Discovery BoxNumbers 11:1-6
Context11:1 1 When the people complained, 2 it displeased 3 the Lord. When the Lord heard 4 it, his anger burned, 5 and so 6 the fire of the Lord 7 burned among them and consumed some of the outer parts of the camp. 11:2 When the people cried to Moses, he 8 prayed to the Lord, and the fire died out. 9 11:3 So he called the name of that place Taberah 10 because there the fire of the Lord burned among them.
11:4 11 Now the mixed multitude 12 who were among them craved more desirable foods, 13 and so the Israelites wept again 14 and said, “If only we had meat to eat! 15 11:5 We remember 16 the fish we used to eat 17 freely 18 in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. 11:6 But now we 19 are dried up, 20 and there is nothing at all before us 21 except this manna!”
Numbers 14:1-4
Context14:1 22 Then all the community raised a loud cry, 23 and the people wept 24 that night. 14:2 And all the Israelites murmured 25 against Moses and Aaron, and the whole congregation said to them, “If only we had died 26 in the land of Egypt, or if only we had perished 27 in this wilderness! 14:3 Why has the Lord brought us into this land only to be killed by the sword, that our wives and our children should become plunder? Wouldn’t it be better for us to return to Egypt?” 14:4 So they said to one another, 28 “Let’s appoint 29 a leader 30 and return 31 to Egypt.”
Numbers 16:13-14
Context16:13 Is it a small thing 32 that you have brought us up out of the land that flows with milk and honey, 33 to kill us in the wilderness? Now do you want to make yourself a prince 34 over us? 16:14 Moreover, 35 you have not brought us into a land that flows with milk and honey, nor given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you think you can blind 36 these men? We will not come up.”
Numbers 16:41
Context16:41 But on the next day the whole community of Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying, “You have killed the Lord’s people!” 37
Numbers 17:12
Context17:12 The Israelites said to Moses, “We are bound to die! 38 We perish, we all perish!
Exodus 14:11
Context14:11 and they said to Moses, “Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the desert? 39 What in the world 40 have you done to us by bringing 41 us out of Egypt?
Exodus 15:24
Context15:24 So the people murmured 42 against Moses, saying, “What can 43 we drink?”
Exodus 16:2-3
Context16:2 The entire company 44 of Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron in the desert. 16:3 The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died 45 by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by 46 the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full, 47 for you have brought us out into this desert to kill 48 this whole assembly with hunger!”
Exodus 16:7-8
Context16:7 and in the morning you will see 49 the glory of the Lord, because he has heard 50 your murmurings against the Lord. As for us, what are we, 51 that you should murmur against us?”
16:8 Moses said, “You will know this 52 when the Lord gives you 53 meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to satisfy you, because the Lord has heard your murmurings that you are murmuring against him. As for us, what are we? 54 Your murmurings are not against us, 55 but against the Lord.”
Exodus 17:2-3
Context17:2 So the people contended 56 with Moses, and they said, “Give us water to drink!” 57 Moses said to them, “Why do you contend 58 with me? Why do you test 59 the Lord?” 17:3 But the people were very thirsty 60 there for water, and they murmured against Moses and said, “Why in the world 61 did you bring us up out of Egypt – to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?” 62
Psalms 68:6
Context68:6 God settles those who have been deserted in their own homes; 63
he frees prisoners and grants them prosperity. 64
But sinful rebels live in the desert. 65
Psalms 78:19
Context78:19 They insulted God, saying, 66
“Is God really able to give us food 67 in the wilderness?
[11:1] 1 sn The chapter includes the initial general complaints (vv. 1-3), the complaints about food (vv. 4-9), Moses’ own complaint to the
[11:1] 2 tn The temporal clause uses the Hitpoel infinitive construct from אָנַן (’anan). It is a rare word, occurring in Lam 3:39. With this blunt introduction the constant emphasis of obedience to the word of the
[11:1] 3 tn Heb “it was evil in the ears of the
[11:1] 4 tn The preterite with vav (ו) consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause.
[11:1] 5 tn The common Hebrew expression uses the verb חָרָה (harah, “to be hot, to burn, to be kindled”). The subject is אַפּוֹ (’appo), “his anger” or more literally, his nose, which in this anthropomorphic expression flares in rage. The emphasis is superlative – “his anger raged.”
[11:1] 6 tn The vav (ו) consecutive does not simply show sequence in the verbs, but here expresses the result of the anger of the
[11:1] 7 sn The “fire of the
[11:2] 9 sn Here is the pattern that will become in the wilderness experience so common – the complaining turns to a cry to Moses, which is then interpreted as a prayer to the
[11:3] 10 tn The name תַּבְעֵרָה (tav’erah) is given to the spot as a commemorative of the wilderness experience. It is explained by the formula using the same verbal root, “to burn.” Such naming narratives are found dozens of times in the OT, and most frequently in the Pentateuch. The explanation is seldom an exact etymology, and so in the literature is called a popular etymology. It is best to explain the connection as a figure of speech, a paronomasia, which is a phonetic wordplay that may or may not be etymologically connected. Usually the name is connected to the explanation by a play on the verbal root – here the preterite explaining the noun. The significance of commemorating the place by such a device is to “burn” it into the memory of Israel. The narrative itself would be remembered more easily by the name and its motif. The namings in the wilderness wanderings remind the faithful of unbelief, and warn us all not to murmur as they murmured. See further A. P. Ross, “Paronomasia and Popular Etymologies in the Naming Narrative of the Old Testament,” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1982.
[11:4] 11 sn The story of the sending of the quail is a good example of poetic justice, or talionic justice. God had provided for the people, but even in that provision they were not satisfied, for they remembered other foods they had in Egypt. No doubt there was not the variety of foods in the Sinai that might have been available in Egypt, but their life had been bitter bondage there as well. They had cried to the
[11:4] 12 tn The mixed multitude (or “rabble,” so NASB, NIV, NRSV; NLT “foreign rabble”) is the translation of an unusual word, הֲָאסַפְסֻף (ha’safsuf). It occurs in the Hebrew Bible only here. It may mean “a gathering of people” from the verb אָסַף (’asaf), yielding the idea of a mixed multitude (in line with Exod 12:38). But the root is different, and so no clear connection can be established. Many commentators therefore think the word is stronger, showing contempt through a word that would be equivalent to “riff-raff.”
[11:4] 13 tn The Hebrew simply uses the cognate accusative, saying “they craved a craving” (הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה, hit’avvu ta’vah), but the context shows that they had this strong craving for food. The verb describes a strong desire, which is not always negative (Ps 132:13-14). But the word is a significant one in the Torah; it was used in the garden story for Eve’s desire for the tree, and it is used in the Decalogue in the warning against coveting (Deut 5:21).
[11:4] 14 tc The Greek and the Latin versions read “and they sat down” for “and they returned,” involving just a change in vocalization (which they did not have). This may reflect the same expression in Judg 20:26. But the change does not improve this verse.
[11:4] 15 tn The Hebrew expresses the strong wish or longing idiomatically: “Who will give us flesh to eat?” It is a rhetorical expression not intended to be taken literally, but merely to give expression to the longing they had. See GKC 476 §151.a.1.
[11:5] 16 tn The perfect tense here expresses the experience of a state of mind.
[11:5] 17 tn The imperfect tense would here be the customary imperfect, showing continual or incomplete action in past time.
[11:5] 18 tn The adverb “freely” is from the word חָנַן (khanan, “to be gracious”), from which is derived the noun “grace.” The word underscores the idea of “free, without cost, for no reason, gratis.” Here the simple sense is “freely,” without any cost. But there may be more significance in the choice of the words in this passage, showing the ingratitude of the Israelites to God for His deliverance from bondage. To them now the bondage is preferable to the salvation – this is what angered the
[11:6] 20 sn The Hebrews were complaining both about the bland taste of the manna and dehydration – they were parched in the wilderness.
[11:6] 21 tn Heb “before our eyes,” meaning that “we see nothing except this manna.”
[14:1] 22 sn This chapter forms part of the story already begun. There are three major sections here: dissatisfaction with the reports (vv. 1-10), the threat of divine punishment (vv. 11-38), and the defeat of the Israelites (vv. 39-45). See K. D. Sakenfeld, “The Problem of Divine Forgiveness in Num 14,” CBQ 37 (1975): 317-30; also J. R. Bartlett, “The Use of the Word רֹאשׁ as a Title in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 1-10.
[14:1] 23 tn The two verbs “lifted up their voice and cried” form a hendiadys; the idiom of raising the voice means that they cried aloud.
[14:1] 24 tn There are a number of things that the verb “to weep” or “wail” can connote. It could reflect joy, grief, lamentation, or repentance, but here it reflects fear, hopelessness, or vexation at the thought of coming all this way and being defeated by the Canaanite armies. See Judg 20:23, 26.
[14:2] 25 tn The Hebrew verb “to murmur” is לוּן (lun). It is a strong word, signifying far more than complaining or grumbling, as some of the modern translations have it. The word is most often connected to the wilderness experience. It is paralleled in the literature with the word “to rebel.” The murmuring is like a parliamentary vote of no confidence, for they no longer trusted their leaders and wished to choose a new leader and return. This “return to Egypt” becomes a symbol of their lack of faith in the
[14:2] 26 tn The optative is expressed by לוּ (lu) and then the verb, here the perfect tense מַתְנוּ (matnu) – “O that we had died….” Had they wanted to die in Egypt they should not have cried out to the
[14:4] 28 tn Heb “a man to his brother.”
[14:4] 29 tn The verb is נָתַן (natan, “to give”), but this verb has quite a wide range of meanings in the Bible. Here it must mean “to make,” “to choose,” “to designate” or the like.
[14:4] 30 tn The word “head” (רֹאשׁ, ro’sh) probably refers to a tribal chief who was capable to judge and to lead to war (see J. R. Bartlett, “The Use of the Word רֹאשׁ as a Title in the Old Testament,” VT 19 [1969]: 1-10).
[14:4] 31 tn The form is a cohortative with a vav (ו) prefixed. After the preceding cohortative this could also be interpreted as a purpose or result clause – in order that we may return.
[16:13] 32 tn The question is rhetorical. It was not a small thing to them – it was a big thing.
[16:13] 33 tn The modern scholar who merely sees these words as belonging to an earlier tradition about going up to the land of Canaan that flows with milk and honey misses the irony here. What is happening is that the text is showing how twisted the thinking of the rebels is. They have turned things completely around. Egypt was the land flowing with milk and honey, not Canaan where they will die. The words of rebellion are seldom original, and always twisted.
[16:13] 34 tn The verb הִשְׂתָּרֵר (histarer) is the Hitpael infinitive absolute that emphasizes the preceding תִשְׂתָּרֵר (tistarer), the Hitpael imperfect tense (both forms having metathesis). The verb means “to rule; to act like a prince; to make oneself a prince.” This is the only occurrence of the reflexive for this verb. The exact nuance is difficult to translate into English. But they are accusing Moses of seizing princely power for himself, perhaps making a sarcastic reference to his former status in Egypt. The rebels here are telling Moses that they had discerned his scheme, and so he could not “hoodwink” them (cf. NEB).
[16:14] 35 tn Here אַף (’af) has the sense of “in addition.” It is not a common use.
[16:14] 36 tn Heb “will you bore out the eyes of these men?” The question is “Will you continue to mislead them?” (or “hoodwink” them). In Deut 16:19 it is used for taking a bribe; something like that kind of deception is intended here. They are simply stating that Moses is a deceiver who is misleading the people with false promises.
[16:41] 37 sn The whole congregation here is trying to project its guilt on Moses and Aaron. It was they and their rebellion that brought about the deaths, not Moses and Aaron. The
[17:12] 38 tn The use of הֵן (hen) and the perfect tense in the nuance of a prophetic perfect expresses their conviction that they were bound to die – it was certain (see GKC 312-13 §106.n).
[14:11] 39 sn B. Jacob (Exodus, 396-97) notes how the speech is overly dramatic and came from a people given to using such exaggerations (Num 16:14), even using a double negative. The challenge to Moses brings a double irony. To die in the desert would be without proper burial, but in Egypt there were graves – it was a land of tombs and graves! Gesenius notes that two negatives in the sentence do not nullify each other but make the sentence all the more emphatic: “Is it because there were no graves…?” (GKC 483 §152.y).
[14:11] 40 tn The demonstrative pronoun has the enclitic use again, giving a special emphasis to the question (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).
[14:11] 41 tn The Hebrew term לְהוֹצִּיאָנוּ (lÿhotsi’anu) is the Hiphil infinitive construct with a suffix, “to bring us out.” It is used epexegetically here, explaining the previous question.
[15:24] 42 tn The verb וַיִּלֹנוּ (vayyillonu) from לוּן (lun) is a much stronger word than “to grumble” or “to complain.” It is used almost exclusively in the wilderness wandering stories, to describe the rebellion of the Israelites against God (see also Ps 59:14-15). They were not merely complaining – they were questioning God’s abilities and motives. The action is something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence.
[15:24] 43 tn The imperfect tense here should be given a potential nuance: “What can we drink?” since the previous verse reports that they were not able to drink the water.
[16:2] 44 tn Or “community” or “assembly.”
[16:3] 45 tn The text reads: מִי־יִתֵּן מוּתֵנוּ (mi-yitten mutenu, “who will give our dying”) meaning “If only we had died.” מוּתֵנוּ is the Qal infinitive construct with the suffix. This is one way that Hebrew expresses the optative with an infinitive construct. See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 91-92, §547.
[16:3] 46 tn The form is a Qal infinitive construct used in a temporal clause, and the verb “when we ate” has the same structure.
[16:3] 47 sn That the complaint leading up to the manna is unjustified can be seen from the record itself. They left Egypt with flocks and herds and very much cattle, and about 45 days later they are complaining that they are without food. Moses reminded them later that they lacked nothing (Deut 3:7; for the whole sermon on this passage, see 8:1-20). Moreover, the complaint is absurd because the food of work gangs was far more meager than they recall. The complaint was really against Moses. They crave the eating of meat and of bread and so God will meet that need; he will send bread from heaven and quail as well.
[16:3] 48 tn לְהָמִית (lÿhamit) is the Hiphil infinitive construct showing purpose. The people do not trust the intentions or the plan of their leaders and charge Moses with bringing everyone out to kill them.
[16:7] 49 tn Heb “morning, and you will see.”
[16:7] 50 tn The form is a Qal infinitive construct with a preposition and a suffix. It forms an adverbial clause, usually of time, but here a causal clause.
[16:7] 51 tn The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we – what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers. The next verse repeats the question to further press the seriousness of what the Israelites are doing.
[16:8] 52 tn “You will know this” has been added to make the line smooth. Because of the abruptness of the lines in the verse, and the repetition with v. 7, B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 273) thinks that v. 8 is merely a repetition by scribal error – even though the versions render it as the MT has it. But B. Jacob (Exodus, 447) suggests that the contrast with vv. 6 and 7 is important for another reason – there Moses and Aaron speak, and it is smooth and effective, but here only Moses speaks, and it is labored and clumsy. “We should realize that Moses had properly claimed to be no public speaker.”
[16:8] 53 tn Here again is an infinitive construct with the preposition forming a temporal clause.
[16:8] 54 tn The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we – what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers.
[16:8] 55 tn The word order is “not against us [are] your murmurings.”
[17:2] 56 tn The verb וַיָּרֶב (vayyarev) is from the root רִיב (riv); it forms the basis of the name “Meribah.” The word means “strive, quarrel, be in contention” and even “litigation.” A translation “quarrel” does not appear to capture the magnitude of what is being done here. The people have a legal dispute – they are contending with Moses as if bringing a lawsuit.
[17:2] 57 tn The imperfect tense with the vav (ו) follows the imperative, and so it carries the nuance of the logical sequence, showing purpose or result. This may be expressed in English as “give us water so that we may drink,” but more simply with the English infinitive, “give us water to drink.”
[17:2] 58 tn In this case and in the next clause the imperfect tenses are to be taken as progressive imperfects – the action is in progress.
[17:2] 59 tn The verb נָסָה (nasah) means “to test, tempt, try, prove.” It can be used of people simply trying to do something that they are not sure of (such as David trying on Saul’s armor), or of God testing people to see if they will obey (as in testing Abraham, Gen 22:1), or of people challenging others (as in the Queen of Sheba coming to test Solomon), and of the people in the desert in rebellion putting God to the test. By doubting that God was truly in their midst, and demanding that he demonstrate his presence, they tested him to see if he would act. There are times when “proving” God is correct and required, but that is done by faith (as with Gideon); when it is done out of unbelief, then it is an act of disloyalty.
[17:3] 60 tn The verbs and the pronouns in this verse are in the singular because “the people” is singular in form.
[17:3] 61 tn The demonstrative pronoun is used as the enclitic form for special emphasis in the question; it literally says, “why is this you have brought us up?” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).
[17:3] 62 sn Their words deny God the credit for bringing them out of Egypt, impugn the integrity of Moses and God by accusing them of bringing the people out here to die, and show a lack of faith in God’s ability to provide for them.
[68:6] 63 tn Heb “God causes the solitary ones to dwell in a house.” The participle suggests this is what God typically does.
[68:6] 64 tn Heb “he brings out prisoners into prosperity.” Another option is to translate, “he brings out prisoners with singing” (cf. NIV). The participle suggests this is what God typically does.
[68:6] 65 tn Or “in a parched [land].”
