The Abrahamic–Israelite–Exodus Sojourn and Apparent Discrepancies in the Historical Record

Jósef Molnár, The March of Abraham (19th century)

Galatians 3:17 reads, “And this I say: A covenant having been previously ratified by God, the law having come into being after four hundred and thirty years does not annul [it], so as to abolish the promise.”¹

Similar to a secular will or contract (v. 15), once God has ratified a covenant, it cannot be altered or nullified. Therefore, whatever purpose the Sinaitic law was meant to serve, having emerged over four centuries after the Abrahamic covenant, it cannot invalidate the divine promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed (v. 16). 

Chronological Confusion

While not the main point of Paul’s statement, the passing reference to “430 years” has generated much scholarly debate and confusion. Other than trying to satisfy the curiosity of Bible-chronology geeks (like me), the chief concern here is the integrity of the biblical record in view of apparent chronological discrepancies.

From the beginning of Abraham’s sojourn to the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt was 430 years, sometimes rounded off at 400 (Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6).² Abraham was seventy-five when his sojourn began (Gen. 12:4), and Isaac was born twenty-five years later (Gen. 21:5); Isaac was sixty when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26), and Jacob was 130 when he and his family entered Egypt (Gen. 47:9), making a total of 215 years from God’s promise to Abraham until his descendants entered Egypt. Their departure from Egypt, therefore, was 215 years later (cf. Gen. 46:8, 11; Ex. 6:16-20; 7:7): thus 215 + 215 = 430 years. Josephus reports: “They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt” (Ant. 2.15.2, trans. W. Whiston). 

Documentary Evidence and Textual Variation

The chronology, however, is not that simple. Exodus 12:40 (according to the Masoretic Text) indicates that the Israelites actually lived in Egypt the entire 430-year period (ASV, ESV, RSV).³ Yet the passage reads in the Septuagint (LXX): “Now the sojourning of the sons of Israel, which they sojourned in [the] land of Egypt and in [the] land of Canaan, [was] 430 years.” Note that the added expression “and in [the] land of Canaan” is not in the MT, although the writings of Josephus (noted above), the LXX, and the respective documentary sources upon which these readings are based predate the MT by hundreds of years.⁴ 

It is not insignificant that Paul was especially familiar with the LXX, and of the ninety-three OT quotes in his extant writings, fifty-one are in exact or virtual agreement with the LXX, twenty-two of which are at variance with the current Hebrew text.⁵ The Samaritan Pentateuch (which is also substantially older than the MT) agrees with the LXX reading.

At the same time, if the Masoretic version of Exodus 12:40 is deemed correct, the phrase “who lived in Egypt” could be parenthetical, describing “the children of Israel” rather than “the sojourn,” and should therefore read: “Now the sojourn of the children of Israel (who lived in Egypt) was 430 years.” This would not restrict the entire sojourn to the time spent in Egypt and is easily harmonized with the other chronological information.⁶

The 430 years to which Paul alludes dates the entire oppressive sojourn, beginning ca. 1920 BC with Abraham’s departure from Haran, to the exodus ca. 1490 BC (cf. 1 Kings 6:1).⁷ While conservative scholars have proposed a variety of dates for the exodus, ranging from about 1520 to 1440 BC, considering the antiquity of the event, this gap is relatively insignificant.

The Point of Galatians 3:17

Notwithstanding my pedantic curiosity about precision of dating, what point is Paul making in this passage? The judaizing instigators who had infiltrated the churches of Galatia, by elevating Moses over Abraham (cf. Acts 15:1, 5), were recklessly missing the essential nature of God’s covenantal promises. Paul is redirecting this misconstrued focus, away from the Mosaic law and its misappropriation and consequent divisive and burdensome distortion. Instead, the central feature of the argument is God’s long-established purpose in the promises made to Abraham centuries earlier concerning “the blessing of Abraham” coming to the Gentiles “in Jesus Christ” (v. 14), the promised messianic seed (v. 16).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The Byzantine Majority Text has the added phrase εἰς Χριστὸν (“in Christ”), probably borrowed from the previous verse. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1994) 525.

     ² Instead of considering the “400 years” as a rounded off figure, Philip Mauro argues that the thirty-year difference can be accounted for by starting the 400-year count at the weaning of Isaac and casting out of Hagar (Gen. 21:8-10; Gal. 4:29-30), which was about thirty years after the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant (The Wonders of Bible Chronology [Ashburn, VA: Hess, 2001] 27-28).

     ³ See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the OT: The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 2:29. The Masoretic text (MT) is the standard text of the Hebrew scriptures, copied and edited between the 7th and 11th centuries AD by a group of Jewish scholars known as masoretes (“transmitters”). This text is widely used as the basis for translations of the OT, although it differs from extant 4th-century AD copies of the LXX (translated from Hebrew to Greek in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC). The earliest extant fragments of the MT date from the 9th-10th centuries AD.

     ⁴ The Jewish masoretes, who were responsible for the MT, would almost certainly not have acknowledged Paul’s statement in Gal. 3:17 to help determine the correct reading of Ex. 12:40. For those who accept the divine inspiration of the NT writings, the information provided by Paul (and supported by the LXX and Josephus) is significant. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, the oldest extant manuscripts of the Hebrew scriptures dated to the 9th century AD. The Qumran texts date as far back as the 2nd century BC and include at least portions of every OT book except Esther. While no fundamental biblical doctrine is affected by textual uncertainty, Frank S. Frick correctly observes: “Today the tasks of textual criticism are unfinished, and numerous textual questions remain unresolved. Modern scholars, however, have been amazingly successful in recovering a reliable text of the Hebrew Bible, and contemporary translations benefit from their work. When using any modern English translation of the Bible, we should be aware that behind the translation are hundreds of decisions regarding the reconstruction of the biblical text in the original language” (A Journey Through the Hebrew Scriptures [Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1995] 18). See also David M. Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York: Crown Publishers, 1995) 329-32; Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of OT Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) 31-58; Stephen L. Harris and Robert L. Platzner, The OT: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008) 21-38.

     ⁵ E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the OT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 10-12.

     ⁶ Since twenty years was the general age of maturation (Ex. 30:14; Num. 1:3), it is still possible for Joshua’s somewhat ambiguous genealogy in 1 Chron. 7:20-27 to fit into this timeframe. On the integrity and veracity of the text of the Hebrew scriptures, despite the minor variations between the MT and other versions, see G. L. Archer, Survey of OT Introduction 31-58; H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us (Houghton, NY: The Word-Bearer Press, 1937) 183-308; Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the OT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1970) 26-37; and various articles in the Gospel Advocate 7 (July 2008): 12-25.  

     ⁷ These dates are based on the chronology in K. L. Moore, Getting to Know the Bible (Winona, MS: Choate, 2002) 29-33; see esp. 32 n. 4.

Related Posts: How many times can Egyptian cows die?

Related articles: Alden Bass, Joe DeWeese, Kyle Butt, and Bert Thompson, “Questions and Answers,” RR (July 2001): 49-54 <Link>; Kyle Butt, “How Long was the Israelites’ Egyptian Sojourn?” AP <Link>; Jonathan Moore, "Date of the Exodus," AP <Link>.

 

Image credit: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abraham

David: An Unlikely Hero of Faith

Introduction

God is the first to be named in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), and our Lord Jesus Christ is the last (Rev. 22:20). The next to the last is David (Rev. 22:16). Among the great heroes of faith listed in Hebrews 11, David is mentioned (in passing) only once in a single verse, shared with five other names and “the prophets.” However, David receives more attention in the rest of the Bible than any of the others. In fact, his name (meaning “beloved”) appears in the biblical record nearly 1,100 times, more than the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob combined. Moses is a distant second.

The youngest of eight brothers, David is by far the best remembered. From wielding a shepherd’s staff to a sling to a sword to a scepter, his faith and courage, by the power and providence of God, slew lions and bears, a giant Philistine warrior, and tens of thousands of the brutal enemies of God’s people. He was the greatest king in Israel’s turbulent history, leading them to the height of their national glory and was a pivotal branch in the family tree of the messianic King of kings.

The story of David is recounted in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Of the 150 canonical Psalms, seventy-three are attributed to him. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is identified as “the Son of David” no less than eighteen times. Clearly David is a prominent figure throughout the scriptures, having had a critical role in God’s redemptive plan that has greatly impacted all of humanity. So what can we learn from him?

David was Far from Perfect

The many mistakes of David include the following:

o   In 1 Sam. 21:1-6, he lied to the high priest and ate holy bread, “which is not lawful to eat except for the priests ...” (Mark 2:26).

o   In 1 Sam 25:2-35, when Nabal insulted him and refused to provide David and his men much needed supplies, with vengeful anger David was ready to destroy Nabal and every male in his household until Abigail intervened and dissuaded him.

o   In 2 Sam. 11:1-27, David was guilty of intentional lust, adultery, deceit and lies, attempted coverup, and murder.

o   In 2 Sam. 24:1-17 and 1 Chron. 21:1-17, David’s unlawful census (needlessly consuming about 10 months) demonstrated his misplaced trust in numerical strength and his prideful sense of self-achievement and self-exaltation.

Despite these glaring imperfections and more (cf. Psa. 6:1-3; 7:3-5; 19:12; 25:7, 11, 18; 32:5; etc.), God still worked with and through David to accomplish much good in carrying out his divine purpose and redemptive work (Acts 4:25; 13:36).

What David Got Right

Despite his shortcomings, David had a compliant spirit and understood the burden and devastating consequences of sin whenever God and his will are ignored (Psa. 32:1-5; 38:3-8, 18). Acknowledging his mistakes, David was remorseful and penitent and sought God’s forgiveness (Psa. 51:1-19). He was willing to change his mental focus and behavior in compliance with the Lord’s expectations. Accordingly, he “found favor in God’s sight” (Acts 7:45-46; cf. 2 Sam. 24:10; Psa. 30:8-10; Rom. 4:6-8).

The Psalms reveal a distinction between the sins of David’s “youth” (25:7) in contrast to his older years (37:23-25). As he matured, learned from his mistakes, experienced God’s grace and providence, his faith grew stronger and governed his life.

The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, And have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His judgments were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also blameless before Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity. Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His sight. (Psalm 18:20-24, NKJV)

David loved God’s word and sought to conform his life accordingly.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults. Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer. (Psa. 19:7-11, 14)

David faithfully served the Lord all of his life. His predecessor King Saul was rejected by God because he “rejected the word of the Lord” (1 Sam. 13:13-14; 15:26). God chose David instead because David was a man after God’s own heart, willing to submit to God’s will (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), serving God’s purpose (Acts 13:36). David desired the same for his son Solomon (1 Kings 2:1-4).

More lessons from David include priorities, the foremost of which is seeking God and his will (Psa. 9:1; 16:1-2; 37:5). We learn about trust in God (Psa. 7:1; 11:1; 16:1; 18:2; 25:1, 2, 20; 28:7; 31:1, 6, 14; 52:8; 55:23; 56:3, 4, 11; 61:4; 71:1; 73:28; 91:2; 143:8). We also see how God hears and answers prayer (Psa. 34:15-16, 18; 38:15; 40:1).

Conclusion

David was imperfect, but God used him for good despite his fallibilities. David was willing to acknowledge and repent of his sins and reform his life according to the righteous ways of God. He loved God’s word and was thereby transformed, spending his entire life in faithful service to the Lord. Let us learn from his mistakes and follow his example as a useful instrument in God’s hands.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Presented to Ripley church of Christ VBS, Ripley, Mississippi 24 June 2025.

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/king-david/

Haman the Agagite

Rembrandt’s The Fall of Haman (ca. 1660-1666)

The story of Esther is set in the historical period of the Persian king Ahasuerus (Esth. 1:1–8:12; Ezra 4:6), known in secular sources as Xerxes I the Great, who ruled the Persian Empire ca. 486-465 BC.¹ One of the king’s leading officials—the main villain in the story of Esther—was “Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite” (Esth. 3:1)

What is an Agagite?

The term “Agagite” is believed to be a derivative of the name Agag, worn by the king of the Amalekites in the days of Israel’s king Saul (1 Sam. 15:8). Rather than a personal name, this was more likely a dynastic title (like “Pharaoh,” “Herod,” “Caesar”) for the rulers of the Amalekite people. Centuries earlier it was prophesied that Israel’s king would be higher than Agag (Num. 24:7), i.e., “higher than high.”

A Long History of Animosity

The Amalekites were descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:12) and the first heathen nation to attack the Israelites as they journeyed from Egypt to Canaan. They remained enemies of God’s people for generations (Ex. 17:8-16). When Saul was anointed king, he was commanded by God to utterly destroy the Amalekites, but he disobediently spared king Agag while destroying the rest of Agag’s people (1 Sam. 15:1-9); not the entire nation but the inhabitants of the nearby city (v. 5). Even though Agag was later killed by Samuel (1 Sam. 15:33), the Amalekites were not completely annihilated (1 Sam. 30:1-17).

Mordechai and his young cousin Hadassah (Esther) shared the same lineage as king Saul, the son of Kish of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:1-2; Esth. 2:5-7).² If Haman the Agagite was indeed a descendant of king Agag, the historical conflict between the Amalekites and the Jewish people had in fact persisted for generations. Haman’s hatred for Mordechai and plot against the Jews was a natural continuance of this perpetual hostility, which actually predates even Agag and Saul, all the way back to their respective ancestors, Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:23; 2 Sam. 8:14; 2 Kings 14:7; Mal. 1:1-4; Rom. 9:4-13).

Conclusion

The sordid history from Esau to Agag to Haman is characterized by defiance, rejection of God’s ways and consequent estrangement from God and utter ruin. But one’s family history does not predetermine one’s own decisions and destiny. Nor is it ever too late in one’s lifetime to break this vicious cycle, clearly demonstrated by Saul’s distant relatives, Esther and Mordechai. “The Lord resists the proud; but he gives grace to the humble” (Prov. 3:34, LXX).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Xerxes I was the son and successor of Darius I. The Greek version Ξέρξης (Xerxes) is the Persian name Xšayāršā rendered in Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu and borrowed into Hebrew as Ăḥašwêrôš (spelled phonetically according to the unfamiliar sounds of a foreign name), transliterated in Latin Ahasuerus and English Ahasuerus (see W. S. McCullough, “Ahasuerus,” in Encyclopædia Iranica 1.6 [New York: Online Edition, 1996]: 634-35). The Ahasuerus of Daniel 9:1 (father of Darius the Mede), and the Ahasuerus of the apocryphal Tobit 14-15 (in league with Nebuchadnezzar), appear to be different persons.

     ² That Mordechai was “the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish” (Esth. 2:5-6) does not necessarily convey immediate and unbroken lines of descent but more likely remote ancestry with presumed gaps (cf. 1 Sam. 9:1-2; 2 Sam. 16:5). See K. L. Moore, “Alleged Discrepancies,” Moore Perspective (18 Jan. 2023), <Link>.

Related Posts: Chronology of the Post-Exilic Period, Timing of Ezra-Nehemiah 

 

Image credit: https://www.codart.nl/guide/agenda/the-fall-of-haman-rembrandts-picture-in-the-mirror-of-time/