Here is another example of how possessions may cause social divisions. Borrowing an object is accompanied by the social obligation of returning it. Not doing so can also create strife and division. This is true to a small extent even within a family, but when the borrowing occurs across greater social distance, the potential danger to the community is greater. A borrowed but unreturned item can polarize two clans if the borrowing occurred between them. Each clan is obligated to support its own kin against outsiders, and the individual act of borrowing can escalate to a communal issue.
Benjamin therefore teaches that the one who borrows but does not return has committed a sin. However, he also notes that “perhaps thoushalt cause thy neighbor to commit sin” (italics mine). How is it that the lender causes the borrower to sin? The answer comes in the way we see social obligations. If we lend something to a spouse or a sibling, our fear of losing the item is diminished. Both by perhaps physical and certainly social proximity the item is not “lost” to us. However, the more distant the loan, the fewer social ties ameliorate any possible problems. If we loan to a stranger we not only encounter a greater physical separation, we have a greater social separation. Therefore, if we loan in cases where we have more emotional attachment to that which is loaned than we do to the borrower, we have created a situation that may easily escalate into social conflict (which is what Benjamin is trying to prevent).
It is in this context that we should see the command not to borrow in Deuteronomy: “The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow” (Deut. 28:12). In the case of Israel, they are allowed to create relationships of obligation where other nations are obliged to Israel, but should not create a situation where they are obliged to another nation. The social distance between nations is among the greatest known in the ancient world, and was certainly a point of great contention. Contrast this, however, with the instruction from Matthew: “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:41–44).
The instruction on borrowing occurs in verse 42. I have included the surrounding context to make the social situation more visible. The Lord is teaching a way for the people to deal with their particular society, and that it is to treat their enemies as families. He specifically reverses the normal expectation that one would “love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy” with “love thy enemies.” In other words, treat the enemies as though they were neighbors and subject to the same internal rules. Hence, one would allow someone to borrow if they were family or close, but typically one would not treat an enemy in this way. Just as Benjamin was creating a new society, the Lord was attempting to create a new social reality. For both Benjamin and the Lord, that society was one that extended the boundaries of family outward to encompass larger and larger numbers of people.