Exodus 12:36 Commentary: God's Justice and the Plunder of Egypt

Exodus 12:36 sits at the climax of the ten plagues. The previous chapter records the death of Egypt’s firstborn at midnight, a blow so devastating that Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and told them to leave at once, “and bless me also” (Exodus 12:32). The Egyptians were urgent to send Israel away, crying “We are all dead men” (Exodus 12:33). Into this panic, Israel asked for silver, gold and clothing, just as God had instructed Moses earlier (Exodus 3:21-22; 11:2-3).

The items likely served the worship God required, a festival in the wilderness (Exodus 10:9). The same Hebrew root sha’al appears in Exodus 3:22 and 11:2, where women ask their neighbors for valuables. This was a planned, commanded action, not a last-minute improvisation.

Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt, much of it under forced labor. The Egyptians had gained enormous wealth from their unpaid work. The spoil, then, was not arbitrary plunder but a God-ordained rebalancing. The account in Jubilees 48:18 and early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus read it as partial compensation for what the Hebrews left behind. The “mixed multitude” that left with Israel (Exodus 12:38) also benefited, showing the wide scope of God’s deliverance.

Poole’s annotations note that the Egyptians’ hearts were softened by the plagues, making them willing to give. God’s promise to Abraham was kept: “Afterward they will come out with great wealth” (Genesis 15:14). The exodus was both rescue and reparation.

The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Exodus 12:36. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts. The main translational variation lies in how to render the verb sha’al, as ‘lent’ (KJV) or ‘let them have’ (WEB, ASV, BSB), but this is a semantic rather than a textual difference.

Early Jewish and Christian writers read this verse as just compensation for oppression. The Book of Jubilees (2nd century BC) states the Hebrews “despoiled the Egyptians” because of their long servitude. Philo of Alexandria saw the gifts as lawful wages for slave labor. Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, cited in the Cambridge Bible, also viewed the plunder as partial payment for what the Egyptians owed. During the Reformation, Matthew Henry framed it as borrowing that became spoil through God’s design, while Calvin argued God’s command overrides human moral objections. Modern commentators continue to debate the ethical dimension, but all affirm that the narrative presents God as the one who gave favor, making the outcome a matter of divine justice rather than human theft.

Three-point outline

1. God gives favor. The verb natan (gave) shows God as the source. He disposed Egyptian hearts to grant the request. This is the same verb used for Joseph (Genesis 39:21) and Daniel (Daniel 1:9). God controls human responses.
2. God provides compensation. The “plunder” was not theft but just repayment for centuries of unpaid labor (Barnes, Gill). God does not forget the wrongs done to His people.
3. God keeps promises. The wealth fulfilled the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:14). The exodus is not only about freedom from bondage but about entering the promised land with provision.

Five-point outline

1. The context of judgment. The tenth plague broke Egypt’s resistance. The spoil follows the Passover, when God passed over Israel’s homes.
2. The sovereignty of God over human hearts. “Yahweh gave the people favor”, the Egyptians’ generosity was God’s work.
3. The fulfillment of prophecy. Exodus 3:21, 22 and Genesis 15:14 are now realized.
4. The nature of the transaction. Commentators disagree whether it was a gift or loan, but all see it as divinely authorized. The final word “plundered” (natsal) implies stripping spoil from an enemy.
5. The moral question. No command against stealing is violated because God, who owns all, directed the transfer. It was just compensation, not covetous gain.

Illustration hooks

• A worker who has been underpaid for years finally receives back wages plus interest after a court ruling. The payment feels like a windfall but is really justice delayed.
• A family forced to leave their home in a hurry receives help from neighbors who give them money and supplies, not because they are generous, but because the situation compels it.
• A victorious sports team wins a trophy and prize money that had been promised for years. The celebration includes the resources to continue.

Questions your congregation is asking

• Did God really command the Israelites to “borrow” and not return? Doesn’t that violate honesty?
• If God can make Egyptians give away their wealth, why doesn’t He provide for believers in financial need today?
• Does this passage justify Christians taking from unbelievers? Where is the line?

This verse invites us to see God’s sovereignty and justice in the details of the exodus. The Israelites were slaves; the Egyptians were oppressors. Yet God turned the oppressors into providers. Read Exodus 12:31, 36 aloud together, then work through the questions below.

Discussion questions

1. What did the Israelites ask for, and why did the Egyptians give it? (See also Exodus 3:21, 22, 11:2, 3.)
2. The Hebrew word sha’al can mean “ask” or “borrow.” How does the context of the tenth plague (Exodus 12:29, 33) affect which meaning fits best?
3. Barnes calls the spoil “a moderate remuneration for long service.” Does this description match your understanding of justice? Why or why not?
4. How does God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:14 shape your reading of this verse?
5. Some Christians struggle with the morality of the plunder. How would you respond to someone who says the Israelites stole?
6. This passage emphasizes God “giving favor.” Where else in Scripture do you see God changing hearts of enemies (Proverbs 16:7, Daniel 1:9)?
7. If God can provide for His people through unlikely means, what does that mean for how you pray about material needs?