Appendix
HOW LARGE WAS
ISRAEL'S POPULATION?
So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; Even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty (Num. 1:45-46).
And all the firstborn males by the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and thirteen (Num. 3:43).
Commentators have argued for over a century about the size of Israel's population. Liberals and those influenced by them want to downsize it. Conservatives are at a loss explaining how it got as large as the biblical texts say that it did. There are a whole series of problems in assessing the demographics of Mosaic Israel.
Conservative Bible commentator Gordon Wenham provides several arguments as to why the texts' population figures are wrong - perhaps by as much as a factor of 100 to one. His arguments reveal the extent to which modern evangelical Bible commentators have mimicked higher critics in their ready acceptance of the hypothesis of extensive textual corruption. Jacob Milgrom's solution is even worse. He suggests that the original author of Numbers lied: ". . . the tendency of ancient epics to inflate numbers is well attested."(1) Despite the fact that multiple texts assert the same demographic picture, thereby reinforcing each other, commentators are ready to substitute their own speculations when these texts do not describe events that conform to present-day scientific or historical theories. This raises the issue of biblical interpretation.
Liberals and the Bible There are many examples of this methodology in the literature of academic biblical studies. A common example is this one: higher critics of the Bible have sought to re-define the Red Sea. It has become in retrospect the Sea of Reeds, through which the Israelites safely walked across dry land (Ex. 14:21).(2) Just imagine: people actually walked across relatively dried-up marshes! The very thought of this stupendous event paralyzed the Canaanites with fear: "For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red [Reed] sea for you" (Josh. 2:10a). This escape across the marshes was followed by an unprecedented miracle: Pharaoh's army, hot in pursuit, drowned in this sea of reeds. (The word for "reed" can also be translated "papyrus." Perhaps the Israelites used the reeds to create papyrus to create environmental impact statement forms, and drowned the Egyptians in them. Just a suggestion.) All that is missing from this Red Sea revision is a comparable creek to substitute for the Jordan River: "For the LORD your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red sea, which he dried up from before us, until we were gone over" (Josh. 4:23). Perhaps the Jordan was running seasonally low at the time of Israel's crossing.
Another miracle was the manna, which has retroactively become insect dung. And what a miracle it was! Two different species of insects provided it: same color, same texture, same naturally sweet, honey-like flavor - "No preservatives added!" (Ex. 16:31). One insect species was located in the mountains, the other in the lowlands.(3) But the miracle had only just begun: both varieties of insects excreted double loads on the day before the sabbath but nothing on the sabbath (Ex. 16:22, 26-27) - truly strict sabbatarian insects! So, the Israelites feasted on insect dung daily for 39 years. Yet they were also required by God to break a jar if a dead insect was found inside it (Lev. 11:32-33). We might ask rhetorically: Who are we, or who was Moses, or who was God, to blame the murmurers for having preferred eating quail to insect dung (Num. 11:6)?
My conclusion: theological liberalism does a strange thing to people. It turns their brains into manna (lowland variety).
"The Numbers in Numbers Don't Add Up!" Wenham argues that the wilderness could not have supported such a large population, even with manna, i.e., the heavenly kind. After all, "The bedouin population of modern Sinai amounts to only a few thousand; . . ."(4) Noordtzij agrees: Sinai could not have fed all those people; it was a wilderness. But the whole point of the manna was to sustain the Israelites miraculously in the wilderness. The manna was a miracle, as was their clothing that did not wear out. Moses described both of these as related miracles (Deut. 8:3-4).
Furthermore, Wenham says, archeological evidence points to much smaller population centers: a few thousand people per Canaanite city.(5) God said that it would take years for the invading Israelites to overcome the existing population in Canaan (Ex. 23:29). If the Israelite population was large, there could have been only brief resistance by tiny Canaanite villages.(6) This indicates that the number of Israelites was small. Wenham does not mention another possibility, namely, that today's archeological evidence is incomplete and has been misinterpreted by extrapolating from a handful of discoveries. The same criticism can be leveled at modern chronologies of the ancient Near East prior to the eighth century B.C. Archaeologists therefore date the strata incorrectly. Wenham's failure to mention the possibility that modern archeological scholarship has made crucial errors is also representative of the higher critic's mind-set. When the latest scientific evidence, which he can be confident will eventually be superseded and made obsolete, tells him that the Bible's account is false, he accepts the new evidence and rejects the Bible's account.
Wenham cites a 1906 book by Flinders Petrie,(7) an archeologist, who argued that the word translated thousand ('eleph) could mean either "thousand" or "family." Recording the population of Reuben, the text says 46,500 men (Num. 1:21). Not so, said Petrie: the tribe of Reuben really consisted of 46 families ('eleph) plus 500 men. Wenham cites his own father's study, which allowed 45 Reubenite leaders and 1,500 men.(8) Noordtzij insists that 'eleph means "clan."(9) Other estimates of Israel's total population range from 140,000 to as few as 20,000. Petrie allowed no more than 5,600.(10) He was being generous; G. Ernest Wright allows no more than 5,000; the Israelites may have been as few as 3,000.(11) This is a reduction from about 2.4 million (men, women, and children). The Bible's account, we are informed, may be off by 800 to one. Not too reliable! But this isn't the half of it. Harrison says that one estimate places the number as low as 100 people.(12)
Ashley simply capitulates: "In short, we lack the materials in the text to solve this problem," i.e., the problem of large numbers.(13) He is exaggerating. We have enough materials in the text to begin to solve the problem. We must use these materials to guide us in our search for the answer.
Whose Numbers Should We Accept? That the number of Israelites was huge can be seen from the despair of Balak the Moabite in seeking an alliance with the Midianites. "And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company(14) lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time. He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me: Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed" (Num. 22:4-6). I find it difficult to believe that fewer than 5,000 people covered the face of the earth. That about 1,000 warriors terrified Balak seems even less probable. Balaam's prayer is even more revealing: "Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!" (Num. 23:10). But the scholars think Balak and Balaam were grossly exaggerating, that they were terrified of a handful of ex-slaves who somehow had recently conquered King Sihon, the city of Jaazer, and King Og (Num. 21:24-35).
We have a tally of the booty taken from Midian by 12,000 Israelite warriors in the period immediately prior to the invasion of Canaan:
And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, And threescore and one thousand asses, And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him. And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep: And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen. And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve. And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one. And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons (Num. 31:32-40).
The Bible testifies clearly to the size of at least one city-state in the wilderness. Thirty-two thousand young women and girls were taken captive. This was no village. This was a separate culture that possessed a great deal of wealth.
The degree of honesty of Petrie's argument is more readily assessed when we read the account in Numbers of the size of the families of Levi: Gershon, seven 'eleph, five hundred (Num. 3:22); Kohath, eight 'eleph, six hundred (v. 28); Merari, six 'eleph, two hundred (v. 34). Total number of Levites if 'eleph means thousand: 22,300. This corresponds closely with the summary total of 22,000: "All that were numbered of the Levites, which Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the LORD, throughout their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty and two thousand ['eleph]" (Num. 3:39).(15)
Petrie knew he had a problem.(16) In Numbers 3, there can be no confusion over the meaning of 'eleph. Levi had three family groups; each family had a specific number of males above one month old. This number corresponded closely to the number of Israel's firstborn: "And all the firstborn males by the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand ['eleph] two hundred and threescore and thirteen" (Num. 3:43). So, the number of Levite males in Numbers 3 - judicial surrogates for Israel's firstborn (Num. 3:12-13) - matched almost perfectly the number of Israel's firstborn males, counted in thousands. We cannot escape the grammar of the numerical account in Numbers 3.
But Petrie sought to evade the plain language of the texts. He argued that the Levites' numbers in Numbers 3 were inserted into the text in a later period. What later period in Israel's history would have imagined that there were 22,000 Levites? Only a period in which there were a lot of Levites. Where did all these Levites come from? If there were only 5,600 adult male Israelites at the time of the numbering, how many adult male Levites were there? Four hundred, perhaps? How, and how fast, did this Levite population grow from 400 to so many that 22,000 seemed reasonable to the forger (sorry: "redactor")? Was the redactor so confused that he inserted numbers for the tribe of Levi that totaled four times larger than the number of all the other 12 tribes combined (using Petrie's estimate of 5,600)? Translating 'eleph in Numbers 1 as "family" rather than "thousand" leads to a dead end. It was an obvious dead end on the day it was proposed in 1906.
Counting the firstborn was required because there had to be a substitute for them: the Levites. The Levites as a tribe would substitute for the firstborn on a one-to-one basis. If there were more firstborn sons than Levite males, someone would have to pay the Levites five shekels per extra firstborn. The Bible does not say who would have to pay. The allocational question was this: Which families had born the "excess" 273 children? If all of the families were counted, and the comparison was made, on what basis would a particular tribe or family be assessed the five shekels? Would it be those families whose firstborn were born later than the others, i.e., families of those firstborn who constituted the excess? This would seem to be fair, but we are not told.
The ratio of firstborn sons to adult males constitutes a long-recognized problem. There were 603,550 adult males (Num. 1:46). There were 22,273 firstborn (Num. 3:43). Wenham writes: "This means that out of 27 men in Israel only 1 was the first-born son in his family. In other words, an average family consisted of 27 sons, and presumably an equal number of daughters."(17) Milgrom also cites this ratio.(18) The firstborn were not adults - age one month and older. The ratio is clearly impossible demographically. Because this dilemma is based on biblical texts, it requires a solution consistent with the texts. Wenham sees none. I see three possible explanations. But before considering them, we must understand the demographics of Israel in Egypt.
Population Growth: Jacob to Moses There were only four generations from the generation born after the descent into Egypt until the conquest (Gen. 15:16). The time Israel spent in Egypt was 215 years. I discussed in Moses and Pharaoh why the 215-year figure is correct, and why the 430 years included the time that Abraham and Isaac spent in Canaan, which was formally under Egyptian sovereignty.(19) Paul was clear on this point: it was 430 years from the promise given to Abraham until the giving of the law to Moses at Mt. Sinai. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect" (Gal. 3:17). We also know that this stay in Egypt took four generations: the text regarding Jochebed (Num. 26:59).
If a woman bore a child every two years, and if she lived to 120 years old, and if her menopause came at, say, age 80 (Sarah was beyond menopause at age 90), then theoretically she could have borne 30 children in a 60-year reproductive period: age 20 to 80. (A figure of 54 children per family was impossible. This would have required almost one child per year from every woman for her six decades of fertility.)
Let us assume that each of the 70 wives produced 30 children, and all of her children survived, married, and repeated the process. Half of these children would have been sons. The average number of children in Jochebed's generation would have been 30 X 70 = 2,100. Of these, 1,050 were sons. Repeating this performance, Moses' generation would have totaled 15,750 men (15 X 1,050). Assuming no retarding effects demographically from the persecution of the Pharaoh, Moses' generation would have produced 236,250 sons (15 X 15,750). If all of Moses' generation had been alive at the time of the first numbering, and all of Joshua's generation, the total would have been 252,000 men. But there were over 600,000 men. Even with the preposterous assumption of 30 children per family, the numbers do not add up.
Relating to the second mustering in the Book of Numbers, we read: "And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister" (Num. 26:59). It appears that Israelite mothers had far fewer than 30 children unless Jochebed missed the mark by a factor of ten to one. Israel's descent into Egypt took place when Jacob was an old man: age 130 (Gen. 47:9). Jochebed's birth occurred after Levi had come down with his father into Egypt. There were no other intervening generations. Moses' generation was the second after the descent. This left only two until the conquest of Canaan (Gen. 15:16).(20)
Adopted Household Servants
Seventy male family members arrived in Egypt: "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten" (Gen. 46:26-27). Jacob plus the 66 sons and grandsons plus Joseph plus his two sons equalled 70. They could have brought several thousand servants into Egypt with them: servants adopted into their families. Recall that Abraham had 318 household servants (Gen. 14:14).
Only by adopting their servants or other residents of Egypt could the Israelites have reached large numbers by the time of the exodus. If there were 1,500 men who came down with Levi's generation, and each had seven sons, in Jochebed's generation there were 10,500; Moses' generation had 73,500; Joshua's had 514,500. Together, this totalled 588,000 men, which was close to 600,000. So, this would have been biologically possible, but highly unlikely: 14 children per family, all of whom survived and repeated the process.
Then there is the problem of the effect of high birth rates. If Joshua's generation continued to reproduce at these rates, the 600,000 men would have had something like six million children at the exodus, at least 90 percent of whom died in the wilderness. An even higher percentage of them died if any of them had children, since the nation was in zero growth mode in the wilderness. Covenantally, this is an unacceptable scenario: God's judgment against the fourth generation rather than the third. To avoid it, we must conclude that the overwhelming majority of Joshua's generation had two children: replacement rate. From 14 children per family to two children in a single generation: this is simply unheard of in history. Living in slavery did not stop Aaron from having four sons. So, this 14-children-per-family scenario is totally implausible.
It takes such a series of demographic assumptions that are not directly revealed in the texts to solve the problem of the 600,000 adult males, beginning with the assumption of 1,500 (or more) men who were counted as Israelites. We can play with the numbers by assuming that even more servants came down, or that they had lower reproduction rates, or that more residents of Egypt were adopted in Joseph's era, but this does not avoid the adoption issue. There had to be adoptions at some point: either early in the process or at the very end, and possibly all along the way. The larger the number of adoptees early in the process, the smaller the families could be in order to reach 600,000, assuming that most of these 600,000 were not themselves very late adoptees (post-exodus).
The nation experienced zero population growth in the wilderness. The number of adult males at the beginning was the same as the number of adult males at the end. The nation supposedly grew to a huge size during the years of servitude; then, in freedom, its population growth ended. This is not easy to explain. A fast-growing population is characterized by large numbers of children, not the small families that appeared in the wilderness. A fast-growing population rarely reaches zero growth in one generation unless there is a catastrophe, either biological or political, that produces less-than-replacement-rate births or else wipes out children before they reach maturity. Normally, there is a population "echo" of the children who have already been born, even if these children reproduce only at the replacement rate. So many of them are marrying and having children that the population keeps growing even though this generation is only producing two children (replacement rate) per family. The smaller the families were before the exodus, the less of an echo effect in the wilderness. There was no echo in Israel's wilderness experience. The nation reached population stagnation in one generation. There has to be a reason. The death of the bulk of the fourth generation in the wilderness is not a covenantally likely solution: they were the heirs of God's promise to Abraham. Also unlikely is the possibility that they failed to reproduce at all during the wilderness era. Then what happened? This lengthy chapter is my attempt to suggest a plausible explanation. As far as I am aware, no previous commentator has even raised the question.
I see no exegetical escape from the presupposition of adoption: adoption into the original 70 families of Jacob's era and/or after they settled in Egypt, and (as I shall suggest) again before the numbering mentioned in Exodus 38.(21) Adoption came early because the 70 males who came down to Egypt, including sons and grandsons (Kohath's generation),(22) would not have multiplied fast enough to have constituted a numerical challenge to Pharaoh: "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. . . . And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we" (Ex. 1:7, 9). There had to be adoptions by Jacob and his sons in order for the population to have multiplied this much by the time of Moses' infancy. The base of 70 families was not large enough to have provided such a threat in a single generation.
What Seems Reasonable?
Moses had a brother and a sister (Num. 26:59). Was his family abnormally small? Small, but not abnormally small. Aaron had four sons (Num. 26:60). He may have had daughters, but the text does not say so. There were few families with 16 children. This means that there must have been many families for the population to have reached 600,000 men, unless there was a last-minute mass adoption of gentiles just prior to the Exodus mustering. These families must have been the families of the adoptees in Egypt.
The case for adoption is exegetically inescapable. The texts demand it. The only question is: When did the bulk of these adoptions take place? We know that Israel's population was large and growing in the days of Moses' infancy. This indicates that a significant number of adoptions had already taken place, either before they came down into Egypt or shortly thereafter in the days of Joseph's rulership. There was insufficient time for biological reproduction to have produced such a military threat from the loins of 69 men (Jacob was beyond fatherhood).
The problem is this: Did the adoptees of the early years reach 600,000 adult men at the time of the exodus? We can only speculate; the texts do not tell us authoritatively.
The Meaning of Firstborn at Passover Because of the problem of the 27-to-one ratio, Bible-believing commentators who understand the nature of the demographic problem have frequently dealt with it by altering the definition of firstborn in Numbers 3. They employ a different definition for the Passover. We shall see why this is the case in the sections on the proposed solutions.
Numbers 3:40 reads: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names." This is the same language that is used in the previous verse: "All that were numbered of the Levites, which Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the LORD, throughout their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty and two thousand." All of the male Levites were numbered. The parallel language for the firstborn seems to exclude the possibility that firstborn was limited to those sons under age 20.(23) But is this conclusion correct?
On the other hand, is it possible that firstborn only referred to males under age 20? Consider the survival of the Egyptian army. The death of the firstborn in Egypt did not seem to afflict adults. "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead" (Ex. 12:29-30).
Pharaoh survived; so did the captive in prison. The phrase, "the captive," is a representative term: a head of household. So, the adult head of household survived if he had a firstborn son living at home. Egypt's firstborn male offspring, at least minors living at home, did not survive. All of Pharaoh's servants arose. All of the Egyptians arose. What can this mean? It means that the adults under Pharaoh's command survived, but their firstborn sons did not. One male was dead in a family, but not two, i.e., both father (if he was a firstborn son) and son.
Pharaoh still commanded an army. Were the survivors all younger sons? This seems unreasonable. The whole command structure would have been destroyed if firstborn officers all died. Furthermore, unless Pharaoh was a second-born son whose older brother had died, he would have perished if death had taken every firstborn son irrespective of his age or his status as household head. If this was true in Egypt, then it may have been true - probably was true - of Israel. After all, the threat of death had been given to both the Egyptians and Israelites. Only the Passover lambs saved Israel from the same negative sanction that afflicted Egypt.
If the sanction of death struck every firstborn son in Egypt, fathers and sons, which I think is unlikely, then the Pharaoh of the Passover was either a second-born son (his older brother had previously died without leaving a son to inherit the throne) or else he was replaced by his younger brother after the Passover, who then pursued Israel. Moses must have been dealing with a Pharaoh who was a surviving brother if firstborn for Egyptians meant all firstborn adult males. On the other hand, if firstborn meant the firstborn dwelling in a household, then Pharaoh could have been biologically a firstborn. His resident son died in his place.
Some Egyptian households would have seen their firstborn sons depart years before. Yet every household had a death. If my view is correct, then those firstborn fathers whose firstborn sons had left home came under the sanction of death. I conclude this because: 1) every household had a death; 2) there were still many adult males left alive in Egypt. This indicates that not every firstborn son died. Those who still lived in their fathers' households did die. For a firstborn son who had left home, and who had a son of his own who died, there also was a death back home: the firstborn head the household, i.e., his firstborn father. There was a death in every household.(24) Only two things could save a firstborn father: the death of his resident firstborn son or the death of a lamb.
Was the threat against Israel the same? Was every male at risk, or were only their sons at risk? The text seems to indicate that the same threat applied to the Israelites that applied to the Egyptians. I conclude that the definition of the term firstborn applied equally to both nations: the firstborn son in a household.
We now return to the problem of the 27-to-one ratio between adult males and firstborn sons.
First Proposed Solution: Firstborn as Young Minors James Jordan asks us to assume that firstborn sons were young minors in a household, i.e., that only minors under the age of five were counted as firstborn sons.(25) Why should we assume this? Why should we assume that they could have had older brothers? Textually, the one reason is the size of money payment required by God. The payment to the Levites was five sanctuary shekels per firstborn (Num. 3:47). This was also the size of the payment to the Levites which was required for buying entry through adoption into the family of Levi of a male child, age one month to five years (Lev. 27:6).(26) The second reason is practical: to reduce the number of firstborn in Numbers 3 compared to the number at the Passover. If judicially we can reduce this number, then the biological anomaly disappears.
This approach requires a redefinition of firstborn. Jordan at first did not think it does. He wrote that "the original Passover was designed to save, directly, the firstborn sons between the ages of one month and five years; indirectly, everyone else." But in speaking to him about this problem, I learned that he now says that the Numbers 3 definition serves to reduce the number of biological firstborn.
There is a problem with this solution: the echo effect. If firstborn means any son under age five, irrespective of older brothers, then his older brothers become a covenantal sanctions problem. If he has, say, three older brothers - one in each five-year age bracket - then Joshua's generation had very large families: at least eight children per family. To avoid the conclusion that large numbers of the fourth generation died in the wilderness, we must assume that the 400,000 fathers produced only one son. This means that the typical firstborn son was also the last-born son. If the 22,273 firstborn sons had older brothers who had been counted at the Passover by means of an earlier definition, then the echo problem appears: 400,000 fathers times eight children, or 3.2 million children. Some 2.8 million died in the wilderness, hopefully before they had their own children, most of whom would also have died.
Joshua's generation was at the end of its peak childbearing years: on average, probably about age 35 or 40. All but two of them were dead 39 years later. If the 22,273 sons had been born over the preceding four years, then the average number of male births was about 5,600 a year. But the replacement rate for 400,000 men was closer to 20,000 a year for two decades. This raises the obvious question: Where did the 600,000 men in Numbers 26 come from? Were most of the other 380,000 sons bunched together demographically from age five up? Were they born over a 16-year period at a rate of 23,000 a year, followed by a sharp drop in the birth rate? (If we were to adopt the definition for firstborn as "under age five," applying both to Passover and Numbers 3, then not many firstborn sons were actually at risk at Passover: maybe 25,000 out of 375,000. This may be why Jordan adopts his definition only for Numbers 3.) The demographics of this scenario are uncomfortable to a Bible-believing expositor. It may be possible to put all of the seemingly conflicting pieces together, but it is not an easy task.
Jordan's definition of firstborn reduces the number of sons in Numbers 3 compared with the Passover. A century ago, C. F. Keil adopted a similar strategy, but with a different way of shrinking the number of numbered firstborn. His solution has the benefit of minimizing the echo problem.
Second Proposed Solution: Births Since Passover According to this scenario, firstborn sons who were alive at the first Passover had already been atoned for by the blood on the doorposts. Thus, no further payment was necessary. The law governing the money payment to the priests for the firstborn was given in the wilderness, after the first Numbers mustering. It did not apply retroactively to those children whose lives had been spared during the Passover, who were not in need of further substitutes; the Passover lambs had served that function. The money payments were due only for those sons who had been born in the wilderness during the 12 months from the Passover in Egypt to a month before the first Numbers mustering.(27) This amounted to 22,273 sons. So, the 27-to-one ratio cannot be taken as applying to all the firstborn in Israel. It applied only to those born in the 12-month interim period.(28)
The demographic question is this: Could 600,000 families have produced 22,273 firstborn sons and approximately the same number of firstborn daughters in 12 months? Conception took place beginning nine months prior to Passover and continuing for another three months. Moses' generation was beyond the normal childbearing years; certainly firstborn children for any of them would have been abnormal. We know that Israel was about to experience a drastic reduction of lifespans, from around age 120 for Moses and Aaron to about 70 to 80 for Joshua's generation (Ps. 90:10). Joshua's generation died of old age in the wilderness; therefore, very few of them were above age 40 at the early musterings.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that there were 400,000 mustered men in Joshua's generation, ages 20 to about 70. Ages 20 to 40 are the prime reproduction years. Could, say, 175,000 families have produced 22,273 firstborn sons? Theoretically, yes, especially if the parents were recently married as a result of the exodus liberation, which perhaps a third of them were. But did this really happen? How many of these 175,000 families had never produced a son? Most of them had, which is why Keil adopted his narrowly circumscribed definition of firstborn as a solution to the 27-to-one problem. There is no solid reason to say that his scenario was biologically impossible. To reproduce themselves, Joshua's generation required 400,000 sons. (Their grandsons could supply the 200,000 replacements for Moses' generation.) The 400,000 sons meant replacement-rate mode: one son per household. So, about 22,000 sons born in one year seems reasonable. If this birth rate had continued for two decades (ages 20 to 40), this would have produced a little over 400,000 sons.
Yet even if all this did happen, it does not solve the more fundamental problem: Where did the 400,000 men of Joshua's generation come from?
In every plausible scenario, the expositor has to rely on the adoption argument to make sense of the numbers. Bible-believing expositors have generally avoided dealing with this demographic problem. Jordan accepts this with respect to the original families, but Keil did not mention it. Biological reproduction rates do not allow the kind of population growth required to get from the 70 males who came down to Egypt in the famine to the 600,000 who were numbered. The texts indicate that Joshua's was the third generation: Kohath, Moses, Joshua. Conclusion: servants must have been adopted into the original families. Israel then spread out through the land of Goshen.
Could Keil's thesis be modified to include prior adoptions? Yes. This would not change his basic point regarding the meaning of firstborn in Numbers 3. But to adopt this solution, we must assume a drastic reduction of births, i.e., a drastic reversal of the previous experience of growing families. There was no population echo in the wilderness. This means that Joshua's generation either suffered drastically lower birth rates than their parents or else more of their children died before reaching maturity. A decreased birth rate could have been the effect of the persecution.
The main problem with Keil's thesis is the language that God used to explain His substitution of the Levites for the firstborn: "And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the LORD" (Num. 3:12-13). It sounds as though God was setting apart (hallowing) the Levites because of the previous hallowing of the firstborn. He placed His claim on them. All of this is in the context of the payment of five shekels per firstborn.
The problem with the solutions offered by Jordan and Keil is that they both define firstborn in a way that the plain reading of the text seems to deny: firstborn as under age five or as a son who was born after Passover. Is there any solution that preserves the normal meaning of the word: a firstborn son of Israel? Yes, but it invokes a scenario that is surely not intuitive, just as the early adoption scenario is not intuitive, though mandatory.
While I devote considerable space to a third scenario, my instincts tell me that Keil's approach creates the fewest problems. But for those who are suspicious about tampering with the plain meaning of words, I offer a thesis that adheres to the definition of firstborn as the firstborn son of a household. It also solves the 27-to-one problem and the zero growth problem. It may do this, however, at too high a speculative price. What the reader must understand is that the texts do not offer solutions to these problems in a straightforward manner. You must decide how much "creative explaining" you can tolerate.
Third Proposed Solution: Mass Adoption If adoption early in Israel's stay in Egypt is the only way to solve the problem of the source of the 600,000, why not follow through on this approach? What about the possibility of later adoptions? What about a mass adoption after the exodus?
I present the following scenario in order to consider the possibility that there is a legitimate alternative to Keil's definition of firstborn, which is the heart of his solution to the 27-to-one problem.
Before we study the problem in greater detail, I must present a new definition for Numbers 3: a firstborn son who was not old enough to be mustered. He was under age 20. At the Passover, the deciding factor had been the presence of the firstborn son in the household. This changed in Numbers 3. Jordan has one explanation; Keil had another. I tentatively suggest a third: mustering removed him judicially from his father's household. With the addition of a new institution, God's holy army, which was assembled through mustering and which required an atonement payment, the definition of a firstborn son changed. Judicially, a soldier in God's holy army was no longer under the same degree of family jurisdiction as he had been prior to his military eligibility. Judicially speaking, he had moved out of his father's household. So, at the time of the Exodus mustering, the criterion of firstborn shifted: from a household resident in Egypt to a man under 20 years old.
Recall that I am dealing with three problems: 1) how the 27-to-one ratio could have existed; 2) how a relatively small population of sons became the 600,000 fighting males that invaded Canaan; 3) how Israel grew to 600,000 adult males in three generations: Kohath's (Amram's), Moses', and Joshua's. If firstborn means something significantly different in Numbers 3 from what it means in Exodus 12, there ought to be a reason for the change. I think the reason may have been judicial: the presence of the army of the Lord. The following presentation is structured by this definition of firstborn. If neither Jordan's nor Keil's definition seems legitimate, then consider the implications of a third.
At the exodus, the Israelites were joined by others who were fleeing the tyranny of Egypt. What if most of them subsequently covenanted with the Israelites? When word spread that the Israelites were about to depart, not to mention the spoils they were carrying with them, others in Egypt saw their opportunity and took it. They had two options: they could go out of Egypt into the wilderness or into Philistia on their own, or they could link up to the nation whose God had just smashed the Egyptian social order. Add to this the miracle of the manna: nearly free food(29) until the conquest (Ex. 16).
A lot of them could have chosen the latter option: to stay with the Israelites. This explains the presence of the mixed multitude with the Israelites (Ex. 12:38). It is possible that some of these people were adopted into the families of Israel as full members. For the sake of argument, let us consider the possibility that the bulk of the mustered Israelites were recent adoptees, and the firstborn sons were biological sons, not adoptees. If true, this would solve the 27-to-one demographic problem.
Biological Sons vs. Adopted Sons
The firstborn sons were biological sons of Israel (Num. 3:12). They were the minor sons of Joshua's generation. Let us assume that this strictly biological definition of firstborn governed the mustering process. Those who were subsequently ingrafted into the nation through adoption were not counted as firstborn sons retroactively back to Passover, nor were their children, who had not been born under the covenant. These pre-mustering adoptees added to the number of fighting-age males, but they and their children were not counted as firstborn. Firstborn was biological, not judicial: "opens the matrix" (Ex. 13:15).
After the completion of the tabernacle, the Levites were set apart by God as a separate tribal offering in place of biological firstborn sons, as we have seen (Num. 3:12-13). This revelation came after the other tribes were mustered and just before Levi was numbered. This judicial substitution of Levites for firstborn minor sons was a one-time event that took place four months after the mustering in Exodus.
We might assume that the foreign adoptees were grafted into Israel covenantally through circumcision, but this may not have been the case. Those who came out of Egypt were circumcised (Josh. 5:5), but this presumably refers only to Israelites at the time of the crossing of the Red Sea. This great miracle allowed everyone accompanying them to escape, including the mixed multitude. There is no reason to believe that the passage in Joshua refers to the mixed multitude, who would not have been circumcised. This miracle of dry passage must have persuaded the mixed multitude, just as it persuaded the Canaanites, that God was with Israel. At this point - after the Red Sea exodus - some would have asked to be adopted into Israel. Perhaps Israel circumcised these newcomers, but perhaps not. Israel did not circumcise those sons who were born in the wilderness. If adoption did take place without circumcision, a lot more of the mixed multitude males would have consented to be adopted.
Why would Israel have agreed to this mass adoption? Because of their graciousness? Perhaps, but the thought of adding a huge number of potential fighting men to the army would surely have been a major motivation. This decision would soon cost the Israelites a lot of money: the payment of silver at the first mustering and presumably also at the second and third. The adopters had to fund the adoptees' payments. The mixed multitudes had not received the inheritance of the Egyptians.(30) Perhaps they had some silver, but if they were escaping slaves, this is doubtful. The immense number of adoptees in comparison with the number of biological Israelites meant that this adoption into the army of the Lord must have been extremely expensive for each Israelite family. Each family would have had to fund the atonement payment of its adoptees. Expanding the army of the Lord was a costly venture for each original Israelite family. It made economic sense only if they actually planned to invade Canaan. The only way for the economics of adoption to have paid off for the exodus generation was for the nation to have invaded Canaan immediately, thereby receiving its inheritance. The cost of two atonement payments could have been recovered only through military conquest. But after two numberings, the nation suffered a failure of nerve. The inheritance was delayed for another generation.
What if the mixed multitude had been adopted on the day after the death of Egypt's firstborn? They were not part of the original Passover, but perhaps they participated in the spoiling of the Egyptians.(31) This is difficult to imagine: a mass adoption of foreigners followed that very day by a shared inheritance. This would have meant that the adoptees paid their own atonement money, and also that the per capita wealth extracted by the spoiling was vastly smaller. But this does not change the economics of the mustering process. The adoptees were supplied with the atonement money they needed to pay the Levites. Either the Egyptians gave it to them directly or the Israelites did. In either case, the original Israelite families, other than the Levites, wound up with far less wealth than if there had been no adoption.
The mandated payment enforced a huge transfer of wealth from the 12 tribes to the priests and the tabernacle. This also indicates that the Israelites had stripped Egypt of an immense treasure: large enough to fund the payment of three wilderness numberings of mostly adopted foreigners, plus the voluntary offering prior to the building of the tabernacle.
Because of the number of Israelites slain by the Levites after the golden calf incident, I believe that the mass adoption may have came after this event. The 3,000 slain men were a significant percentage of the original Israelite population of about 35,000 men.(32) The magnitude of the loss of population was consistent with the magnitude of the crime against God. The loss of one-half of one percent of 600,000 adult males does not seem sufficiently burdensome. But to take this position, I must assume that the mixed multitude had no part in the rebellion, nor would they have participated in the covenant oath at Sinai. This may be too much to assume. If they were adopted earlier, then God was being very lenient with the nation.
In the third numbering (Num. 26), the text is silent with respect to firstborn sons. This is because there was no longer any need to number them as a group. The ratio of biological firstborn sons to the total number of Levite males was established after the initial numbering of the tribes; so, this ratio was no longer judicially relevant except for individual families. From the day of the one-time numbering of the Levites (Num. 3), each non-Levitical family had to pay money to the Aaronic priesthood for each firstborn male under its authority, whether of man or beast (Num. 18:15-16). Numbering the firstborn corporately was no longer necessary.
The Number of Levites
The number of Levites almost perfectly matched the number of biological firstborn minor sons of the other 12 tribes. This was God's doing, not man's. The adoptions took place before Exodus 38:25. Moses did not yet know about the substitution of Levites for firstborn sons. It does not appear that Moses deliberately assigned to Levi a number of adoptees that closely matched the number of firstborn. Presumably, each tribe was assigned a proportional share of new members. As the other tribes' total number of adopted members grew, though not the total number of biologically firstborn sons, the Levites' number of adopted sons also grew. Moses numbered all of the males of Levi above one month old, not just firstborn sons (Num. 3:39).
Given the mass adoption theory, a relatively small Israelite population existed on Passover night. We know that there were about 22,000 biologically firstborn males one year after the exodus. This was every firstborn male above one month old (Num. 3:40). If the definition of firstborn was common to both Israel and Egypt on Passover night, which I think was the case, and only household-resident firstborn Egyptian sons died, which I also think was the case, then the firstborn Israelites were unmarried sons living in their fathers' households. For reasons already offered, I argue that firstborn in Numbers meant firstborn males under age 20. I use the 22,000 figure as a marker. There would also have been somewhere in the range of 22,000 firstborn females. But bear in mind that what constituted a firstborn son in Numbers was not exactly the same as at Passover. The definition had changed: males under age 20.
If Israel's population prior to the exodus had been at the replacement rate level, there would have been a one-to-one ratio between firstborn and the total population of each gender: every person a firstborn. This would mean that the number of children of Joshua's generation was about 45,000. There were 45,000 parents and possibly even 45,000 grandparents. Israel's population would have been somewhere in the range of 135,000 people. Again, this assumes zero population growth. But if Aaron's family size was typical - four sons - then there was actually considerable population growth. This means that there were fewer grandparents (Moses' generation) than parents (Joshua's generation).
If Aaron's family and Zelophehad's wilderness family of five daughters (Num. 26:33) were typical, then the Israelites were multiplying above the replacement rate by a factor of two.(33) We know that the nation had been growing rapidly prior to the Pharaoh of the persecution (Ex. 1:7). Because of the relatively small size of the families in Aaron's day, I believe that the bulk of the adoptions took place prior to the persecution, probably under Jacob. We do not know what happened to the birth rate in Moses' generation, although the examples we have indicate that there may have been growth. If the persecution and slavery that were specifically designed by the Pharaoh to slow the Israelites' rate of growth actually worked, then Moses' generation suffered a reduced rate of increase compared to the previous one. We do not know that this was the case. Aaron had a brother and a sister (Num. 26:59), but he had four sons. There is no way that 70 biological Israelites could have multiplied to 22,000 firstborn sons in three generations without adoptions.
Let us assume that population was doubling every generation. Something in the range of 22,000 firstborn sons were residing in their fathers' households. Let us assume that each of them had a brother, although this is probably too high an estimate for the Passover. Eventually, there would have been two brothers per household: doubling. So, there were about 22,000 fathers in Joshua's generation, and 11,000 grandfathers, if all were still alive. So, the adult males of Israel probably totalled fewer than 40,000, perhaps as low as 33,000.
How did this small group reach 600,000 adult males one year after the Passover? The solution has to be mass adoption, sometime after the Passover, or after the exodus, or after the golden calf incident. This influx also provided the males that brought Levi's numbers up to 22,000 males - not firstborn(34) - at the time of the Numbers 3 numbering.
The other tribes were mustered first (Num. 1). The Levites were not numbered at this point, by God's command (Num. 1:49). God then announced that the Levites would serve as judicial substitutes for the total number of firstborn males in the other tribes (Num. 3:12-13). As it turned out, the number of biologically firstborn Israelite males was close to the number of Levite males as augmented by the recently adopted recruits. This does not seem to have been the result of planning by the Israelites. This information regarding the substitution had not been known prior to Numbers 3.
Leviticus 27:2-8 referred to an entry price for entering the tribe of Levi. This was a very large amount of money per family, which is why the system served as a barrier to entry.(35) This law was given in Leviticus, which was revealed to Moses after the completion of the tabernacle (Lev. 1:1). But the mass adoption took place prior to the Exodus numbering, i.e., prior to the construction of the tabernacle. The law requiring an entry payment to the Levites had not yet been revealed to Moses. Thus, the other tribes did not have to fund the adoption of thousands of gentiles by the tribe of Levi. The barrier to entry came only after Book of Leviticus was revealed.
If I am incorrect about the Leviticus prices being entry prices into the tribe of Levi, then some other explanation of what those prices were is necessary. I do not see a reasonable alternative. So, I conclude: 1) the bulk of those Israelites who were counted in the Exodus numbering were Israelites by post-Passover adoption; 2) the prices in Leviticus 27:2-8 were priestly adoption prices paid by those who wanted to be adopted into the tribe; 3) the entry fee was not imposed on future adoptees until after the mass adoption had taken place.
After the numbering of the 12 tribes was finished, God told Moses to number the Levites (Num. 3:15). After this counting was completed (v. 34), God ordered a precise counting of the firstborn of the other tribes (vv. 44-45). There were an additional 273 biologically firstborn sons in the overall population, for whom ransom money was paid to Aaron (Num. 3:46-51).
Adoption into a Tribe
I am assuming here that adoption was by family or tribe, not by the nation as a whole. Israelites had membership in the congregation through their families, clans, and tribes. Thus, when the mass adoption took place, each family, clan, and tribe received its share of the newcomers. In any case, each tribe did. The newcomers were not citizens in general; they were citizens of tribes. Levi would not have been left out of this initial distribution of new members.
Amram's small family, like Aaron's, indicates that at the time of the exodus, Israel's nuclear families were not large. The question is: How many families were there in each clan? If families were small, there would have had to be many families for Israel's adult male population to have been 600,000 by the Exodus numbering. That is, prior adoptions would have had to multiply the number of nuclear families.
Is the mass adoption of the mixed multitude the likely scenario, with stable population in the wilderness based on a less-than-replacement-rate stagnation, but without a population catastrophe? If so, then the firstborn sons had been born of Israelite mothers; the adoptees were the mixed multitude.
If Israelite fathers adopted gentile sons, then the bulk of these adoptees were probably younger men who were of fighting age. They would have been adopted by Moses' generation. Thus, the bulk of the population was in Joshua's generation. These adults were replaced by the conquest generation. The sons of Joshua came from the loins of Joshua's brothers by adoption. Replacing Moses' generation was statistically incidental; it had not been large compared to the 600,000. Thus, the population moved into replacement-rate mode during the wilderness. Joshua's generation was much larger than Moses' through adoption. Their sons and grandsons did not quite replace the adult males of Moses' generation and Joshua's combined.
So, most of the 600,000 males were probably members of Joshua's generation. If so, then each family bore fewer than two children who reached maturity, for the 600,000 men a generation later included grandsons of Joshua's generation. My conclusion is that their birth rates were low or else the mortality rate for children was high. The first possibility seems more likely. God brought them under a curse in the wilderness: very low birth rates. But He did not kill off large numbers of the fourth generation.
The 22,273 non-Levite, biological (matrix-issued), firstborn sons of Israel, from one month old to age 19, constituted four percent of the fighting-age male population of 603,550. To be in replacement-rate mode, there had to be approximately 22,000 fathers. Some fathers might have been childless; others might have two sons; but nationally, the 22,273 firstborn testified to an upper limit on the number of men in Joshua's generation. Again, to maintain the replacement rate, there could have been no more than about the same number of men in Moses' generation. If there was growth, however, then the number of Moses' generation was less: fathers producing more than one son. If the growth rate was doubling, as Aaron's four children testified to, there were 22,000 fathers and 11,000 grandfathers. This indicates how thoroughly gentile, genetically speaking, Israel's army was at the time of the first mustering, and how important covenantal adoption was in Israel's founding as a nation. Most of the 603,550 were ex-gentiles. This is why they were numbered separately from the biological firstborn. This was serious covenantal evangelism.
There is a weak link in this scenario. I regard it as the major weak link. If the maximum number of men in the third generation was in the range of 22,000 - no higher than 30,000 - then there probably were not this many men at the beginning of the oppression, two generations earlier. For growth to have taken place, there would have been fewer than 22,000 men when the oppression began. The faster the growth, the fewer the men. I believe there was growth: the blessing of God. This was the testimony of the Israelite midwives. What threat would fewer than 22,000 men have posed to the Pharaoh of the oppression? Perhaps he was looking ahead at what might be if he refused to restrict their growth, but in a society that had enough slaves to construct the pyramids, there would not have been a great threat from 10,000 men, let alone 5,000.
My theory of mass adoption and a subsequent tribal membership re-distribution to the Levites is textually speculative. The texts say nothing about either event. But something like this is consistent with the tribal population numbers recorded so exactly and repeatedly in the texts. The adoption scenario may seem far-fetched. But adoption into Israel had been going on from the time of the descent into Egypt, and maybe earlier.
The Mixed Multitude at Passover There is another important question: Did the firstborn sons of the mixed multitude die on Passover night? Not necessarily. The confrontation was between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt, who were represented judicially by Pharaoh. Gentile slaves and other residents of Egypt are not mentioned prior to the exodus itself (Ex. 12:38). God had not brought a covenant lawsuit against them.
Let us consider three possible scenarios. First, it may be that God spared their sons without blood on their doorposts. The Bible does not say that the homes of the mixed multitude were visited with death; only the homes of the Egyptians: ". . . It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. . . ." (Ex. 12:27). The comprehensive language of Exodus 12:29-30 may indicate otherwise, but Exodus 12:27 may be the dominant theme: Israel vs. Egypt. Second, it is possible that they believed the Israelites and put blood on their doorposts. To this extent, they covenanted with God: a common-grace, non-adoptive covenanting. Problem: Where did this many of them get the lambs? Or did they use some other form of blood, e.g., the blood of human fathers? Did God accept a substitute form of blood in an emergency? He might have. He wants obedience, not the blood of animals. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Ps. 51:17). Third, it is possible that their firstborn died. This possibility seems unlikely, for the adoption scenario rests on the assumption of the presence of a large population of non-Israelite males. If their firstborn sons did die, who subsequently married all of their firstborn daughters? How did demographic stability occur in the wilderness era, i.e., one wife, one husband, one son, and one daughter?
I think the second possibility is most likely. I reject the first scenario - grace without bloodshed - because of the comprehensive nature of the death of the firstborn in Numbers 8:17: "For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself." The firstborn sons and animals of the mixed multitude survived because the parents smeared blood on their doorposts. They believed the God of Israel with respect to the coming sanction. They had seen the other nine plagues. In smearing their doorposts with blood, they did not covenant with God in a special grace sense but in a common grace(36) sense: a visible acknowledgment that He is sovereign and the source of visible covenantal sanctions in history. They broke covenant with the gods of Egypt, but they did not formally covenant with the God of Israel. They only acknowledged that in order to avoid the negative sanction of death, they had to obey God and place blood on their doorposts. If they could not locate a lamb, they substituted some other form of blood. They were not held to so strict an honoring of the Passover rites as the Israelites were because they were breaking covenant with Egypt, not establishing a covenant with God. They did not eat a Passover meal, but they did avoid the death of their firstborn. When it came time to leave, they left alongside of Israel because they had broken covenant with Egypt. This did not make them part of Israel; it did separate them from Egypt. Only adoption could make them part of Israel. But their firstborn sons did survive Passover night. These sons provided the next generation of God's holy army.
Not All Were Adopted
Later in Numbers, we read about the mixed multitude. "And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?" (Num. 11:4). Where did these people come from? There are two possible answers. First, not all the mixed multitude had covenanted with Israel. Second, these new converts were still regarded as a separate group culturally. They were not yet assimilated into Israel's covenantal life. I think the first answer is the correct one. There were many among the escaping masses who did not want to suffer circumcision (assuming they were to be circumcised) and subordination to the God of the Bible, but they saw the advantages of remaining with the Israelites. For a time, manna had seemed to them to be one of these blessings. They had not been asked to depart from the camp of the faithful.
The mixed multitude served as contrasts to covenant-keepers, and they also served as sources of temptation, as was the case in Numbers 11. They still had an independent voice. The Israelites listened to their complaints against God and then voiced these complaints themselves. Judgment came swiftly: the positive sanction of quail and the negative sanction of plague (Num. 11:31-33).
Objections
There are several plausible objections to my scenario. The main one is that no revelation of such a mass adoption appears in the Bible. But neither does the suggestion of prior adoptions, yet these are necessary to make sense of Israel's demographics.
Second, why would a small nation adopt a lot of questionable pagans? Wouldn't the newcomers swamp the adopters? One reason is that the pagans asked to be adopted, even as the Gibeonites later were willing to become servants (Josh. 9). How could Israel reject such a request and still adhere to God's covenant? If a small local church is approached by 500 local college students who ask to join, what is the church to do? Tell them to go elsewhere? But there was no "elsewhere" in the Old Covenant. Another reason is military. Cowards like large numbers, hoping to reinforce their weak position. Here was a nation that feared marching into Canaan with an army of 600,000 men (even though not all of them could serve). How brave would they have been if there were, say, only 35,000 of them, with a third of these being old men?
Third, what language would have been used to communicate? Probably whatever language the Egyptians used to command these people. Then how was Hebrew ever to become the nation's common language? Perhaps through the same means that Hebrew has become the common language of the modern state of Israel: by conducting worship, civil law, education, and business in Hebrew.
Fourth, one which I have already mentioned: the small size of the population in Kohath's day. In my opinion, this is the strongest objection. It calls into question the reason for the oppression, which ultimately decided Israel's fate in Egypt.
Conclusion Here are the three problems that are raised by this passage: 1) how the 27-to-one ratio between adult males and firstborn sons could have existed biologically; 2) how a relatively small population of sons became the 600,000 fighting males that invaded Canaan; 3) how Israel grew to 600,000 adult males in three generations.
The third problem can be answered in only one way: through adoption into the nation of Israel. Because the theme of adoption is so central to the issue of God's kingdom in history, I used this theological model to approach the other two problems. I asked: Could the 27-to-one ratio have had something to do with the relationship between biologically firstborn sons and newly adopted adults? Second, could the disparity between the birth rates of the Passover's Israelites and the newly adopted gentiles explain the seemingly overnight appearance of zero population growth during the wilderness era?
Something took place in Israel's wilderness experience which reversed the high population growth rates that had prevailed since their descent into Egypt. I suggest the following: God's imposition of low birth rates on rebels. My solution to the echo problem does not require the death of fourth generation members who were born prior to the exodus. It also allows high birth rates for Joshua's generation: more than firstborn sons.
Jordan's solution, that the firstborn sons were under age five, suffers from the problem of redefining the meaning of firstborn. The evidence for five years or younger comes from the adoption price of Leviticus 27:6. It is indirect, at best. This solution creates problems regarding the birth rates of Joshua's generation in Egypt: either below the replacement rate or skewered very strangely during the last four years in Egypt.
Keil's thesis of the numbered firstborn as only those born after the exodus, if coupled with some variant of the early adoption scenario, is plausible, but only at the expense of radically redefining firstborn so as to eliminate the Passover's sons from the numbering.
For the person who resists a major redefinition, mine is technically possible though speculative: mass adoption. The enormous number of adult male Israelites at the time of the first numbering, if compared to the small number of firstborn sons, indicates that the Israelites had adopted huge numbers of fleeing gentiles into the nation sometime during the year following the exodus.
This places adoption at the very center of Israel's history as a nation. There must have been prior adoptions: surely of the household servants who came into Israel; probably of residents of Egypt in the years prior to the oppression. But the ratio of adult males to firstborn sons - 27 to one - can be explained in terms of a mass adoption out of the mixed multitude, either at the time of the exodus or in the months that followed, but before the Exodus numbering.
One thing is certain: Israel was a nation of recruits. From God's recruiting of Noah, then Abram, then Jacob's servants, and perhaps at the exodus, Israel had been a nation of adopted recruits. This was Ezekiel's clear testimony to the nation: "And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great" (Ezek. 16:3-7a).
What I have deduced from the texts is based on the data in the texts. This means that the Jews of Jesus' day should have known about the many adoptions of gentiles in Egypt. But the teachers of Israel did not teach this. Even the Jews who believed Jesus (John 8:31) were unaware of it. "They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" (John 8:33). They were incorrect on both counts. First, they were obviously in civil bondage to Rome, and had been in bondage to pagan empires ever since the exile. Second, they were heirs of the adopted sons of Abraham's heirs.
Any hope in a blood covenant through Abraham was a false hope. The Abrahamic covenant had itself been adoptive. Jesus on another occasion warned the Pharisees and Sadducees: "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" (Matt. 3:9). The context of that challenge was John's baptism. Jesus employed rhetorical language - stones into sons - to proclaim the message of adoption. The vast majority of those who called themselves Abraham's sons were heirs of adoptees. If they believed otherwise, they had not paid close attention to Moses' accounts of the population explosion in his youth and the post-exodus adult to firstborn ratio.
If Jordan's thesis is correct, namely, that the firstborn sons in Numbers 3 were under age five, then my suggestion regarding Israel's having adopted large segments of the mixed multitude is incorrect, or at least not necessary to make sense of the texts. We could legitimately conclude that adoptions of gentiles into Israel took place earlier in Israel's history, but not necessarily after the exodus Passover.
My objection to his interpretation is based on my view of what a firstborn son was judicially in Egypt: any firstborn son, no matter how old, who had no firstborn son in his own household who would bear the sanction of death. There was no age limit on this judicial status. The deciding covenantal issue was household residence. This was why blood had to be smeared on the doorposts, and everyone had to remain inside his house.
This definition changed in the musterings. The firstborn son in Numbers 3 was any firstborn son who was not eligible for mustering because he was under age 20. Judicially speaking, a mustered son had left his father's household. The deciding covenantal issue of household status moved from physical residence to military status: a new hierarchy. But if my thesis concerning late adoptions is wrong, then so is my definition of firstborn.
Like Jordan, Keil wants the number of firstborn sons in Numbers 3 to be smaller than the number at Passover, so as to reduce the 27-to-one ratio. He accomplishes this by limiting the time horizon of what constituted a firstborn son in Numbers 3. There were far more firstborn sons, biologically speaking, than those recorded in Numbers 3. How many, we cannot know, but as many as we need to make the ratio believable! This is one way to handle the problem. It does require the addition of the assumption of prior adoptions. By extending the number of births that persisted from the exodus to the Numbers numbering, we discover that Joshua's generation was close to replacement-rate mode. This implies extensive adoptions very early in Israel's sojourn in Egypt: slower growth late in the process; therefore, a minimal echo effect.
In contrast, my thesis of late adoptions allows approximately the same number of firstborn in Numbers 3 as at the Passover. It solves the 27-to-one problem by dramatically increasing the number of biologically unrelated adults numbered. This makes the ratio acceptable by removing it from the realm of biology.
I prefer Keil's thesis to Jordan's. It gives a theological reason for the shift in definition: the atonement of the Passover's firstborn by the lambs. But is Keil's solution superior to my thesis of a post-exodus mass adoption? His explanation is surely less complicated. It raises fewer questions about the problems of assimilating a huge number of foreigners. But to make it plausible, we must make the assumption of extensive early adoptions, probably in Joseph's era, in order to avoid the implications of a monumental demographic echo effect: either a dramatic reduction in the birth rate of Joshua's generation or the deaths of most of the fourth generation in the wilderness.
I have suggested a third possibility: the mass adoption of the mixed multitude. It is the only way I can imagine that the 27-to-one problem can be solved without radically redefining firstborn in Numbers 3. Yet I have redefined it slightly: defining the son's departure from his father's household as judicial rather than strictly physical. To answer the 27-to-one problem, there must be two different definitions.
Having made the strongest case I can for the mass adoption thesis, I think it is weaker than Keil's. Yet it is the only substitute for Keil's that I think comes close to solving the three problems. It raises so many questions, however, that it is safer to go with Keil's definition of the firstborn: a firstborn son who was born after the Passover but no less than one month before the second numbering. But in either scenario, there is no escape from the conclusion that Israel was a nation of adoptees.
Footnotes:
1. Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. 339.
2. James King West, Introduction to the Old Testament: "Hear, O Israel" (New York: Macmillan, 1971), p. 133. The word "red" (supf) can be translated reed or weed, as in: "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head" (Jonah 2:5). The presence of weeds did not mandate the presence of marshes.
3. F. S. Bodenheimer, "The Manna of Sinai," The Biblical Archeologist Reader, X (Feb. 1947); reprinted in G. Ernest Wright and David Noel Freedman, editors, The Biblical Archeologist Reader (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1961), p. 79.
4. Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), p. 61.
5. Wenham, Numbers, p. 62.
6. Ibid., p. 61.
7. Petrie, Researches in Sinai (London: Murray, 1906).
8. Wenham, Numbers, p. 63.
9. Noordtzij, Numbers, pp. 24-25.
10. Wenham, Numbers, p. 64.
11. G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 66.
12. R. K. Harrison, Numbers: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1992), p. 436.
13. Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 66.
14. "And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people" (Gen. 28:3).
15. Here there could have been an error in copying: the Hebrew word for 6 - the Kohathites' 8,600 - is similar to the word for 3. If the figure was 8,300, the total was 22,000. Wenham, Numbers, p. 71.
16. Ibid., p. 63.
17. Wenham, Numbers, p. 61.
18. Milgrom, Numbers, p. 339.
19. On 215 years rather than 430, see North, Gary North, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), pp. 14-17. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter XV, Section 2, in Josephus: Complete Works, William Whiston, trans. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel, 1960), p. 62.
20. The children of Joshua's generation did have children, and presumably some of them were over age 20 at the second Numbers mustering. But the leaders were the sons of Joshua's generation, and so are regarded as heirs of God's promise to Abram.
21. If someone were to ask me if I think I have ever made an exegetical breakthrough of real significance, one never before suggested by any commentator, this would be my choice. See Moses and Pharaoh, ch. 1.
22. Kohath and Jochebed were brother and sister (Num. 26:59). She married her nephew Amram (Ex. 6:20). Presumably, she was born much later than Kohath: the Numbers text says she was born in Egypt. Her birth in Egypt established her as part of the first of the four generations prophesied in Genesis 15:16.
23. Or under age five, if James Jordan is correct. See below: "First Proposed Solution: Firstborn as Young Minors."
24. No younger brothers headed households in which their firstborn sons had departed. If every household was headed by a firstborn son, then Egypt was in replacement-rate mode: zero population growth.
25. James Jordan: "Who Were the Firstborn Sons?" Biblical Horizons, No. 73 (May 1995), p. 4.
26. Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), ch. 36.
27. This eliminated all but the prematurely born sons who were born as a result of the debauchery of the golden calf incident, which took place as Moses was returning from Mt. Sinai. Israel arrived at Sinai in the third month, probably toward the end of the month (if the Jews are correct about dating the arrival at firstfruits/Pentecost). Moses was with God for 40 days. This placed the rebellion at less than nine months prior to the Numbers numbering.
28. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, [English translation, 1872-84], n.d.), III, pp. 11-13.
29. There had to be grinding and cooking.
30. See Chapter 4, above: section on "Passover, Sanctions, and Succession," subsection on "Sanctions and Inheritance," pp. 86-88.
31. We say "the Egyptians," but we mean something more circumscribed: those Egyptians living close to the Pharaoh's court. These were the leaders of the nation. It was they who supplied the enormous quantity of gold and silver used later by Israel to build a golden calf, build the tabernacle, and pay for three musterings. To say that these Egyptians had been rich is not putting it strongly enough.
32. See below: "The Number of Levites."
33. Zelophehad's family was not typical in the wilderness. It was abnormally large. Replacement-rate demographics were dominant. Perhaps he kept trying for a son. Perhaps he was an Israelite rather than an adoptee. He may have been operating in terms of an earlier dominion outlook. Or maybe God just blessed him with a lot of children.
34. Because the number of Levite firstborn sons was judicially irrelevant in the substitution process, they were not numbered separately.
35. North, Leviticus, ch. 36.
36. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).