Borrowing
VIEW:48 DATA:01-04-2020
BORROWING.See Debt.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
bor?ō-ing:
(1) In the Old Testament period loans were not of a commercial nature, i.e. they were not granted to enable a man to start or run a business. They were really a form of charity, and were made by the lender only to meet the pressure of poverty. To the borrower they were esteemed a form of misfortune (Deu_28:12 f), and by the lender a form of beneficence. Hence, the tone of the Mosaic legislation on the subject.
(2) Laying interest upon the poor of Israel was forbidden in all the codes (see Exo_22:25 (JE); Deu_23:19; Lev_25:36 H), because it was looked upon as making unwarranted profit out of a brother's distress: ?If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest ... and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.?
(3) The Law, however, allowed interest to be taken of a foreigner, or non-Jew (Deu_23:20 : ?Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest?; compare Deu_15:3); and even among Jews pledges were allowed under limitations, or taken against the law (Deu_24:10; compare Job_24:2, Job_24:3 ?There are that remove the landmarks ... they take the widow's ox for a pledge?). In Deu_15:1 there is a remarkable law providing a ?release? by the creditor every ?seven years,? a ?letting drop of loans? (see Driver in the place cited.). In Exo_3:22, the King James Version ?shall borrow? is rendered ?shall ask? in the Revised Version (British and American).
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
On the general subject, as a matter of law or precept, see Loan.
In Exo_12:35, we are told that the Israelites, when on the point of their departure from Egypt, 'borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment;' and it is added, that 'the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.' This was in pursuance of a Divine command which had been given to them through Moses (Exo_3:22; Exo_11:2). This has suggested a difficulty, seeing that the Israelites had certainly no intention to return to Egypt, or to restore the valuables which they thus obtained from their Egyptian 'neighbors.' The general acceptation of the word rendered borrow is to request or demand, and some have affirmed that it should be so rendered here?that the Israelites did not borrow the valuables, but demanded them of their Egyptian neighbors, as an indemnity for their services, and for the hard and bitter bondage which they had endured. To this it has been objected, that the Israelites had been public servants, rendering certain onerous services to the state, but not in personal bondage to individual Egyptians, whom, nevertheless, they, according to this account, mulcted of much valuable property in compensation for wrongs committed by the state. And that this mode of extorting private and partial compensation for public wrong will not stand the test of our rules of public morality, any more than that of borrowing without the intention to restore. Others are inclined to adhere to the old interpretation, that the Israelites actually did borrow the valuables of the Egyptians, with the understanding, on the part of the latter, that they were to be restored. Turn which way we will in this matter, there is but a choice of difficulties; and this leads us to suspect that we are not acquainted with all the facts bearing on the case, in the absence of which we spend our strength for nought in laboring to explain it. One of the difficulties is somewhat softened by the conjecture of Professor Bush, who, in his Note on Exo_11:2, observes, 'We are by no means satisfied that Moses was required to command the people to practice the device here mentioned. We regard it rather, as far as they were concerned, as the mere prediction of a fact that should occur.'
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
Borrowing
On the general subject, as a matter of law or precept, SEE LOAN.
In Exo_12:35, we are told that the Israelites, when on the point of their departure from Egypt, "borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment;" and it is added that "the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians." This was in pursuance of a divine command which had been given to them through Moses (Exo_3:22; Exo_11:2). This has suggested a difficulty, seeing that the Israelites had certainly no intention to return to Egypt, or to restore the valuables which they thus obtained from their Egyptian "neighbors." (See Justi, Ueber die den Egqptern von d. Israeliten bei ihrer Abreise abgeforderten Gerathe, Frkft. a. M. 1777; Danvill. Rev. Sept. 1864; Ev. Quar. Rev. [Gettysb.] Jan. 1865.) It is admitted that the general acceptation of the word here (hut not usually elsewhere) rendered borrow (שָׁאִל, shaal'), is to request or demand; although there are places (Exo_22:14; 1Sa_1:28; 2Ki_6:5) where borrowing is certainly denoted by it. Some therefore allege that the Israelites did not borrow the valuables, but demanded them of their Egyptian neighbors, as an indemnity for their services, and for the hard and bitter bondage which they had endured. But this does not appear to us to mend the matter much; for the Israelites had been public servants, rendering certain onerous services to the state, but not in personal bondage to individual Egyptians, whom nevertheless they, according to this account, mulcted of much valuable property in compensation for wrongs committed by the state. These individual Egyptians also were selected not with reference to their being implicated more than others in the wrong treatment of the Israelites: they were those who happened to be their " neighbors," and, as such, open more than others to the exaction. Hence we incline to the interpretation (Clarke, Comment. on Exo_3:22) that the Israelites simply requested the valuables of the Egyptians, without any special (except a tacit) understanding on the part of the latter that they were to be restored. This agrees with the fact that the professed object of the Hebrews was not to quit Egypt forever, but merely to withdraw for a few days into the desert, that they might there celebrate a high festival to their God. SEE EXODE.
At such festivals it was usual among all nations to appear in their gayest attire, and decked with many ornaments; and this suggests the grounds on which the Israelites might rest the application to their Egyptian neighbors for the loan of their jewels and rich raiment. Their avowed intention to return in a few days must have made the request appear very reasonable to the Egyptians; and, in fact, the Orientals are, and always have been, remarkably ready and liberal in lending their ornaments to one another on occasions of religious solemnity or public ceremony. It would seem, also, as if the avowed intention to return precluded the Hebrews from any other ground than that of borrowing; for if they had required or demanded these things as compensations or gifts, it would have amounted to an admission that they were quitting the country altogether. Turn which way we will in this matter, there is but a choice of difficulties; and this leads us to suspect that we are not acquainted with all the facts bearing on the case, in the absence of which we spend our strength for naught in laboring to explain it. One of the difficulties is somewhat softened by the conjecture of Professor Bush, who, in his Note on Exo_11:2, observes, "We are by no means satisfied that Moses was required to command the people to practise the device here mentioned. We regard it rather, as far as they were concerned, as the mere prediction of a fact that should occur." It will further relieve the difficulty if we consider that it was a principle universally recognised in ancient times, that all property belonging to their opponents in the hands of any nation against which war was declared became forfeited; and, in accordance with this supposed right, the jewels, precious vases, etc., which were borrowed by the Hebrews from the Egyptians, became, when Pharaoh commenced war upon them, legal spoil. It is evident that the Egyptians were but too glad to get rid of their dangerous captives at last to hesitate, or even stipulate for a restoration of the ornaments; nor did the Hebrews themselves at the time positively know that they should never return them.-Hengstenberg, Pentat. ii, 417 sq.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
bor?ō-ing:
(1) In the Old Testament period loans were not of a commercial nature, i.e. they were not granted to enable a man to start or run a business. They were really a form of charity, and were made by the lender only to meet the pressure of poverty. To the borrower they were esteemed a form of misfortune (Deu_28:12 f), and by the lender a form of beneficence. Hence, the tone of the Mosaic legislation on the subject.
(2) Laying interest upon the poor of Israel was forbidden in all the codes (see Exo_22:25 (JE); Deu_23:19; Lev_25:36 H), because it was looked upon as making unwarranted profit out of a brother's distress: ?If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest ... and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.?
(3) The Law, however, allowed interest to be taken of a foreigner, or non-Jew (Deu_23:20 : ?Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest?; compare Deu_15:3); and even among Jews pledges were allowed under limitations, or taken against the law (Deu_24:10; compare Job_24:2, Job_24:3 ?There are that remove the landmarks ... they take the widow's ox for a pledge?). In Deu_15:1 there is a remarkable law providing a ?release? by the creditor every ?seven years,? a ?letting drop of loans? (see Driver in the place cited.). In Exo_3:22, the King James Version ?shall borrow? is rendered ?shall ask? in the Revised Version (British and American).
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
On the general subject, as a matter of law or precept, see Loan.
In Exo_12:35, we are told that the Israelites, when on the point of their departure from Egypt, 'borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment;' and it is added, that 'the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.' This was in pursuance of a Divine command which had been given to them through Moses (Exo_3:22; Exo_11:2). This has suggested a difficulty, seeing that the Israelites had certainly no intention to return to Egypt, or to restore the valuables which they thus obtained from their Egyptian 'neighbors.' The general acceptation of the word rendered borrow is to request or demand, and some have affirmed that it should be so rendered here?that the Israelites did not borrow the valuables, but demanded them of their Egyptian neighbors, as an indemnity for their services, and for the hard and bitter bondage which they had endured. To this it has been objected, that the Israelites had been public servants, rendering certain onerous services to the state, but not in personal bondage to individual Egyptians, whom, nevertheless, they, according to this account, mulcted of much valuable property in compensation for wrongs committed by the state. And that this mode of extorting private and partial compensation for public wrong will not stand the test of our rules of public morality, any more than that of borrowing without the intention to restore. Others are inclined to adhere to the old interpretation, that the Israelites actually did borrow the valuables of the Egyptians, with the understanding, on the part of the latter, that they were to be restored. Turn which way we will in this matter, there is but a choice of difficulties; and this leads us to suspect that we are not acquainted with all the facts bearing on the case, in the absence of which we spend our strength for nought in laboring to explain it. One of the difficulties is somewhat softened by the conjecture of Professor Bush, who, in his Note on Exo_11:2, observes, 'We are by no means satisfied that Moses was required to command the people to practice the device here mentioned. We regard it rather, as far as they were concerned, as the mere prediction of a fact that should occur.'
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
Borrowing
On the general subject, as a matter of law or precept, SEE LOAN.
In Exo_12:35, we are told that the Israelites, when on the point of their departure from Egypt, "borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment;" and it is added that "the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians." This was in pursuance of a divine command which had been given to them through Moses (Exo_3:22; Exo_11:2). This has suggested a difficulty, seeing that the Israelites had certainly no intention to return to Egypt, or to restore the valuables which they thus obtained from their Egyptian "neighbors." (See Justi, Ueber die den Egqptern von d. Israeliten bei ihrer Abreise abgeforderten Gerathe, Frkft. a. M. 1777; Danvill. Rev. Sept. 1864; Ev. Quar. Rev. [Gettysb.] Jan. 1865.) It is admitted that the general acceptation of the word here (hut not usually elsewhere) rendered borrow (שָׁאִל, shaal'), is to request or demand; although there are places (Exo_22:14; 1Sa_1:28; 2Ki_6:5) where borrowing is certainly denoted by it. Some therefore allege that the Israelites did not borrow the valuables, but demanded them of their Egyptian neighbors, as an indemnity for their services, and for the hard and bitter bondage which they had endured. But this does not appear to us to mend the matter much; for the Israelites had been public servants, rendering certain onerous services to the state, but not in personal bondage to individual Egyptians, whom nevertheless they, according to this account, mulcted of much valuable property in compensation for wrongs committed by the state. These individual Egyptians also were selected not with reference to their being implicated more than others in the wrong treatment of the Israelites: they were those who happened to be their " neighbors," and, as such, open more than others to the exaction. Hence we incline to the interpretation (Clarke, Comment. on Exo_3:22) that the Israelites simply requested the valuables of the Egyptians, without any special (except a tacit) understanding on the part of the latter that they were to be restored. This agrees with the fact that the professed object of the Hebrews was not to quit Egypt forever, but merely to withdraw for a few days into the desert, that they might there celebrate a high festival to their God. SEE EXODE.
At such festivals it was usual among all nations to appear in their gayest attire, and decked with many ornaments; and this suggests the grounds on which the Israelites might rest the application to their Egyptian neighbors for the loan of their jewels and rich raiment. Their avowed intention to return in a few days must have made the request appear very reasonable to the Egyptians; and, in fact, the Orientals are, and always have been, remarkably ready and liberal in lending their ornaments to one another on occasions of religious solemnity or public ceremony. It would seem, also, as if the avowed intention to return precluded the Hebrews from any other ground than that of borrowing; for if they had required or demanded these things as compensations or gifts, it would have amounted to an admission that they were quitting the country altogether. Turn which way we will in this matter, there is but a choice of difficulties; and this leads us to suspect that we are not acquainted with all the facts bearing on the case, in the absence of which we spend our strength for naught in laboring to explain it. One of the difficulties is somewhat softened by the conjecture of Professor Bush, who, in his Note on Exo_11:2, observes, "We are by no means satisfied that Moses was required to command the people to practise the device here mentioned. We regard it rather, as far as they were concerned, as the mere prediction of a fact that should occur." It will further relieve the difficulty if we consider that it was a principle universally recognised in ancient times, that all property belonging to their opponents in the hands of any nation against which war was declared became forfeited; and, in accordance with this supposed right, the jewels, precious vases, etc., which were borrowed by the Hebrews from the Egyptians, became, when Pharaoh commenced war upon them, legal spoil. It is evident that the Egyptians were but too glad to get rid of their dangerous captives at last to hesitate, or even stipulate for a restoration of the ornaments; nor did the Hebrews themselves at the time positively know that they should never return them.-Hengstenberg, Pentat. ii, 417 sq.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags