In Exodus 20:5-6, the text says “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Many people mistakenly presume that these verses state that God punishes children for the sins of their parents, even if the children are innocent of those sins themselves. Is this right?

No, it clearly is not the right interpretation, as we are reminded in Deut 24:16 that “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” So what does it mean?

According to biblical scholar Douglas Stuart in his Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary),

this oft-repeated theme speaks of God’s determination to punish successive generations for committing the same sins they learned from their parents. In other words, God will not say, ‘I won’t punish this generation for what they are doing to break my covenant because, after all, they merely learned it from their parents who did it too.’ Instead, God will indeed punish generation after generation (‘to the third and fourth generation’) if they keep doing the same sorts of sins that prior generations did. If the children continue to do the sins their parents did, they will receive the same punishments as their parents.

In fact, if we finish reading verse 6, we see that God’s real desire is for his people to love Him and keep his commands so that He can show His love to a thousand generations.

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Biblical scholar Douglas Stuart, in his Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary), identifies 8 possible ways to translate the word ‘eleph from Hebrew to English. Each of these translations could be used in Exodus 12:37, with context being the determinant. The 8 possible translations are: 1) cattle, 2) clans, 3) divisions, 4) families, 5) oxen, 6) tribes, 7) military platoon or squad, and 8) thousand.

As you can see, this word ‘eleph has a tremendous semantic range. The NIV translators have decided to translate the word as “thousand” but Stuart believes this is a mistake. Since the word  ‘eleph is being used in the context of counting foot soldiers, then Stuart argues that option 7 is the most appropriate translation. Given this translation of platoon or squad, what number of soldiers would that indicate?

Mendenhall suggests that it was the number of men of fighting age (above age twenty; cf. Num 1:3) that a single tribal subset (extended family) or village or district of a larger town could produce. What we do not know is the actual numbers of these extended families or village districts. In the case of a larger family or district, the number might be as many as twenty. A small village or district might produce just a handful. For general purposes of calculation, it may be assumed that most ʾelephs were not larger than fifteen and perhaps averaged a dozen. . . .

Accordingly, six hundred ʾelephs, the number mentioned in Exod 12:37, probably would contain not more than 7,200 fighting men, at an average of a dozen fighting men per ʾeleph. If one assumes that many of these were single, but that most may have been married, that most who were married had children, and that there were many men who could not fight because they were either too old or too young or infirm, the total number of Israelites who left Egypt might in fact have been around 28,800–36,000 (assuming three or four nonfighters for every fighter). This is a large and formidable number but by no means the two million or so that a misleading calculation based on taking ʾeleph unjustifiably as “thousand” would yield.

Stuart concludes with the following:

Twenty or thirty thousand people is a number that easily can fit into many modern sorts of venues, from small sports stadiums to beaches to public gatherings and rallies, a fact that may help modern readers of the book visualize the entire Israelite contingent, who were often in one place at one time. It is a number that fits the facts of the book of Exodus well. Such a number of Israelites is large enough to require the miraculous provisions of food and water that the book describes; it is small enough for the whole nation to gather encamped around the tabernacle at the various places listed on the Israelite wilderness itinerary. For most occasions of listening to speeches, the men only would have gathered, several thousand or so in number, not too many to hear a speech shouted at them, especially if its words were relayed. Yet several thousand troops were formidable as a fighting force when directed at one place at a time.

We may never know the exact number of Israelites who traveled from Egypt, but Stuart’s analysis seems plausible to me. Because the word ‘eleph can be translated in so many different ways, we can’t be sure that it should be translated as “thousand” in Exodus 12:37.

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

In Exodus 12:37, the NIV translation of the Bible says, referring to the Israelites leaving Egypt during the Exodus, “There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.” What has puzzled Bible scholars and archaeologists about this number is that it seems far too large. If we add the women and children, we are looking at over 2 million Israelites. Estimates of the total world population at that time are between 25 and 100 million people, and the Israelites are referred to, in the Bible, as small in numbers compared to other people groups in the ancient near east.

Now, it is not impossible that there were literally 2 million Israelites that left Egypt, but there are other ideas about how to translate Exodus 12:37. Biblical scholar Douglas Stuart offers a persuasive alternative explanation in his Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary). According to Stuart,

The Hebrew of the Exod 12:37 says literally, “The Israelites traveled from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred ‘elephs of foot-soldiers, besides women and children.” The NIV translation, like most English translations, contains two arguable assumptions on the part of the translators: that ʾeleph should be translated “thousand,” and that raḡlı̂ in the expression raḡlı̂ haggĕbārı̂m should be translated “men.” Both of these assumptions are, in our opinion, incorrect.

The second, which assumes that raḡlı̂ can mean “men,” is not supportable in any Old Testament context. Some lexicons go so far as to suggest that the term in the singular might mean a “man on foot,” but none could rightly suggest that it means simply “man.” In the grammar of the verse, the addition of the appositional noun haggĕbārı̂m (lit., “[the] young men”) simply clarifies the age of the man/men in question. Since raḡlı̂ always occurs in contexts describing soldiers, including the present context (note the wording “all the LORD’s divisions” in v. 41), and differs from any of the usual terms for “man” or “men,” there really can be little doubt that it should be rendered “foot soldier” or, as some do, “infantryman” wherever it occurs in the Old Testament. The full expression raḡlı̂ haggĕbārı̂m, then, means “young foot soldiers.”

Stuart’s first argument is that the NIV has mistranslated the text as “men on foot” when it should say “foot soldier” or “infantryman.” This is important because the Hebrew text seems to be counting the size of the Hebrew army, not the total population. But we are still left with how to translate the word ‘eleph.

Because the question of the meaning of ʾeleph, however, is so much greater an issue for people as it relates to the accuracy of the Scripture and the proper interpretation of various stories involving the Israelite exodus and conquest of Canaan, the discussion of this term requires a far more extensive review. The reader should bear in mind, however, that Moses did not refer to six hundred ʾelephs of “men” who left Egypt but to six hundred ʾelephs of foot soldiers. He was counting God’s army, not all the people of Israel . . . .

With this in mind, Stuart now takes up the challenge of translating the word ‘eleph. We’ll look at that in part 2.