Exodus 12:40
By Daniel Gregg
וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה׃
"And the Settlement of the sons of Israel, who had settled in Egypt, [is] thirty year[s], and four hundreds year[s]."
The translation is literal.
The MOSHAV (Settlement) is the name of an ERA taken from the intended final goal of a migration, to make a settlement in a new place. The settlement era counts the time from the initiation of the migration to the final settlement.
When Abraham left UR, it was with the goal that a permanent settlement be made in Canaan. Abraham did not make a permanent settlement in Canaan. In fact, he took five years to get there, stopping at Haran on the way, and then when he got there he did not make a permanent settlement. The land was still promised to him and to his seed. He made a detour into Egypt. When he came back, he did not build a city, but moved from place to place, and was dependent on the good will of the inhabitants who had settled the land. Since the land of Canaan was still a promise, they began to count an ERA from the date of the Ur migration, an era to be continued until they reached their permanent Settlement.
The Era was in progress when as the Sons of Israel were born. They also adopted the Era and the goal of Settlement, calling the Era "The Settlement". It became their own era. And for this reason the construct, "And the Settlement of the Sons of Israel" is a construct of possession, because they had adopted it. The Era would not end until they had settled Canaan. Egypt was the detour. It was not the place "The Settlement" was intended to be.
For this reason the clock for the 430 years begins when the Most High initiated the migration, starting from Ur. And this is when the Settlement Era was started.
It is acknowledged that Israel "had settled in Egypt," but faithful Israel did not regard Egypt as the intended goal of "The Settlement," because their settlement was to become their own nation in the place that Yahweh chose, and not with another nation dictating everything they may or may not do to them.
Exodus 12:40 does not say the settlement era ended at the Exodus. But, one continues counting to 470 years until they actually inherit the land. Even then the era can be considered open ended. It can point to the final Settlement of the land in the age to come, in the Messianic Age, under Messiah Yeshua. Why can we say this? Because the Patriarchs did not inherit the land before they died. Yet the land was promised to them as a settlement to be given to them. Therefore, it must be concluded that the Settlementment Era continues to the resurrection of the dead, when they can inherit the land.
It is acknowledged that the translation, "And the settlement...which they had settled," taking asher as meaning "which" and refering to "settlement" is possible, and in fact natural at first sight. But reading the text "who" is also possible. This is one of those cases where the simplest reading is meant to mislead the simple reader who does not care about the harmony of Scripture or care about the continuity of God's promises. It is true, however, that a good many people have been misled by the simple reader, and do not themselves share the unspiritual motives of the simple reader.
So what does the reader who grasps the whole context see that prevents the simple reading?
Firstly, if they were an ancient Israelite, they clearly saw the possibility of the explanation I gave above, and they would defer to it for the following reasons.
No. 1: Abraham was told that Israel would "return here," meaning Canaan, in a fourth generation. If 430 years in Egypt were meant then the fourth generation would have completely died out. However, if the Era dates from Ur, then cetain families would be in the fourth generation when they entered Canaan.
No. 2: The descent of Moses is given as "Levi to Yochebed to Moses," for which 430 years is grossly too long. And more specifically Moses' mother is called the daughter of Levi.
Secondly, the 430 years opinion in Egypt is a novel and recent theory. It is squarely contradicted by the LXX and the SP as well as Galatians 3:17. And even chronologists like Ussher did not hold to it. Historically speaking, the long 430 year in Egypt theory arose after the Second Temple Period.
Finally, dating it from the Ur migration is constrained by the chronology and world history. This you will have to see by studying those other matters.
But this text is a concealment text. Like a parable, it is meant to not be understood by those who should not understand it.
Encore: Numbers 26:59 (אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי בְּמִצְרָיִם). This text says, "And the name of the wife of Amram was Yocheved, the daughter of Levi, who she had birthed her to Levi in Egypt. Then she births to Amram, Aharon, and Mosheh, and Miryam, their sister." The key phrase here is "who she had birthed her to Levi in Egypt." The text is not passive, e.g. "was born to the tribe of Levi", but active, "who SHE had birthed her"; the first SHE refers to Levi's wife, which would have to be an unnamed second wife. The first wife was not named either. However, the taking of a second wife is implied by the text, because Yocheved is not mentioned in connection to the earlier sons of Levi, and she is clearly a generation later. The "her" in the text falls after an object pronoun, and the "her" is clearly Yocheved herself.
Consequently, there is no way to wiggle out of the conclusion that Yocheved was an actual daughter born to Levi, and this fact is fatal to the 430 year in Egypt theory. What is more, this conclusion is reinforced by the fact that apologists of that theory have to resort to changing and active Hebrew construction into a passive one.
Curious point: a Rabbinic opinion takes the object pronoun and the suffix, otha, and claims it is the name of Levi's wife! The Rabbis did not think of the possibility of a second wife here, and additionally claimed that Jochebed was born right when Levi entered Egypt, but this theory is chronologically unsound and completely unnecessary.
Concealment again: explicit mention of Levi's second wife is concealed, reduced to a mere verb inflection referring to her. This might cause a careless Hebrew reader to zip right past it. But to dwell on the text and come out with the passive meaning required for the long sojourn theory requires an actual misreading of the text.