say with Augustine,⁴⁸ that this was a command of God that should not be debated but obeyed, because He knows that He commands justly, and that His servants must obediently perform whatever He commands. This is indeed truly said, yet we must hold fast to that higher principle: since whatever people call their own they possess only by God’s bounty, there is no more just title to possession than His gift.

We will not, therefore, say that the Hebrew women stole what God ordered them to take and what He chose to bestow upon them; nor will God be considered unjust in bestowing nothing but what was His own.⁴⁹

The word that 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.

At the end of the verse, because the original expresses, you shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters, almost all interpreters explain it to mean that they should adorn them. But it seems to me that it only refers to the abundance of the spoil, as if 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 ., 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 , 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 , 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 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 , 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 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.” —. 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., vol. 2, pp. 417-432.