Exodus 16:3-4

16:3 The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died ¹  by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by ²  the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full, ³  for you have brought us out into this desert to kill ⁴  this whole assembly with hunger!”

16:4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “I am going to rain ⁵  bread from heaven for you, and the people will go out ⁶  and gather the amount for each day, so that I may test them. ⁷  Will they will walk in my law ⁸  or not?

Exodus 16:8

16:8 Moses said, “You will know this ⁹  when the Lord gives you ¹⁰  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? ¹¹  Your murmurings are not against us, ¹²  but against the Lord.”

Exodus 16:12

16:12 “I have heard the murmurings of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘During the evening ¹³  you will eat meat, ¹⁴  and in the morning you will be satisfied ¹⁵  with bread, so that you may know ¹⁶  that I am the Lord your God.’” ¹⁷ 

Exodus 16:15

16:15 When ¹⁸  the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, ¹⁹  “What is it?” because they did not know what it was. ²⁰  Moses said to them, “It is the bread ²¹  that the Lord has given you for food. ²² 

Exodus 16:29

16:29 See, because the Lord has given you the Sabbath, that is why ²³  he is giving you food for two days on the sixth day. Each of you stay where you are; ²⁴  let no one ²⁵  go out of his place on the seventh day.”

Exodus 16:32

16:32 Moses said, “This is what ²⁶  the Lord has commanded: ‘Fill an omer with it to be kept ²⁷  for generations to come, ²⁸  so that they may see ²⁹  the food I fed you in the desert when I brought you out from the land of Egypt.’”

Exodus 18:12

18:12 Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought ³⁰  a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, ³¹  and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat food ³²  with the father-in-law of Moses before God.

Exodus 34:28

34:28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; ³³  he did not eat bread, and he did not drink water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. ³⁴ 

[16:3]  ¹ 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]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ 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.

[16:4]  ⁵ tn The particle הִנְנִי (hinni) before the active participle indicates the imminent future action: “I am about to rain.”

[16:4]  ⁶ tn This verb and the next are the Qal perfect tenses with vav (ו) consecutives; they follow the sequence of the participle, and so are future in orientation. The force here is instruction – “they will go out” or “they are to go out.”

[16:4]  ⁷ tn The verb in the purpose/result clause is the Piel imperfect of נָסָה (nasah), אֲנַסֶּנוּ (’anassenu) – “in order that I may prove them [him].” The giving of the manna will be a test of their obedience to the detailed instructions of God as well as being a test of their faith in him (if they believe him they will not gather too much). In chap. 17 the people will test God, showing that they do not trust him.

[16:4]  ⁸ sn The word “law” here properly means “direction” at this point (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 146), but their obedience here would indicate also whether or not they would be willing to obey when the Law was given at Sinai.

[16:8]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ tn Here again is an infinitive construct with the preposition forming a temporal clause.

[16:8]  ¹¹ 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]  ¹² tn The word order is “not against us [are] your murmurings.”

[16:12]  ¹³ tn Heb “during the evenings”; see Exod 12:6.

[16:12]  ¹⁴ sn One of the major interpretive difficulties is the comparison between Exod 16 and Num 11. In Numbers we find that the giving of the manna was about 24 months after the Exod 16 time (assuming there was a distinct time for this chapter), that it was after the erection of the tabernacle, that Taberah (the Burning) preceded it (not in Exod 16), that the people were tired of the manna (not that there was no bread to eat) and so God would send the quail, and that there was a severe tragedy over it. In Exod 16 both the manna and the quail are given on the same day, with no mention of quail on the following days. Contemporary scholarship generally assigns the accounts to two different sources because complete reconciliation seems impossible. Even if we argue that Exodus has a thematic arrangement and “telescopes” some things to make a point, there will still be difficulties in harmonization. Two considerations must be kept in mind: 1) First, they could be separate events entirely. If this is true, then they should be treated separately as valid accounts of things that appeared or occurred during the period of the wanderings. Similar things need not be the same thing. 2) Secondly, strict chronological order is not always maintained in the Bible narratives, especially if it is a didactic section. Perhaps Exod 16 describes the initiation of the giving of manna as God’s provision of bread, and therefore placed in the prologue of the covenant, and Num 11 is an account of a mood which developed over a period of time in response to the manna. Num 11 would then be looking back from a different perspective.

[16:12]  ¹⁵ tn The verb means “to be sated, satisfied”; in this context it indicates that they would have sufficient bread to eat – they would be full.

[16:12]  ¹⁶ tn The form is a Qal perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive; it is in sequence with the imperfect tenses before it, and so this is equal to an imperfect nuance. But, from the meanings of the words, it is clear that this will be the outcome of their eating the food, a divinely intended outcome.

[16:12]  ¹⁷ sn This verse supports the view taken in chap. 6 concerning the verb “to know.” Surely the Israelites by now knew that Yahweh was their God. Yes, they did. But they had not experienced what that meant; they had not received the fulfillment of the promises.

[16:15]  ¹⁷ tn The preterite with vav consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause. The main point of the verse is what they said.

[16:15]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “a man to his brother.”

[16:15]  ¹⁹ tn The text has: מָן הוּא כִּי לאֹ יָדְעוּ מַה־הוּא (man hu’ ki lo’ yadÿ’u mah hu’). From this statement the name “manna” was given to the substance. מָן for “what” is not found in Hebrew, but appears in Syriac as a contraction of ma den, “what then?” In Aramaic and Arabic man is “what?” The word is used here apparently for the sake of etymology. B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 274) follows the approach that any connections to words that actually meant “what?” are unnecessary, for it is a play on the name (whatever it may have been) and therefore related only by sound to the term being explained. This, however, presumes that a substance was known prior to this account – a point that Deuteronomy does not seem to allow. S. R. Driver says that it is not known how early the contraction came into use, but that this verse seems to reflect it (Exodus, 149). Probably one must simply accept that in the early Israelite period man meant “what?” There seems to be sufficient evidence to support this. See EA 286,5; UT 435; DNWSI 1:157.

[16:15]  ²⁰ sn B. Jacob (Exodus, 454-55) suggests that Moses was saying to them, “It is not manna. It is the food Yahweh has given you.” He comes to this conclusion based on the strange popular etymology from the interrogative word, noting that people do not call things “what?”

[16:15]  ²¹ sn For other views see G. Vermès, “‘He Is the Bread’ Targum Neofiti Ex. 16:15,” SJLA 8 (1975): 139-46; and G. J. Cowling, “Targum Neofiti Ex. 16:15,” AJBA (1974-75): 93-105.

[16:29]  ²¹ sn Noting the rabbinic teaching that the giving of the Sabbath was a sign of God’s love – it was accomplished through the double portion on the sixth day – B. Jacob says, “God made no request unless He provided the means for its execution” (Exodus, 461).

[16:29]  ²² tn Heb “remain, a man where he is.”

[16:29]  ²³ tn Or “Let not anyone go” (see GKC 445 §138.d).

[16:32]  ²⁵ tn Heb “This is the thing that.”

[16:32]  ²⁶ tn Heb “for keeping.”

[16:32]  ²⁷ tn Heb “according to your generations” (see Exod 12:14).

[16:32]  ²⁸ tn In this construction after the particle expressing purpose or result, the imperfect tense has the nuance of final imperfect, equal to a subjunctive in the classical languages.

[18:12]  ²⁹ tn The verb is “and he took” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). It must have the sense of getting the animals for the sacrifice. The Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate have “offered.” But Cody argues because of the precise wording in the text Jethro did not offer the sacrifices but received them (A. Cody, “Exodus 18,12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites,” Bib 49 [1968]: 159-61).

[18:12]  ³⁰ sn Jethro brought offerings as if he were the one who had been delivered. The “burnt offering” is singular, to honor God first. The other sacrifices were intended for the invited guests to eat (a forerunner of the peace offering). See B. Jacob, Exodus, 498.

[18:12]  ³¹ tn The word לֶחֶם (lekhem) here means the sacrifice and all the foods that were offered with it. The eating before God was part of covenantal ritual, for it signified that they were in communion with the Deity, and with one another.

[34:28]  ³³ tn These too are adverbial in relation to the main clause, telling how long Moses was with Yahweh on the mountain.

[34:28]  ³⁴ tn Heb “the ten words,” though “commandments” is traditional.