Answ. The word[[3]] which we render borrowed, might as well be rendered asked, or demanded. And so we must suppose, that the Egyptians were so desirous that the Israelites should be gone, apprehending, that if they continued, they were all dead men, that they might have of them whatever they demanded, as necessary for this expedition; and, if they came back again, as they supposed they should, they would be obliged to return them. If this be the sense of the Hebrew word, there is no difficulty in the text, nor any appearance of the breach of this Commandment.
But since the sense of the word is indeterminate, signifying to demand, as well as to borrow, as was before observed, God’s order imports the former; though they might understand it in the latter, as denoting a borrowing with a design to restore. Therefore, let it be considered,
(1.) That they did this by God’s command, who has a right to take away the goods that one possesses, if he pleases, and give them to another; for he takes away nothing but his own. Now, that they had his warrant for borrowing or demanding these things of the Egyptians, appears from the second verse.
(2.) The reason why God ordered them to do this, if we look beyond his absolute sovereignty, was, because the Israelites deserved them as wages, for their hard service; and this might be reckoned a reward of the good offices that Joseph had done to that kingdom; which had been long since forgotten.
(3.) As to what concerns the Israelites, it is probable, they expected nothing else but to return again, and restore to the owners what they had borrowed of them, after they had sacrificed to God in the wilderness; at least, they were wholly passive, and disposed to follow the divine conduct, by the hand of Moses. And when they were in the wilderness, they could not restore what they had borrowed, since the owners thereof, as is more than probable, were drowned in the Red Sea, whose revenge and covetousness, as well as Pharaoh’s orders, prompted them to follow them. Or if some of the owners might have been heard of, as yet surviving, their right to what was borrowed of them, was forfeited, by reason of the hostile pursuit of Pharaoh and his hosts, which put them into a state of war.
This may lead us farther to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the many ravages and plunders that are generally made by armies engaged in war; whether they may be reckoned a breach of this Commandment? And,
[1.] It is beyond dispute, that, if the war be unjust, as all the blood that is shed, is murder, or a breach of the sixth Commandment; so all the damage that is done by burning of houses, or taking away the goods of those against whom it is carried on, is a breach of this Commandment. But,
[2.] If we suppose the war to be just, and the damage done only to those who are immediately concerned in it, and that it is an expedient to procure peace; it is unquestionably lawful, and no breach of this Commandment. Thus when the Israelites were commanded to destroy the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, as criminals, they were admitted to seize on the spoil of other nations, who were remote from them, Deut. xx. 14, 15. when conquered by them.
[3.] As for those plunders and robberies which are committed on private persons, who are not concerned in the war any otherwise than as subjects of the government, against which it is undertaken; and especially, if their loss has no direct tendency to procure peace; this can hardly be justified from being a breach of this Commandment.
IV. This Commandment is also broken by oppression; whereby the rich may be said to rob, and even swallow up the poor, Psal. xiv. 4. Psal. x. 9. Micah iii. 2, 3. Now there are various ways by which persons may be said to oppress others.