How many people followed moses

A close examination of the law will show what was involved in it and why the Lord revealed it. After the judges had heard the accusation and the denial, the man and his wife were both sent to Jerusalem, to appear before the Sanhedrin, who were the sole judges in such matters. The rabbins say that the judges of the Sanhedrin, at first endeavoured with threatenings to confound the woman, and cause her to confess her crime; when she still persisted in her innocence, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, where she was stripped of the clothes she wore, and dressed in black before a number of persons of her own sex.

The priest then told her that if she knew herself to be innocent she had no evil to apprehend; but if she were guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law threatened; to which she answered, Amen, amen. During this time another priest tore her clothes as low as her bosom, made her head bare, untied the tresses of her hair, fastened her torn clothes with a girdle below her breasts, and presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints of barley-meal, which was in a frying pan, without oil or incense.

This was waved before the Lord, and a part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the woman was innocent, she returned with her husband; and the waters, instead of incommoding her, made her more healthy and fruitful than ever: if on the contrary she were guilty, she was seen immediately to grow pale, her eyes started out of her head, and, lest the temple should be defiled with her death, she was carried out, and died instantly with all the ignominious circumstances related in the curses.

Although this ritual focused on the woman, it in no way implied that men who committed adultery were to be excused, for the law clearly stated that adulterers of both sexes were to be stoned see Leviticus In a way, the law provided protection of two different kinds for a woman. First, without this law it is possible that a husband could unjustly accuse his wife of infidelity. If his word alone were sufficient to convict her, she would be in a terrible state indeed. Putting the determination of guilt or innocence into the hands of God rather than into the hands of her husband, or even other men, ensured that she could vindicate herself if she were innocent.

The second positive benefit is more subtle but probably is of even greater value. If a husband suspected his wife of adultery, one result would be a terrible strain in the husband-wife relationship. But the basis for her acquittal would be a lack of positive evidence of her guilt rather than proof of her innocence. Such a legal declaration, therefore, would do little to alleviate the doubts of the husband and the estrangement would likely continue.

Neighbors and friends also would probably harbor lingering suspicions about her innocence. The reputation of the woman would be saved and a marriage relationship healed.

Thus, true justice and mercy were assured, and the whole matter would be laid promptly to rest. Those who ask why there was no parallel test a woman could ask of her husband should remember that if the accused woman refused to undergo the trial by drinking the water, her action was considered a confession of guilt.

Thus, she and her partner in the evil act would be put to death see Leviticus If she attempted to lie and pass the test, but brought the curses upon herself, this result too was considered proof of the guilt of her male partner. It is possible that a wife who believed her husband guilty of infidelity could ask that his suspected partner be put to the trial of jealousy.

The outcome would immediately establish the guilt or innocence of her husband as well as that of the other woman. Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

A Nazarite was a man or woman who took a voluntary vow to separate his life for the service of the Lord, or to live consecrated unto Him see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, Being a Nazarite had nothing to do with coming from the town of Nazareth.

A Nazarite took three vows: he would abstain absolutely from wine or strong drink, including any products of the vine in any form see Numbers —4 ; he would not let a razor touch his head, but would let his hair grow naturally as a crown to God see Numbers ; and he would not allow himself to draw near a dead person, even a member of his own family see Numbers His life and all his efforts were completely and expressly dedicated to the Lord.

This consecrated life bore some resemblance to that of the high priest see Leviticus — Those who seem to have taken such vows, or had parents who made the vows for them, include Samson see Judges , Samuel see 1 Samuel , 28 , and John the Baptist see Luke In some cases, these Nazarite vows were for life, but more often they were for a specific period of time, after which the person returned to a normal life. Two instances in the New Testament that seem related to this vow taking are recorded in Acts —19 and — For the worth of a shekel see the table of weights and measures in Maps and Charts.

In this case, the table of shewbread was opposite the lamp. This is fairly easy to resolve by simply saying that one or both of these numbers are approximates.

But, Shaul does take the number from a passage in the Tenakh, which brings us to the second problem. And at the end of four hundred and thirty years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. This text indicates that Israel dwelt in Egypt for years bringing us back to the problem of the lineage. This problem may easily be solved with the following observation. The text translated as "four hundred and thirty years" is " sheloshiym thirty shana year v'arbah and four me'ot hundred shanah year ".

It is possible that the original Hebrew was written as " sheloshiym thirty shana year v'me'ot hundred shanah year ". This alternate reading would be translated as "one hundred and thirty years" placing the time of bondage shortly after Yaacov's entrance into the land of Egypt. It has been assumed that this passage takes place after the death of Yoseph Exodus but many times the Hebrew text demonstrates that stories are not written chronologically.

It is possible that this is the reign of the Hyskos who conquered Egypt that may have happened while Yoseph was still alive and they "did not know Yoseph". A later scribe attempting to rectify Exodus with Genesis inserted the word arbah four , hence, the translation of "four hundred and thirty years".

This may also explain the reason for the two different numbers given for the "slavery" of the nation of Israel in Egypt. The third problem is the number of male descendants of Yaacov who came out of Egypt. RSV Exodus And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. According to this passage , men descended from Yaacov left Egypt. If each man is married with an average of 5 children, this brings the entire population of Israel to 6,, This is not including the mixed multitude that came out with them Exodus or the flocks and herds that they also brought out.

This large number of people creates a few problems. The first is the size of this "army" Exodus - hosts meaning army. Also Exodus where the men are called gevoriym , or warriors compared to the size of Pharaohs army of chariots Exodus , which brought fear to the Israelites.

Biblical- Exodus We see a counting of the people at Sinai and there were , men over the age of So quite possibly somewhere around 1,, people. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. How many people did Moses bring out of Egypt?

How large was the area of the Promised Land? Asked 2 years, 4 months ago. Active 2 years, 4 months ago. Viewed 1k times. Improve this question. I mentioned that there were some interesting notes concerning the number of Israelites who left Egypt.

The word used in the text that is translated as "thousand" is not a cut-and-dry transliteration. Here are some great notes from Ryken on the matter:. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. This account gives the kind of who, what, when, where, how information that a good historian is careful to include.

But what about, how many? Can we really believe that God brought so many Israelites out of Egypt? If there were six hundred thousand men, then there were perhaps two million Israelites in all, and this number presents a number of difficulties.