וְחָנ֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִ֧ישׁ עַֽל־מַחֲנֵ֛הוּ וְאִ֥ישׁ עַל־דִּגְל֖וֹ לְצִבְאֹתָֽם׃
The Israelites shall encamp troop by troop, each [household] with its division and each under its standard.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Here אִישׁ is employed twice to describe the manner in which the specified activity (namely, encampment) was carried out. Such usage is a reflex of this noun’s prototypical function of labeling an essential participant in a schematic depiction of a situation of interest.
In distributive constructions like this one, the noun אִישׁ denotes whichever level of social organization is the most salient. That can variously be individuals, households, clans, tribes, or nations. In a given instance, the favored construal (the plain sense) is the one that renders the text as more coherent, informative, and relevant.
The context is a concern for the spatial distribution of groups within the camp. The overall group that is being distributed—of which אִישׁ must be the constituent unit—is identified in this verse as בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (“the Israelites”). In an ancient group-oriented society, it would have gone without saying that a household was the constituent unit of the Israelite polity. Israelite society’s structuring by corporate households went without saying because it was a universal experience for the text’s ancient audience.
That is, אִישׁ here designates not an individual person but rather a household (בַּיִת). For other instances where אִישׁ refers to households, see Exod. 12:4; 16:16; Num. 2:2, 34.
Surely if a household contained more than one combatant, they would be camping together within their household, rather than each man on his own. Noncombatants (including male ones) meanwhile remain in view here: the household includes them, too. Gender is not at issue.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS “each man with his division and each under his standard” paints a misleading picture, as if in ancient Israel, men dwelled as individuals. The contemporary audience, being part of an individualistic society, likely does not even notice that error. The revised rendering makes the household presupposition explicit.