Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
46 Old Testament

Plundering the Egyptians

Exod 3:21–22; 11:2–3; 12:35–36

The Difficulty

Before the exodus, God instructs Israelite women to “ask” their Egyptian neighbors for silver, gold, and clothing, so that “you shall plunder the Egyptians” (Exod 3:22; 12:36). The Israelites do so, and the Egyptians, favorably disposed, hand over their valuables. Critics (and some ancient skeptics) charged that God orchestrated a fraud — borrowing under false pretenses and absconding — making the Almighty the author of a swindle.

Responses

Just Wages for Generations of Slavery

Tradition: Traditional / Theological Summary: The transfer is back-pay and reparation for centuries of unpaid forced labor, not theft.

Israel had built Egypt’s store-cities without compensation. The “plunder” is restitution owed to the oppressed, a principle later codified in releasing servants “not empty-handed” (Deut 15:13–14). What looks like deception is the just settling of a long-overdue account, given freely by Egyptians moved (by God) to favor.

Strengths

  • Fits the biblical principle of not sending freed servants away empty
  • Frames the act as restorative justice rather than dishonesty

Weaknesses

  • The Hebrew verb “plunder/despoil” still carries martial overtones
  • Reparation does not by itself remove the question of how the goods were requested

Further Reading

  • Douglas Stuart, Exodus (New American Commentary, 2006)
  • Terence Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation, 1991)

A Gift, Not a Trick

Tradition: Lexical / Exegetical Summary: The text says the Egyptians willingly gave; the word usually rendered “borrow/ask” simply means “request,” with no promise of return.

Exod 12:36 states the LORD “gave the people favor… so that they let them have what they asked.” The older KJV “borrow” overtranslates the neutral verb sha’al (“to ask”). There is no recorded pledge to return the items; the Egyptians, eager to be rid of Israel after the plagues, granted the request outright. No deception is actually narrated.

Strengths

  • Removes the problem at the lexical root (“ask,” not “borrow”)
  • Matches the narrated willingness of the Egyptians

Weaknesses

  • The military connotation of “despoil” remains in the framing verses
  • Some still hear a divinely planned ruse in the foreknowledge of v. 3:22

Further Reading

  • Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes, 1967)
  • John Currid, Exodus (EP Study Commentary, 2014)

Theological Sign: The Despoiling of a Defeated Power

Tradition: Canonical / Symbolic Summary: The “plundering” dramatizes God’s victory over Egypt and her gods, equipping Israel for worship.

In ANE terms, the conquered surrender their treasure to the victor; here the LORD, having judged Egypt’s gods through the plagues, transfers their wealth to his redeemed people. Much of it later furnishes the tabernacle (Exod 35). The episode is less an ethics case study than a portrait of the exodus as cosmic triumph and the spoils as material for true worship.

Strengths

  • Integrates the act into the exodus-as-victory theme
  • Explains the later use of the gold for the tabernacle

Weaknesses

  • Addresses the symbolism more than the surface moral question
  • Depends on reading martial-theological intent into the scene

Further Reading

  • Peter Enns, Exodus (NIV Application Commentary, 2000)
  • Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (Old Testament Library, 1974)