And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses. This city, which is now generally identified with Heroopolis (cf. Genesis 47:11 with Septuagint, Genesis 46:28-29), was an important place in the land of Goshen, situated in the middle part of the valley of the ancient canal, between the Pelusiac arm of the Nile and the northwestern extremity of the Bitter Lakes, at a spot now occupied by the ruins of Abu-Keisheid (Robinson's 'Bib. Research.,' vol. 1:, p. 79; Hengstenberg's 'Egypt and Books of Moses,' pp. 47-55). This position agrees with the statement, that the scene of the miraculous judgments against Pharaoh was "in the field of Zoan." And it is probable that, in expectation of their departure, which the king on one pretext or another had delayed, this city had been selected as a general rendezvous, the more especially as a very large body of the delayed, this city had been selected as a general rendezvous, the more especially as a very large body of the Hebrew people had been engaged on the fortifications.
Pharaoh had probably gone there to inspect the progress of the works, and Moses and Aaron, and many of the Hebrew chiefs, were also in the immediate neighbourhood. It was the headquarters of that portion of the people who were levied into the service of government; and hence, probably, it is said "the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses" - for the leaders and an immense multitude did set out from that place. But large parties of Hebrews having been appointed also to labour in different districts of the country, it is clear that Rameses could not be the common starting-point of all; and we must therefore suppose that, as full premonition had been given of the expected departure, and all necessary arrangements must have been made by so consummate a leader as Moses for a simultaneous movement when the order should be given, detachments of Israelites, repairing from different quarters, would place themselves at various points along the destined route, and thus be considerably in advance of the main body when the general exodus began. This must have been the case also with that numerous section of them who still pursued their pastoral occupations, and who would be tending their immense flocks at a distance on the borders of the desert.
It is a groundless objection to say that this vast multitude, so widely dispersed, and so encumbered with old and young, and cattle, were summoned to march at a moment's notice. They had been fully apprised of their approaching release, immediately on the return of Moses to Egypt (Exodus 4:29-31). Every successive plague awakened brighter hopes, and they were led, in prospect of the last awful judgment, to make active preparations for the journey (Exodus 11:2). So that, so far from being taken by surprise, the entire Hebrew population were in the attitude of eager expectation for the signal to depart.
Nor is there any reason for assuming that, on their departure, they were placed rank and file, and obliged, like a disciplined army, to pursue a continuous line of march in one dense column, of say fifty abreast. That is not the way in which caravans travel in the East; and that the Israelites did not deviate from the customary style, but were divided into large organized bodies, the twelve tribes being under their respective heads, probably separated at considerable distances from each other, and spreading over a large range of country, may be inferred from the circumstance, that in six passages (Exodus 12:39-51) it is stated directly or by implication, that it was not from Rameses but "the land of Egypt" they departed, and they marched out in various "hosts" to Succoth - i:e., booths; probably nothing more than a place of temporary encampment, as the Hebrew word signifies a covering or shelter. But it might have been, as Poole suggests, a military or caravan station; and as Robinson says that the distance from Rameses to the head of the Red Sea was thirty miles, Succoth might be half-way - i:e., fifteen miles due east (the first day's march) - and it was through a cultivated country, along the valley of the canal. Osburn identifies Succoth with Xois, the ancient capital of the Delta, in the center of the Delta.
About six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children - literally, 'six hundred thousand on foot, the strong men, beside children.' х 'elep (H505) admits of various significations: for, besides denoting in the plural oxen (Psalms 8:8; Proverbs 14:4), and kine (Deuteronomy 7:13; Deuteronomy 28:4), it is sometimes rendered a family (Judges 6:15; 1 Samuel 10:19; 1 Samuel 19:23; Micah 5:1: cf. Exodus 20:6; Numbers 1:16); and some writers maintain that the words should be interpreted in this sense here (Rosenmuller's 'Schol.') - namely, 'six hundred families on foot.'] But the latter clause, "beside children," who, if families were meant, must have been included in the previous term, is fatal to this explanation.
The assertion in the text relative to the numbers of х hagªbaariym (H1397)], the men capable of going to war, is confirmed by such parallel passages as the following (Exodus 30:13; Exodus 38:25; Numbers 1:32; Numbers 1:46-47; Numbers 11:21; Numbers 26:51; Numbers 26:64). That this, too, was the sense in which the ancient Jewish Church received the statement of the historian appears from various testimonies. [The Septuagint has: eis hexakosias chiliadas pezoon hoi andres, pleen tees aposkeuees-beside the luggage, young people being reckoned a part of it.] Jewish writers take the same view. In the Targum of Onkelos (B. Shemoth) it stands, '600,000 men on foot, besides children or families, and a multitude of strangers.' Jonathan Ben Uzziel ('Targum of Palestine,' Etheridge's Translation) has, 'And they were about 600,000 men, journeying on foot, none riding on horses, except the children, five to every man, and a multitude of strangers. Two hundred and forty myriads went up with them.'
Josephus ('Antiq.,' 2:, ch. 15) is to the same purport. 'Now the entire multitude of those that went out, including the women and children, was not easy to be numbered; but those that were of an age fit for war (strateusimon echontes heelikian, being of the military age), were 600,000.' Christian commentators, for the most part, have followed the Jewish in accepting this as the proper meaning of the passage, which contains an enumeration of men above twenty years of age. Assuming what is now ascertained by statistical tables, that the number of males above that age is as nearly as possible the half of the total number of males, the whole male population of Israel, on this computation, would amount to 1,200,000; and adding an equal number for women and children, the aggregate number of Israelites who left Egypt would be 2,400,000. All the descriptions given of the Hebrew population in Egypt warrant this conclusion (Exodus 1:7; Exodus 1:12; Psalms 105:26).
Such a numerical amount indicates a ratio of increase which, considering the smallness of the ancestry, and the comparatively brief sojourn of the Israelites in the land of Ham, is very remarkable, though not unparalleled. To Infidels, Rationalists, and even to some professed believers, however, the statement appears so far out of the ordinary course of nature that they have pronounced it incredible; while keen discussions have been carried on by others respecting the possibility or non-possibility of so prodigious a multiplication within the period specified. These classes agree in founding their argumentations upon the supposed fact, that the Israelites who are mentioned (Genesis 46:8-27) as coming into Egypt comprised the whole of the pure descendants of Jacob.
But it was formerly shown that the genealogy thus adopted as the basis of their calculations was constructed on the principle of recording only the heads of families, the ancestors of the Israelite nation born in Canaan, omitting all others (Genesis 46:7; Numbers 26:59; 1 Chronicles 23:3-24: of Exodus 6:18; Numbers 3:19 with 1 Chr. 33:18-20), and consequently it cannot serve as a guide or directory in helping us to ascertain the rate of increase; especially it cannot afford correct data for computing, from the state of the patriarchal families, which were not large in Canaan, the measure of their growth in Egypt, where population in general advanced more rapidly, (see the note at Exodus 1:1-22.)
Moreover, no mention is made either in that register or in Exodus 1:5 of the servants who undoubtedly accompanied the patriarch into Egypt (Genesis 46:6; Genesis 46:32); and although we do not know their exact numbers, yet, considering the large retinue of Abraham and of Isaac which was inherited by Jacob (Genesis 14:14; Genesis 30:43; Genesis 32:5; Genesis 32:7; Genesis 32:10; Genesis 35:25-29), we may safely estimate them as upwards of a thousand. Such retainers are usually reckoned, according to Oriental custom, as parts of the families of their masters; and it is certain they were so in the case of the patriarchal families; because, having become Hebrews, included in the covenant by the rite of circumcision, and participation of the Passover, they constituted a portion of the Hebrew tribe or clan, equally with the aristocratic descendants of Jacob, just as the poorest Arabs of the present day, under their hereditary chiefs or emirs, form their respective tribes.
'As nobody' (to use the words of Lord Arthur Hervey, 'Genealogies') 'supposes that all the Cornelii, or all the Campbells, sprang from one ancestor, so it is in the teeth of direct evidence from Scripture, as well as of probability, to suppose that the Jewish tribes contained none but such as were descended from the twelve patriarchs. In many of the Scripture genealogies it is quite clear that birth was not the ground of their incorporation with Israel.' Hence, an egregious mistake is committed by those who look exclusively to the list of Jacob's descendants as comprising the whole emigrants to Egypt, instead of basing their computations on the broader foundation of the numerous body who had become, in accordance with divine directions, incorporated with Israel.
It is, then, of the whole congregation in this sense that the sacred historian speaks in giving the numbers of It is, then, of the whole congregation in this sense that the sacred historian speaks in giving the numbers of those who went out of Egypt. But it is alleged that, even adopting this broad basis of calculation, an insuperable difficulty stands in the way of admitting the idea of so extraordinary a population; because it appears from the family record of Levi (Exodus 6:16-20) that there were only four persons in that household between the emigration to Egypt and the exodus.
Now, we have formerly shown on that passage, that there is reason to believe some links in the genealogical chain of the house of Levi have been omitted, since there is within the same period of time a larger enumeration in other tribes-of seven descents between Judah and Bezaleel (1 Chronicles 2:1-55), and ten between Joseph and Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:21-27). On the hypothesis that families would differ in productiveness and in duration of life then as well as now, we may strike an average medium, and assume that there were seven descents, or natural generations of thirty years, during the period of Israel's sojourn in Egypt: 30 X 7 = 210 (nearly 215). There does not appear, then, any natural impossibility in the statement respecting the numbers of the Israelites at their departure; and proceeding in our inquiries from this point of view, we find data in the sacred narrative fully adequate to account for a very rapid increase.
(1) The great prosperity that people enjoyed during the lifetime of Joseph, perhaps for the greater part of a century, which must have placed them in circumstances most favourable to growth of population.
(2) Matrimonial alliances of the descendants of Jacob, both on the male and female side, with their men-servants and maid-servants-which, while the Hebrews continued an isolated caste of shepherds, must have been frequent, especially as the difference between the condition of master and retainers, which in nomadic families is always slight, must have been much smaller by their community in religious privileges (Exodus 12:48).
(3) The practice of polygamy, which might be expected to prevail after the example of Jacob, and of the actual prevalence of which there are recorded evidences (1 Chronicles 7:4).
(4) Intermarriages with Egyptians, which, from proximity in the time of bondage, and latterly, through the influence of providential events, from conversion to the faith of Israel, seem to have become common (Leviticus 24:10).
(5) And in addition to all these natural causes, there was the special blessing of God (Genesis 12:2; Genesis 17:6; Genesis 22:17; Genesis 26:3; Genesis 46:3), which guaranteed an extraordinary increase.