The First Stages of Their Journey (Exodus 12:37 to Exodus 13:22).
The journey from Egypt now commencing we are informed of the quantity of those leaving and the connection backwards with when they first entered Egypt. This is then followed by instructions concerning who in future will be able to participate in the Passover. This had become very important in view of the mixed multitude (peoples of many nations) who accompanied them. As a result of the Passover their firstborn sons and beasts had been spared so regulations concerning the firstborn are laid down, together with those concerning the accompanying feast which was even then in process. And following that we are given information about the initial stages of their journey.
It may be analysed as follows:
a The journey commences (Exodus 12:37-42).
b The observance of the Passover and who may take part in it (Exodus 12:43-51).
b Regulations concerning the firstborn and the feast of unleavened bread (Exodus 13:1-16).
a First details of the journey (Exodus 13:17-22).
It will be noted that in ‘a' the initial commencement of the journey is paralleled with its first stage, while in ‘b' the regulations concerning who may eat the Passover are paralleled with connected regulations concerning the firstborn who had been saved by Yahweh during the Passover, together with the accompanying regulations concerning unleavened bread which was all a part of the Passover celebrations.
The Children of Israel Begin Their Journey (Exodus 12:37-42).
As a result of the death of the firstborn, Pharaoh had commanded the children of Israel to go and serve Yahweh in the wilderness with all that they had. His words (Exodus 12:31-32) had been urgent and gave the impression that he would not mind if he never saw them again. He wanted rid of them at any cost because of what their presence had brought on himself and his people, and what their presence might continue to bring. Egypt was devastated, and now on top of the disasters every family in Egypt had lost its firstborn sons through some mysterious means. But underneath he was still the same obstinate and evil man. We can see therefore why he changed his mind a little later on, when he reconsidered his words once the worst seemed to be over. He had never ever been thwarted like this before. It was not just that Egypt were losing such a quantity of slaves, although that was bad enough, it was the fact that he had been totally humiliated.
a The children of Israel set out, six hundred military units of men as well as children, all go together. And a mixed multitude go with them with many flocks and herds (Exodus 12:37-38).
b They had to bake with unleavened dough because they had been thrust out in such haste (Exodus 12:39).
c They had resided as aliens in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40).
c For 430 years after they had entered Egypt they left it ‘on that selfsame day' (Exodus 12:41).
b It was a night to be much observed to Yahweh because He had brought them out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 12:42 a).
a It was the night of Yahweh to be observed by all the children of Israel in their generations (Exodus 12:42 b).
Note the parallels. In ‘a' all of the children of Israel and more had left Egypt, thus in the parallel it was a night to be observed by all the children of Israel. In ‘b' they had been thrust out of the land in haste, and in the parallel it was a night to be observed to Yahweh for this reason. In ‘c' they had resided as aliens in Egypt for 430 years, and in the parallel now after 430 years He had brought them out.
‘And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred 'eleph on foot that were men, beside children.'
Meanwhile the people of Yahweh began their journey on foot into the wilderness via Succoth leading towards Etham on the edge of the wilderness (Exodus 13:20). The site of Succoth is not specifically identifiable but varying suggestions have been made. It may be the fortress town of Tjeku mentioned in Egyptian sources. In these we learn, for example, of a chief of the archers sent to Tjeku to prevent certain slaves from running away, but arriving too late. They had been seen crossing the north wall of the fortress town of Seti-Merenptah. Another mentions some Libyan mercenaries who had tried to flee but were brought back to Tjeku. Thus Tjeku was on the route regularly taken by fugitives.
“The children of Israel journeyed.” Not necessarily in an orderly march. They had been given the date and were ready. Then they streamed towards Succoth near the border to gather for the march, the main body coming from around Rameses (or they may have gathered outside Rameses). The necessity for rapid movement would prevent too much overall organisation. The heads of each clan would be expected to ensure that their clan joined in and kept up. Organisation would come later.
From Rameses to Succoth.' The word succoth means ‘booths' or ‘tents' (compare Genesis 33:17). Possibly originally it had been a city of tents, and the name had clung to it. Or possibly it was simply a Hebrew rendering of an Egyptian word that mean something different. But there is an ironic twist in the fact that the first stage of their journey is represented as being from the city of the great king to ‘the place of tents', for this indicated their future. It parallels the journey of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan. (Indeed all who would serve God must go ‘from Rameses to Succoth', from living for man's glory to becoming a stranger and pilgrim in the world (1 Peter 2:11), counting what this world offers as nothing, for man's glory offers nothing but bondage, while submission to God leads to freedom)
“Six hundred ” eleph on foot who were men.' Probably we should read ‘six hundred family or military units on foot who were men'. Much later ‘eleph' became established as indicating ‘one thousand' but at this stage it may well not have been quite so emphatically used and instead often have had a significance relating to its other meanings of ‘family group' or ‘clan', or even a ‘military unit' (2 Samuel 18:1) of a certain size. In Judges 6:15 Gideon says ‘my 'eleph is the weakest in Manasseh' and in 1 Samuel 10:19-21 we read ‘present yourselves by your tribes and by your families ('alpheycem from root 'eleph) where the parallel in Exodus 12:21 suggests it means family groups not thousands. Thus 'eleph could here have signified a considerably smaller number than a thousand.
To the Hebrew mind the ‘six hundred' may also have indicated intensified completeness (three doubled times a hundred). We must not read back into them our numeracy, and streaming out from different parts of Goshen they would at the time have been in no position to be counted individually, whereas a note may well have been taken of the approximate number of groups that arrived as they all came together.
“Besides children.” Strictly the Hebrew indicates ‘as well as males under age'. The presence of the wives and daughters with them is assumed. The word for ‘children', is in fact often distinguished from wives, but it is also sometimes used as indicating the whole family apart from the adult males (Genesis 43:8; Genesis 47:12).
Note On the Numbers Mentioned in the Pentateuch.
When considering numbers in the Pentateuch we should always be aware of the possibility that the number words used in this early literature may have been intended to give information other than numerical quantity. Numerical quantity would have meant little to most readers. They did not think numerically. Few could count. Nor did they use more than minimal numbers in daily life (say up to ten at the most and some only up to three as with many modern primitive tribespeople). What numbers conveyed to them was an impression of size and an indication of significance. Even in the time of Elijah ‘two' could mean ‘a few' (1 Kings 17:12).
But what really matters is that the significance of the events themselves is not affected by the numbers. Whether the number here literally means ‘six hundred thousand' in our terms, or whether it indicates a large and complete number of family groupings, the miraculous deliverance was the same. We do not have to believe that the numbers should be taken with their modern significance if they do not, so as to prove our faith, nor do we need to reject them because they seem to produce difficulties. We should simply ask, what was the writer signifying? Sufficient evidence has been accumulated elsewhere in order to demonstrate that 2 million Israelites could have made the journey in view of God's miraculous provisions. But the question is, given that fact, does the text say that they did?
Certainly when translating these large numbers we should note the following:
1). Later in Exodus we are told that the Canaanites would be driven out little by little because the Israelites were not numerous enough satisfactorily to occupy the whole land (Exodus 23:29-30) whereas a literal six hundred thousand men, suggesting over two million people, would surely have been well sufficient, even though a good number would not have been fit. Most Canaanite cities such as Jericho contained only a thousand or two people at the most, and many but a few hundred, even though a few such as Megiddo held considerably more. This very much speaks against there being such a large number of Israelites.
2). That the total number of firstborn males among the children of Israel in Numbers 3:42-43 was only 22,273 and that a number which included under age children from a month old and upwards. If we took the number of firstborn males who were over twenty to be about 15,000 that would ill compare with a total of number of men of 600,000.
However, in this regard a question does arise as to who were numbered as firstborn. For example does it include fathers and grandfathers who were firstborn, or only the firstborn in each current family, that is, those who were sons of the heads of each smaller family grouping when the Passover took place, or even just those who were born since the first Passover? Furthermore, is it only the firstborn of the first wife in each family which is in mind, as Reuben alone is called the ‘firstborn' (bechor) of Jacob's family, while there were twelve sons bearing children, or is it all firstborns of all their wives? The former would seem the most probable, so that if polygamy was common at that time because at times so many men died, both through religious purges as in Exodus 1:22 and through ill-treatment in their bondage in times of the worst persecution, it would help to explain why there was a relatively small number of ‘firstborn' (bechor) to the first wives. Families with girl firstborns would also be excluded and may have well exceeded the number of male firstborns still alive. Many male firstborns (those who opened the womb) would have died at birth or infancy, and it may be that firstborns of families were especially targeted by the Egyptian authorities as being prospective heads of their families. And so we could go on. So this is by no means conclusive.
3). That in Deuteronomy 7:1 the seven nations in Canaan are said to be ‘greater and mightier' than them. This also might suggest a number lower than six hundred thousand. The occupants of Canaan in the widest sense probably did not themselves come to more than two million men women and children.
These verses must therefore make us pause and consider any numbers that we are interpreting. On the other hand the fact that Pharaoh went after them in such force must be seen as demonstrating that their numbers were quite large, especially in view of the fact that they were not well-armed and were not trained fighting men. And the fact that the amount of the ransom of the males tallies with this number must also be seen as significant (Exodus 38:25-27), although there we cannot be sure what the weights indicated at this period, and in fact have to recognise that the total weight of the silver, of both poll tax and freewill gifts, might well have determined the numerical description, rather than vice versa (see on those verses).
What we must further keep in mind is that Hebrew was at this time in its early stages as a developing language and that the children of Israel would not as a whole be a numerate people. They would not think in mathematical terms and that would be reflected in their limited use of ‘number' words (see article, " "). Numbers were in fact regularly intended to signify more than just specific quantity. We can compare the huge numbers of the reigns of earliest Sumerian kings, in the hundreds of thousands, which can hardly be taken literally. This especially comes out in the numbers used in the Pentateuch which follow a certain pattern. They tend to end in nought, five, or less often seven, with thirty as an ending being popular. They do not give the impression of exact numerical accuracy in our terms. (See ‘ ' above and also the introduction to our commentary on the Book of Numbers).
The special problem of the initial meaning of 'eleph in early Hebrew is highlighted in 1 Samuel 6:19 where we read ‘he smote of the people seventy men, fifty 'eleph men'. There the latter number must in some way surely tie in with the former which itself may be a round number indicating divine completeness. It is possibly saying that He smote ‘seventy' men from fifty families of men (or even seventy men and fifty oxen of men, for 'eleph can mean ox). Cities in Canaan were not in general physically large enough to contain anywhere remotely near fifty thousand residents (Megiddo was a rare exception), so fifty thousand men gathered at Bethshemesh (and those only the ones killed) is extremely unlikely. Consider also for example that at the battle of Kadesh, against the mighty Hittites, Rameses II had an army of only twenty thousand men and it was his main force.
So numbers in these early books must be considered guardedly, and we would be wise not to be dogmatic. It is not a question of whether they are accurate or not, it is a question of what they indicate, what the Hebrew means. It may be that new discoveries will at some time make the position clearer. Nevertheless what we must not do is argue from the grounds of ‘impossibility', for with God nothing is impossible. And the fact that the people constantly fed on the manna whose supply never failed until they reached the land must always be taken into account. However, we must certainly argue on the facts.
End of note.
‘And a mixed multitude went up also with them, and flocks and herds, even very much cattle.'
This ‘mixed multitude' would consist of other ‘foreigners' who had connected themselves with them, from many nations. They were clearly large enough numerically for a separate mention. (If Numbers 11:4 refers to them their numbers were sufficient to be noted as dissidents, but it must be counted as doubtful whether in fact the mixed multitude were in mind in that passage in Numbers. The ones mentioned there were probably the rogue element in Israel that every nation possesses. The LXX interpretation probably resulted from a later exclusivist attitude). The battle of Moses with Pharaoh would naturally be widely known and many slaves and sojourners would by it have been encouraged to join this group of people who had such a powerful God, especially if it offered them a chance themselves to escape from oppression in Egypt. And there might well have been some, including Egyptians, who had been impressed by Israel's God and had themselves observed the Passover stipulations. There were clearly a good number in this mixed multitude and they would all probably later be required to submit to Yahweh's covenant. They would by that identify themselves as ‘children of Israel', especially in the making of the covenant at Sinai. That this could be so is shortly legitimised (12:48-49). That the children of Israel were not all directly descended from Jacob was already true in that the ‘households' of Jacob and his sons, which would include slaves and retainers, were also included. Now that expands even further. God's mercy extends to all who will submit to Him and to His covenant (see verse 48).
Together with the mixed multitude were many herds and flocks. The description is here intended to indicate the large quantity of persons and animals who were on the move.
‘And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt for it was not leavened because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not linger, nor had they prepared for themselves any victual.'
The total unpreparedness of the children of Israel is stressed. Because of the speed with which they were sent out of Egypt there had not been time to leaven the dough. This is an explanation of why unleavened bread was eaten during the seven days of what became the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and why God made unleavened bread a symbol of the feast and of the departure from Egypt. In their flight they no doubt observed the feast as best they could.
‘Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years, and it happened at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it happened, that all the hosts of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt.'
The ‘sojourning' of the children of Israel in Egypt is stated to have been for four hundred and thirty years. However this figure may be based on the ‘four hundred years' of Genesis 15:13 (i.e. four generations - Genesis 15:16) with a complete ‘thirty' years added. It is highly questionable, and would be totally without precedent, if a year by year calendar was kept of the passage of time. The thirty years may reflect a complete period (three intensified) added to the four hundred years to indicate the perfection of God's working and timing. Alternately the thirty years may connect with some specific event which we are unaware of which was seen as the commencement of the deliverance. That could explain the reference to ‘the selfsame day'. But this latter may also be just a way of stressing that God worked to an exact timetable.
If it is to be taken literally then it would suggest the date of the Exodus to be 13th century BC, the fifteenth century date taking us back too far in time.
The position is complicated by the fact that here the LXX has a different reading for it reads ‘in Egypt and in Canaan'. This may have been the original text but it looks more like an attempt to solve a difficulty caused by the fact that Exodus 6:16-20 does contain four generations from Levi to Moses (compare Leviticus 10:4 also Numbers 26:5-9 of Korah. 1 Chronicles 6:1-3 is taken from here). However, that is probably not intended to be a complete genealogy. Note for example that there were a greater number of generations from Ephraim to Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:20-27).
Indeed we now know that in these genealogies it was often considered necessary only to put in the important names so that generations were omitted with no difficulty and ‘begat' simply indicated ‘was the ancestor of' and ‘son of' meant ‘the descendant of'. This is archaeologically evidenced again and again in many cultures. The four generations of Moses and Aaron were most probably intended to signify tribe, sub-tribe, clan and family, or may have been selected in order to bring out the fact that they were in a foreign land, for four is the number indicating the world outside the covenant (consider four rivers outside Eden (Genesis 2), four kings from foreign parts against Abraham (Genesis 14), four beasts representing world empires (Daniel 2:7)). Thus Amram and Yochebed may have been only ‘descendants of' Kohath or may even have been ancestors of Moses and not his direct father and mother. So we must be careful about attempting to apply our own criteria to figures and genealogies in the Old Testament. We must ask ourselves what they themselves meant, and remember that in the case of genealogies what mattered to them was the line from which they came.
“Even the self same day.” This probably refers back to Exodus 12:14, the self same day as the deliverance. This is confirmed by Exodus 12:42.
‘It is a night of watching to Yahweh for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This same night is a night of watching to Yahweh for all the children of Israel throughout their generations.'
The importance of the night is linked to Yahweh's watch over the people on Passover night. To Him it was ‘a night of watching' as He watched over them to protect them and then to deliver them. And when they in future celebrated the Passover they too would be aware of Him watching over them, in the same way as this, throughout their generations, for they too were His people. The result will be that they too would ‘watch' as they considered His goodness and mercy, on the anniversary of that night, into future generations.
We have here a reminder to us too that as we go forward with God on the journey to which He calls us He will be watching over us to protect and lead us, and to enable us to deal with the Enemy, and that we must always be watching Him.