Comments on Exodus 16 The events in this chapter cover the same events covered in Numbers 11, but the presentations are very different. These blessings Israel is currently enjoying are regardless of worthiness, as a result of the Abrahamic covenant, with the minimum requirement being circumcision. The Abrahamic covenant encompasses the entirely of the gospel, the Priesthood, and the blessings of immortality and eternal life. But, the Israelites in general were doing the minimum (i.e., circumcision), so they were getting the minimum, that is they were receiving physical sorts of blessings such as protection from their enemies, prosperity in their families, physical sustenance, and so on (note the big quarrels in this and the next couple of chapters deal with the basics of physical life: water, bread, meat; all of which the Exodus account suggests the Lord provides despite their lack of worthiness). But the spiritual aspect of the Abrahamic covenant were not generally sought for. As a result of their lack of religious conviction, the Lord gets tired of being bound by the Abraham covenant so He imposes the Law of Moses (cf. Gal. 3:19), which raises the minimum considerably. And this is why the account here varies so greatly from that appearing in Numbers 11. Here the mercy of the Lord is emphasized, out of His respect for the Abrahamic covenant. But in the Numbers 11 account the justice of the Lord is emphasized according to the rebellion of Israel. So, both stories taken together give you the full view of the role of the two separate covenants, why the latter was imposed, as well as the Lord's character when it comes to mercy versus justice. v3-8 Notice what is happening with the grumbling of Israel. They are complaining against Moses and Aharon, "ye have brought us forth into this wilderness" (v. 3). They are not directly complaining against the Lord, but rather His servants, questioning their inspiration, and perhaps their sanity. Moses responds to this in v. 7-8 by equating complaining against the Lord's servants and complaining against the Lord. Also cp. the last two lines of 17:2. v4 Notice the conditional types of language appearing here in the latter half of the verse, and the subsequent tests applied to Israel later in the chapter. This theme is started in 6:26 and continues for the rest of the book of Exodus. Israel is no longer being protected solely by virtue of the Abrahamic covenant. v5, 23 The reference to the once a week Sabbath as we know it appears to be formally instituted here with the gathering of manna. Thus, the weekly Sabbath precedes the institution of the Ten Commandments. v14-15 "manna", exactly what this substance is remains a mystery. The Interpreter's Bible (IB) exegesis states: In the early summer several types of desert trees and shrubs, notably the tamarisk, exude a sweet sticky substance such as this appears to have been. It drips to the ground, crystalizes and turns white. The comparison which likens manna to hoarfrost and the observation that it tasted "like wafers made with honey" (v. 31) show that this material substance was the origin for the manna story. Instead of describing it as a flakelike things the [Septuagint] here compares it to the coriander seed (cf. v. 31), which is small, flat, and white. And the IB comments also state: The historical foundation: A sweet, sticky, honeylike juice exudes in heavy drops in May or June from a shrub found in the desert near which the people were wandering. It melts in the heat of the sun, after falling on the earth in grains. It has the flavor of honey. It is the natural juice of the shrub, but the Arabs believed it fell from heaven with the dew. The IB, being a rather liberal-skeptical commentary, generally suggests the manna was entirely natural and the Israelite's lack of familiarity with it caused them to believe it was of divine origin and thus developed the legend which was embellished over time. I obviously don't follow their liberal-skeptical views, but I do think the submissions above have merit. There are many instances in the Scriptures where natural processes are used by God to achieve His purposes (e.g., natural disasters, plagues, internal and external conflict, etc.). It is very rare when something happens for absolutely unexplainable and mystical reasons. So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these tamarisk trees were the means of production, they simply provided superabundantly for some ecological reason which the Lord engineered, but remains unknown to us. Also, the Hebrew "man hu", can be fairly translated to "What is it?" We know that the manna becomes equated with the Torah (i.e., the Law of Moses) in specific and the Word of the Lord in general in Deut. 8:3, so the Israelite reaction to the manna becomes ironic. Just as they do not understand what the manna is or where it is from, neither do they understand what the Torah is or where it is from, cp. Prov. 9:1-6, Isa. 55:8-11. v34 I would take the activities referred to in this to be temporally out of sequence but in sequence based upon subject, as the "testimony" is obtained in 25:21. v36 A homer = 220 liters, an ephah = 22 liters, an omer = 2.2 liters. So, in v. 34 Aharon puts aside a considerable amount of manna. Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.