|
In the study of Genesis 15:13-16 it was clearly shown that the idea of the short sojourn (Israel being in Egypt for just 215 years) falls apart under scrutiny, and in fact, the traditionally held long sojourn view (that Israel was in Egypt for exactly 430 years, to the very day) was vindicated. But now let's review the key verses that have been used to teach the long sojourn view:
Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Exodus 12:41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. The statement of verse 40 is seen as defining the length of Israel's sojourn in Egypt at exactly 430 years. However others insist that this verse only specifies the length of the sojourn as 430 years but does not specify where that the sojourn took place. Therefore, in their view it is fair to include the time Israel spent in the land of Canaan in addition to their sojourn in the land of Egypt. Now this idea that Israel's 400 year sojourn took place in two lands and that they were servants to two nations was shown to be incorrect in the Genesis 15:13-16 study, however there is further evidence for rejecting the short sojourn idea based on a more careful study of these verses of Exodus.
First, a very important point to notice is that verse 40 speaks of the children of Israel, not the children of Abraham. Israel was the name God gave to Jacob when he returned from the land of Haran (Genesis 32:28). This event occurred when Jacob was about 97 years old, only 33 years before Jacob went to Egypt. It was on that occasion the name Israel is first used in the Bible, and it is a name specifically given to Jacob, not to Isaac or Abraham. Thus the phrase "the children of Israel" (or Jacob) mentioned in Exodus 12:40 is a very specific reference to the 12 sons of Jacob (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph and Benjamin), as well as their descendants, not a reference to the sons of Abraham (Isaac and Ishmael) as the short sojourn view asserts. So in attempting to determine the start of the sojourn, one must always begin with the actual sons of Jacob, not with earlier generations. Now it is true that some attempt to blur the distinction between "children of Israel" saying that this could also mean the "children of Abraham". But it is important to always remember that the words of the Bible are carefully chosen by God and it is not up to men to modify these words or substitute different words when it suits their purpose. But not only that, for the sake of argument, let's assume that such a substitution could be made. That is, that the start of the sojourn began with the "children of Abraham". Now recall that Abraham had two sons after coming into the land of Canaan, Ishmael who was born when Abraham was 86 years old, and Isaac who was born when Abraham was 100 years old. Thus, if one were to assert that the 430 years began with the children of Abraham, one must begin the sojourn clock with either Ishmael or Isaac. Of course Isaac would be the natural choice given that he is the forefather of Israel (Jacob). But recall that Isaac was born 25 years after Abraham came into Canaan, not when Abraham first came into Canaan! Yet the short sojourn view asserts that the sojourning of the children of Israel began when Abraham, still being without any children, came to Canaan at 75 years old. Thus the sojourn in their view begins with Abraham himself, not his children, 25 years before he would father the progenitor to the nation of Israel! Yet the short sojourn view ignores this very basic discrepancy.
In addition to the above it would be informative to take a closer look at Exodus 12:40, in fact, to consider the Hebrew text (note: Strong's reference numbers are provided under each Hebrew word):
Exodus 12:40
ומושׁב בני ישׂראל אשׁר ישׁבו במצרים שׁלשׁים שׁנה וארבע מאות שׁנה׃ H8141 H3967 H702 H8141 H7970 H4714 H3427 H834 H3478 H1121 H4186 A literal translation of this verse would be something like: ===> and-dwelling sons-of Israel which they-dwelt in-Egypt thirty year and-four hundreds year.
There are some important points to notice here. First, the noun "dwelling" (H4186) is from the same root word as "dwelt" (H3427). One can see in the literal translation above that the noun "dwelling" is tied to the word "Egypt" by the verb of the same word form "dwelt". That is, the dwelling is being qualified as the one that was specifically in Egypt. If the dwelling in view was, as the short sojourn advocates assert, referring to Egypt and Canaan, then it would certainly be expected that this verse would include "and in Canaan" in order to be perfectly clear. So the absence of "and in Canaan" is very damaging to the short sojourn case.
The next point to note is that the relative pronoun "which" (H834) refers back to "dwelling", not to "sons of Israel". This is an additional support for the idea that the phrase "which they dwelt in Egypt" is referring back to the noun "dwelling", and thus showing exactly what dwelling is in view (i.e., the one in Egypt). Notice however in the King James Bible translation that the relative pronoun is translated "who" (H834), in which case the relative pronoun would appear to be referring to the sons of Israel. Now it is true that the Hebrew word "ashr" (H834), being a relative pronoun, can be translated as either "which" or "who". The decision of what word to use is normally dictated by the context. So in the King James Bible translation the relative pronoun "who" appears to be qualifying the "sons of Israel" to be the ones who dwelt in Egypt. Now one would have to ask, what reason would this be necessary? After all, it's not like there were several "sons of Israel" in existence so that it was necessary to clarify which one was in view! So the use of "who" is questionable on those grounds. But additionally, notice how the phrase "which they dwelt in Egypt" would read if we use the King James Bible relative pronoun instead: "who they dwelt in Egypt". Do you see how the verb "they dwelt", being proceeded by "who", makes no sense. It was for this reason that the King James translators simply dropped "they" out of their translation. But that is not something a translator should do. In fact, the nonsensical reading should have been the clue to them that they used the wrong relative pronoun in their translation. And this, unfortunately, gives the wrong impression when reading the King James English translation, leading one to think that dwelling in Egypt was related to the sons of Israel, when in fact it was pointing back to the noun "dwelling". As an alternative, one should consider the two very respected literal Bible translations shown below for Exodus 12:40, one from the LITV (J.P. Green's literal translation) and the other from the YLT (Dr. Young's literal translation):
LITV
Exodus 12:40 And the time of the dwelling of the sons of Israel, which they dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. YLT Exodus 12:40 And the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they have dwelt in Egypt is four hundred and thirty years; One can see that both of these very respected Bible translators use "which" for the Hebrew word "ashr" (H834), supporting the idea that this relative phrase is referring (and qualifying) the noun "dwelling", not the "sons of Israel". This in turn entirely supports the idea of the long sojourn, that the 430 years of dwelling is specifically referring to Israel's time in the land of Egypt!
|