Does the Bible ever approve of taking what belongs to others?

The King James word ‘borrow’ is misleading. The Hebrew verb sha’al (Strong’s H7592) ordinarily means ‘ask’; it means ‘borrow’ only where a loan is plainly in view, as in Exodus 22:14. Modern versions translate Exodus 3:22 “every woman shall ask of her neighbor” (WEB), and Adam Clarke pointed out long ago that the Septuagint and the Vulgate also read ‘ask’. Nothing is said about lending or giving back. In Exodus 12:36 another form of the same verb means that the Egyptians granted the request: “they let them have what they asked” (WEB). By then the Egyptians knew Israel was leaving for good; they were urging them to go (12:33). God had given Israel “favour in the sight of the Egyptians” (12:36), and the gifts were given freely.

‘Spoil’ (natsal) is a figure of speech here. Israel walked out of slavery laden like an army coming home with plunder, without fighting anyone. The gifts also fulfilled God’s word to Abraham that his descendants would “come out with great substance” (Genesis 15:14), and they matched the rule the law later laid down for freed slaves: “thou shalt not let him go away empty” (Deuteronomy 15:13). After generations of forced labour (Exodus 1:11-14), a parting gift of jewellery and clothing was a modest wage, freely paid. The commandment against stealing is untouched. The lists also cite Ezekiel 39:10 and Nahum 2:9, but these foretell God’s judgment on violent nations, who would be plundered as they had plundered others; they give no permission to steal.

God’s right as owner

Thomas Aquinas argued that taking property is not theft when its owner is justly due to lose it. The Egyptians’ goods were made over to Israel by God’s own sentence, so taking them at his command was not theft (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 100, a. 8). On this view the commandment would stand even if the goods had not been freely given.