¹sn Exod 16 plays a very important part in the development of the theme of the book. It is part of the wider section that is the prologue leading up to the covenant at Sinai, a part of which was the obligation of obedience and loyalty (P. W. Ferris, Jr., “The Manna Narrative of Exodus 16:1-10,” JETS 18 (1975): 191-99). The record of the wanderings in the wilderness is selective and not exhaustive. It may have been arranged for propaedeutic reasons. Cassuto describes this section of the book as a didactic anthology arranged according to association of both context and language (p. 187). Its themes are: lack of vital necessities, murmuring, proving, and providing. All the wilderness stories reiterate the same motifs. So, later, when Israel arrived in Canaan, they would look back and be reminded that it was Yahweh who brought them all the way, in spite of their rebellions. Because he is their Savior and their Provider, he will demand loyalty from them. So in the Manna Narrative there is murmuring over the lack of bread (1-3), the disputation with Moses (4-8), the appearance of the glory and the promise of bread (9-12), the provision (13-22), the instructions for the Sabbath (23-30), and the memorial manna (31-36).
²tn The sentence begins with a preterite and the vav consecutive, which can be subordinated to the next clause with the preterite and the vav consecutive. Here it has been made a temporal clause.
³tn The word is normally rendered “congregation,” but the modern perception of congregation is not exactly what is in mind in the desert.
⁴tn The form in the text is <t*ax@l= (l^ese’tam), “after their going out.” It clearly refers to their deliverance from Egypt, and so it may be vividly translated and graphically displayed by this translation.
⁵tn Heb “the whole congregation.”
⁶tn The text reads: Wnt@Wm /T@y]-ym! (mi-yitten mutenu), “who will give our death,” meaning, “If only we had died.” Wnt@Wm 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, §546.
⁷tn The form is the Qal infinitive construct being used in a temporal clause; and, the verb “when we ate” is the exact same structure.
⁸sn 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 8:1-3). Moreover, the complaint is absurd because the food of work gangs was far more meager than they recall. The complaint was really against Moses. It is interesting that 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.
⁹tn tym!hl= (l^ehamit) is the Hiphil infinitive construct showing purpose. The people do not trust the intentions or the plan of their leaders and charge him with bringing them out to kill them.
¹⁰tn The particle yn]n+h! (hin^eni) before the active participle indicates the imminent future action: “I am about to rain.”
¹¹tn This verb and the next are the Qal perfect tenses with vav consecutives; they follow the sequence of the future instans participle, and so are equivalent to the imperfect tense nuances. The force here is instruction—“they will go out” or “they are to go out.”
¹²tn The verb in the purpose/result clause is the Piel imperfect of hsn (nasa), WnS#n~a& (‘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 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.
¹³tn This is a use of an interrogative clause serving as an indirect question—to prove them “if they will walk…” (Heb “will they walk…”). See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §542.
¹⁴sn The word “law” here properly means “direction” at this point (Driver, 146); but their obedience here would indicate also whether or not they would be willing to obey when the Law was given at Sinai.
¹⁵tn Heb “and it will be on the sixth day.”
¹⁶sn There is a question here concerning the legislation—the people were not told why to gather twice as much on the sixth day. In other words, this instruction seems to presume that they knew about the Sabbath law. That law will be included in this chapter in a number of ways, suggesting to some scholars that this chapter is out of place, placed here for a purpose. Cassuto thinks the manna episode comes after the revelation at Sinai. But it is not necessary to take such a view. God had established the Sabbath in the creation; and if Moses has been expounding the Genesis traditions in his teachings then they would have known about that.
¹⁷tn The text simply has “evening, and you will know.” Gesenius notes that the perfect tense with the vav consecutive occurs as the apodosis to temporal clauses or their equivalents. Here the first word implies the idea “[when it becomes] evening” or simply “[in the] evening” (GKC §112.oo).
sn Moses is very careful to make sure that they know it is Yahweh who has brought them out, and it will be Yahweh who will feed them. They are going to be convinced of this now. This is the force of his statements here.
¹⁸tn Heb “morning, and you will see.”
¹⁹sn Kaiser says that this refers to “the sheer weight, gravity of his divine presence.” He adds that the presence of Yahweh is also termed “the face of Yahweh,” “the angel of Yahweh,” and “the name of Yahweh” (W. C. Kaiser, Jr, “Exodus,” in EBC 404). It may rather be that the power and importance and greatness of God will be revealed to Israel by the miraculous provision of manna (Driver, 147).
²⁰tn The form oum=v*B= (b^esom’o) is the Qal infinitive construct with the preposition and the suffix. It forms an adverbial clause, usually of time, but here a causal clause.
²¹tn The word order places special emphasis on the pronoun: “and we—what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers.
²²tn “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, Childs thinks that v. 8 is merely a repetition by scribal error—even though the versions render it as the MT has it (p.273). But B. Jacob 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” (p. 447).
²³tn Here again is an infinitive construct with the preposition forming a temporal clause.
²⁴tn The word order is “not against us [are] your murmurings.”
²⁵tn Or “congregation.”
²⁶tn The verb means “approach, draw near.” It is used in the Torah for drawing near for religious purposes to where Yahweh manifests. When the people of God draw near for service, they sense the presence of God more powerfully. It is possible that some sacrifice might have been involved here, but no mention is made of that.
²⁷tn Heb “and it was as Aaron spoke,” the construction uses the temporal indicator and then the Piel infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “Aaron.”
²⁸tn Heb “congregation.”
²⁹sn Driver says, “A brilliant glow of fire…symbolizing Jehovah’s presence, gleamed through the cloud, resting…on the Tent of Meeting. The cloud shrouds the full brilliancy of the glory, which human eye could not behold” (see also Ezek 1:28; 3:12, 23; 8:4; 9:3, et al; Driver, 147,8).
³⁰tn The verb is the Niphal perfect of the verb “to see”—“it was seen.” But the standard way of translating this form is from the perspective of Yahweh as subject— “he appeared.”
³¹tn Heb “during the evenings”; see Exod 12:6.
³²sn 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 the provision of the manna is not presented as being short-termed or seasonal. The account in the Book of Numbers also indicates that the quail came later, and that there was a severe tragedy over it. In Exod 16 both the manna and the quail are given on the 15th day of the second month. Contemporary scholarship generally assigns them 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 throughout 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.
³³tn The verb means “to be sated, satisfied”; in this context it indicates that they would have sufficient bread to eat—they would be full.
³⁴tn The form <T#u=d^yw] (wida’tem) is the Qal perfect with the vav consecutive; it is 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.
³⁵sn 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.
³⁶sn These are migratory birds, said to come up in the spring from Arabia flying north and west, and in the fall returning. They fly with the wind, and so generally alight in the evening, covering the ground. If this is part of the explanation, the divine provision would have had to alter their flight paths to bring them to the Israelites, and bring them in vast numbers regularly.
³⁷tn Heb “and [the dew…] went up.”
³⁸tn The predicate with the vav consecutive is here subordinated as a temporal clause to the main clause; since that clause calls special attention to what was there after the dew evaporated, this should be made a past perfect.
³⁹sn The translations usually refer to the manna as “bread.” In actual fact it appears to be more like grains, because it could be ground in hand-mills and made into cakes. The word involved says it is thin, flakelike (if an Arabic etymological connection is correct). There does not seem to be much warrant for saying it was round. What is known about it from the Bible in Exodus is that it was a very small flakelike substance, it would melt when the sun got hot, if left over it bred worms and became foul, it could be ground, baked, and boiled, it was abundant enough for them to gather an omer a day per person, and they gathered it day by day throughout the wilderness sojourn. Num 11 says it was like coriander seed with the appearance of bdellium, it tasted like fresh oil, and it fell with the dew. Deut 8:3 says it was unknown to Israel or her ancestors; Psalm 78:24 parallels it with grain. Biblical scholars compare it to other ancient references of honeydew that came from the heavens (see T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament [NY:Harper and Row, 1969], 243); Hesiod, Theogany, 581; and Aristotle, Historia animalium 22,4). Others try to find some natural cause for the “miracle”: F. S. Bodenheimer says that it was a sudden surprise for the nomadic Israelites because it provided what they desired—sweetness. He says that it was a product that came from two insects, making the manna a honeydew excretion from plant lice and scale insects. The excretion hardens and drops to the ground as a sticky solid. He notes that some cicadas are called man in Arabic (“The Manna of Sinai,” BA 10 [1947]:2). This view accounts for some of the things in these passages: the right place, the right time, the right description, and a similar taste. But there are major difficulties: Exodus requires a far greater amount, it could breed worms, it could melt away, it could be baked into bread, it could decay and stink. The suggestion is in no way convincing. Bodenheimer argues that “worms” could mean “ants” that carried them away, but that is contrived—the text could have said ants. The fact that the Bible calls it “bread” creates no problem. <j#l# (lehem) is used in a wide range of meanings from bread to all kinds of food including goats (Judg 13:15,16) and honey (1 Sam 14:24-28). Scripture does not say that manna was the only thing that they ate for the duration. But they did eat it throughout the forty years. It simply must refer to some supernatural provision for them in their diet. Modern suggestions may invite comparison and analysis, but they do not satisfy or explain the text.
⁴⁰tn The preterite with the vav consecutive is here subordinated to the next verb as a temporal clause. The main point of the verse is what they said.
⁴¹tn Heb “a man to his brother.”
⁴²tn The text has: aWh-hm^ Wud=y` a)l yK! aWh /m* (man hu’ ki lo’ yad^e’u mah hu’). From this statement the name “manna” was given to the substance. /m* (man) for “what” is not found in Hebrew, but appears in later 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. Childs 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 (p. 274). This, however, presumes that a substance was known prior to this account—a point that Deuteronomy does not seem to allow. Driver says that it is not known how early the Aramaic contraction came into use, but that this verse seems to reflect it (p. 149). Probably one must simply accept, as Cassuto says, that in the early Israelite period man meant “what?” There seems to be sufficient evidence to support this: see the reference in the KBL lexicon for Amarna (EA 286,5), Cyrus Gordon’s Ugaritic Textbook (435) for the use in Ugaritic, and the Jean-Hoftijzer dictionary of western Semitic languages for early Aramaic (157).
⁴³sn B. Jacob suggests that Moses was saying to them, “It is not manna. It is the food Yahweh has given you.” Jacob comes to this conclusion based on the strange popular etymology from the interrogative word, noting that people do not call things “what?” (pp. 454-55).
⁴⁴sn 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 2/3 (1974-75): 93-105.
⁴⁵tn Heb “the thing that.”
⁴⁶tn The perfect tense could be taken as a definite past with Moses now reporting it. In this case a very recent past. But in declaring the word from Yahweh it could be instantaneous, and receive a present tense translation—“here and now he commands you.”
⁴⁷tn The form is the plural imperative: “Gather [you] each man according to his eating.”
⁴⁸sn The omer is an amount mentioned only in this chapter, and its size is unknown, except by comparison with the ephah (v. 36).
⁴⁹tn Heb “for a head.”
⁵⁰tn The word “number” is an accusative that defines more precisely how much was to be gathered (see GKC §118.h).
⁵¹tn Traditionally: “souls.”
⁵²tn Heb “will take.”
⁵³tn “lives” has been supplied.
⁵⁴tn The preterite with the vav consecutive is subordinated here as a temporal clause.
⁵⁵tn The address now is for “man” (vya! [‘is]), “each one”; here the instruction seems to be focused on the individual heads of the households.
⁵⁶tn Or “some of it,” “from it.”
⁵⁷tn Literally “men,” this usage is designed to mean “some” (see GKC §138.h, note).
⁵⁸tn Heb “and it.”
⁵⁹tn The verb <r%Y*w~ (wayyarum) is equivalent to a passive— “it was changed”—to which “worms” is added as an accusative of result (GKC §121.d, note).
⁶⁰tn Heb “morning by morning.” This is an example of the repetition of words to express the distributive sense; here the meaning is “every morning” (see GKC §121.c).
⁶¹tn The perfect tenses here with vav consecutives have the frequentative sense; they function in a protasis-apodosis relationship (GKC §159.g).
⁶²tn Heb “and it happened/was.”
⁶³tn This construction is an exception to the normal rule for the numbers 2 through 10 taking the object numbered in the plural. Here is it “two of the omer” or “the double of the omer” (see GKC §134.e).
⁶⁴tn Heb “for one.”
⁶⁵tn The word suggests “the ones lifted up” above others, and therefore the rulers or the chiefs of the people.
⁶⁶tn Or “congregation.”
⁶⁷sn The meaning here is probably that these leaders, the natural heads of the families in the clans, saw that people were gathering twice as much and they reported this to Moses, perhaps afraid it would stink again (Cassuto, 197).
⁶⁸tn The noun /otB*v^ (sabbaton) has the abstract ending on it: “resting, ceasing.” The root word means “cease” from something, more than “to rest.” The Law would make it clear that they were to cease from their normal occupations and do no common work.
⁶⁹tn The technical expression is now used: vd#q)-tB^v^ (sabbat qodes), “a holy Sabbath” meaning a “cessation of/for holiness” for Yahweh. The rest was to be characterized by holiness.
⁷⁰tn The two verbs in these noun clauses (direct objects) are desiderative imperfects— “bake whatever you want to bake.”
⁷¹tn “today” is implied from the context.
⁷²tn Heb “field.”
⁷³tn The verb form is <T#n=a^m@ (me’antem); it is plural, and so addressed to the nation and not to Moses. The perfect tense in this sentence would be the characteristic perfect, denoting action characteristic of the past and the present.
⁷⁴sn B. Jacob has an interesting comment based on 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. He says, “God made no request unless He provided the means for its execution” (p. 461).
⁷⁵tn “So” has been supplied.
⁷⁶tn Heb “remain, a man where he is.”
⁷⁷tn Or “Let not any one go” (see GKC §138.d).
⁷⁸tn The text has “the house of Israel,” which is very unusual in this context.
⁷⁹tn Hebrew /m (man).
⁸⁰tn Heb “its taste was.”
⁸¹tn Heb “This is the thing that.”
⁸²tn Heb “for keeping.”
⁸³tn Heb “according to your generations” (see Exod 12:14).
⁸⁴tn 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.
⁸⁵sn The “Testimony” is a reference to the Ark of the Covenant; so the pot of manna would be placed before Yahweh in the Tent. Kaiser says that this later instruction came from a time after the tabernacle had been built (see Exod 25:10-22) (W. C. Kaiser, Jr, “Exodus,” in EBC 405). This is not a problem since the final part of this chapter had to have been included at the end of the forty years in the desert.
⁸⁶tn “for keeping.”
⁸⁷tn The words “omer” and “ephah” are transliterated Hebrew words. The omer is mentioned only in this passage. (It is different from a “homer” [cf. Ezek 45:11-14].) An ephah was a dry measure whose capacity is uncertain: “Quotations given for the ephah vary from ca. 45 to 20 liters” (C. Houtman, Exodus, 2:340-41).
sn The point of this chapter, with all its instructions and reports included, is God’s miraculous provision of food for his people. This is a display of sovereign power that differs from the display of military power. Once again the story calls for faith, but here it is faith in Yahweh to provide for his people. The provision is also a test to see if they will obey the instructions of God. Deut 8 explains this. The point, then, is that God provides for the needs of his people that they may demonstrate their dependence on him by obeying him. The exposition of this passage must also correlate to John 6. God’s providing manna from heaven to meet the needs of his people takes on new significance in the application that Jesus makes of the subject to himself. There the requirement is the same—will they believe and obey? But at the end of the event John explains that they murmured about Jesus.