Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 16:15
And when the children of Israel saw [it], they said one to another, It [is] manna: for they knew not what it [was]. And Moses said unto them, This [is] the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
15a What is it?] Heb. mn h’. The question is intended as a popular etymology of ‘manna’ (Heb. mn). Mn, however, in the sense of What? is not a Hebrew word, though, as a contraction from m dn, ‘what, then?’ ( m being the ordinary Aramaic for what?) it is common in Syriac; and man (not mn) in both Aram. and Arab. means Who? Mn is evidently used here merely for the sake of the etymology: and, though we do not know how early the Aram. contraction mn came into use, the verse seems to have been written by one who was acquainted with it. The real origin of the Heb. mn, Arab. man, ‘manna,’ is not known: Ebers, 226 8, identifies it with mannu in two (Ptolemaic?) inscriptions at Edfu; but, though this may be ‘manna,’ it is still uncertain if it is an Egyptian or (Ebers) Bedawi word.
wist not what it was ] Here the proper Heb. word for ‘what’ ( mh) is employed.
15b 21. Directions for gathering the manna.
15b. It ] Heb. That (Gen 41:28, 1Ki 1:45).
bread ] The manna is always spoken of as bread ( v. 4): it was a substitute, not for other food (e.g. flesh), but, as Num 11:8 especially shews (‘ground’ in the hand-mill, and made into ‘cakes’), for corn, or other grain.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
It is manna – Man or man-hut, i. e. white manna, was the name under which the substance was known to the Egyptians, and therefore to the Israelites. The manna of the Peninsula of Sinai is the sweet juice of the Tarfa, a species of tamarisk. It exudes from the trunk and branches in hot weather, and forms small round white grains. In cold weather it preserves its consistency, in hot weather it melts rapidly. It is either gathered from the twigs of tamarisk, or from the fallen leaves underneath the tree. The color is a greyish yellow. It begins to exude in May, and lasts about six weeks. According to Ehrenberg, it is produced by the puncture of an insect. It is abundant in rainy seasons, many years it ceases altogether. The whole quantity now produced in a single year does not exceed 600 or 700 pounds. It is found in the district between the Wady Gharandel, i. e. Elim, and Sinai, in the Wady Sheikh, and in some other parts of the Peninsula. When therefore the Israelites saw the small round thing, they said at once this is manna, but with an exclamation of surprise at finding it, not under the tamarisk tree, but on the open plain, in such immense quantities, under circumstances so unlike what they could have expected: in fact they did not know what it really was, only what it resembled.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. They said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was.] This is a most unfortunate translation, because it not only gives no sense, but it contradicts itself. The Hebrew man hu, literally signifies, What is this? for, says the text, they wist not what it was, and therefore they could not give it a name. Moses immediately answers the question, and says, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat. From Ex 16:31 we learn that this substance was afterwards called man, probably in commemoration of the question they had asked on its first appearance. Almost all our own ancient versions translate the words, What is this?
What this substance was we know not. It was nothing that was common to the wilderness. It is evident the Israelites never saw it before, for Moses says, De 8:3; De 8:16: He fed thee with manna which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; and it is very likely that nothing of the kind had ever been seen before; and by a pot of it being laid up in the ark, it is as likely that nothing of the kind ever appeared more, after the miraculous supply in the wilderness had ceased. It seems to have been created for the present occasion, and, like Him whom it typified, to have been the only thing of the kind, the only bread from heaven, which God ever gave to preserve the life of man, as Christ is the true bread that came down from heaven, and was given for the life of the world. See Joh 6:31-58.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It is manna; or, What is this? which best suits with the following reason,
for they wist not what it was. Man signifies what in the Egyptian tongue; and it is not strange that the Israelites use one of their words, being newly come out of their land. Hence this is called manna; but it is of a different nature from the ordinary manna, which now we use only as physic for purging; whereas this manna was food, and nourishing, being prepared by the great God for this use.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And when the children of Israel saw it,…. As they could not but observe it, it being spread over the face of the wilderness; and besides, as they were told, that in the morning they should have bread to the full, they were up early to look after it:
they said one to another, it [is] manna; not such as is known by that name now, which is only used in medicine; nor anything that was then known by any such name; but so they called it, because it was, as Jarchi says, a preparation of food, or food ready prepared for them, from , “manah”, which signifies to appoint, prepare, and distribute, see Da 1:5, so Christ is appointed of God, and prepared in his purposes and decrees, and delivered out, by his grace as proper food for his people, who have everyone their portion in due season: for Kimchi and Ben Melech give the sense of the word, a gift and portion from God; and such is Christ, the gift of his grace, and an unspeakable one. Some think these words were spoken by the Israelites on first sight of the manna, by way of question, “Man hu, what is it?” and so Josephus o says it signifies in their language; but it does not appear that the word is so used in the Hebrew tongue, though it might in the Syriac or Chaldee, which was more in use in the times of Josephus. But it can hardly be thought that the Israelites could speak in either of these dialects at this time; it is much more probable what others say, that it so signifies in the Egyptian tongue; and it is not at all to be wondered at that Israel, just come out of Egypt, should use an Egyptian word: and this best agrees with the reason that follows, “for they wist not what it was”; which contradicts our version; for if they knew not what it was, how came they to call it manna? but taking the above words as an interrogation, asking one another what it was, those come in very pertinently, and assign a reason of the question, because they were ignorant of it, having never seen any such thing before; and this sense is confirmed by what Moses says in the next clause, telling them what it was: and thus Christ is unknown to his own people, until he is revealed unto them; not by flesh and blood, by carnal reason or carnal men, but by the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; and he remains always unknown to natural men, though ever so wise and prudent:
and Moses said unto them, this is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat; which he had promised them the day before, and which he had now rained in plenty about them; and which they had as a free gift of his, without any merit and desert of theirs, and without their labour, diligence, and industry, and which they had now power from him to eat of freely and plentifully.
o Antiqu. l. 3. c. 1. sect. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
15. And when the children of Israel saw. The Israelites manifested some appearance of gratitude in calling the food given them from heaven, Man, (178) which name means “something prepared;” but if any prefer their opinion who expound it, “a part or portion,” I do not debate the matter, although the former is more correct. Yet, whichever you choose, by this word they confessed that they were dealt with bountifully, because God presented them with food without their having to labor for it; and, therefore, they indirectly condemn their own perverse and wicked murmuring, since it is much better to gather food prepared for them, than to acquire it by the laborious and troublesome culture of the earth. For although this confession was extorted from them by the incredible novelty of the thing, yet at that particular moment their intention was to proclaim God’s loving-kindness. But, since unbelief had clouded their senses, so that they saw not clearly, Moses says that “they wist not what it was.” In these words he rebukes their slowness of heart, because, although previously advertised of the miracle, they were astonished at the sight, as if they had heard nothing of it before. We perceive, then, that they did but half acknowledge God’s mercy; for their gratitude was clouded with the darkness of ignorance, and they were compelled to confess that they did not altogether understand it; and therefore their stupidity is reproved not without bitterness, when Moses tells them that this was the food promised them by God. For, if they had recognized in it the fulfillment of the promise, there was no need of recalling it to their recollection. As to the words themselves, the answer of Moses has misled the Greek and Latin translators, into rendering them interrogatively, (179) “What is this?” But their difficulty is easily removed; for Moses does not directly state that they inquired about it as of some unknown thing, but expresses their knowledge mixed with ignorance, for the matter was partly doubtful, partly clear; for the power of God was visibly manifest, but the veil of unbelief prevented them from apprehending God’s promised bounty.
(178) מן, Man. If this word be referred to the root מנן, it may mean a prepared thing; if to the root מנה, it would mean an assigned portion; but in Syriac and Chaldee man is incontestably what, and the LXX. bear testimony to the existence of the same monosyllabic relative in Hebrew by so rendering it here, to which the V. adds its authority, by saying, Man hu? Quod significat, Quid est hoc? C. found the two first interpretations in the notes of S. M. , who makes no allusion to this last rendering. — W.
(179) See margin A. V.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) It is manna.This is certainly a wrong translation. The words of the original, man hu, must either be rendered, as in the LXX. And the Vulg., What is this ? Or, as by Kimchi, Knobel, Gesenius, Kurtz, and others, This is a gift. It is against the former rendering that man does not mean what in Hebrew, but only in Chaldee, and that what is this would be a very strange name to give to a substance. Against the latter it may be said that neither is man found elsewhere in Hebrew in the sense of a gift; but it has that sense in Arabic; and in Hebrew manan is to give.
This is the breadi.e., the promised bread. (See Exo. 16:4.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. It is manna: for they wist not what it was More literally, They said, each to his brother, This is man, (is it not?) For they knew not what it (was) . They called it man, because it so exactly resembled the tamarisk or tarpi man with which they were familiar . They are here represented as talking to each other in a conversational, inquiring way, and the author adds, they knew not what it was; that is, they knew not what other name to give it . They used the Egyptian word for the tamarisk manna . Brugsch, in his Hieroglyphic Dictionary, says, “ Mannu, identical with the Hebrew man, Arabic mann . ” The tamarisk manna is found represented at the Egyptian city of Apollinopolis, presented to a deity in a basket of oblations. The resemblance, however, was only superficial, (see Introduction, 2,) for the manna of Israel was a farinaceous substance that could be made into bread, while the tamarisk manna is wholly saccharine. The Hebrew will not bear the marginal translation, “What is this?” (See Kurtz and Knobel; but Keil and Ewald make early Shemitic for . ) This is the bread which the Lord hath given you The dew was made the natural basis or vehicle of this miracle, as the water was the vehicle of the miracle of Cana, and the five loaves of that of Bethesda . The manna was deposited from the dew according to laws unknown, and probably undiscoverable, by us, yet to the Author of Nature the process was as regular and as orderly as that by which the grain is formed in the ear . We know of only one series of natural processes, one chain of secondary causes, by which the grain can be gathered up from its manifold elements, in earth, and water, and air; but God knows of many others, which are hidden from our sense and reason . To assume that the way which we know is the only way, and to call all other ways unnatural and absurd, is to make our ignorance the measure of God. It is true that we can conceive of no other way, but our power of conception is not the gauge of the universe. The water which, as liquid and vapour circulates through the veins of nature, gathers up the elements, and bears them along the sap vessels to form the farinaceous atom in the seed by processes which we can trace; but the same water could gather up the same elements and deposit this substance in the seed or on the ground by processes which we cannot trace, known only to God. This is a miracle. Of course this will not be admitted by those who do not look through nature, or within nature, and see God to be the only real cause.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 16:15. They said one to another, It is manna, &c. There is a seeming contradiction in our version: we read, They said, it is manna; and yet, in the next clause, it is added, for they wist not what it was. The rendering in the margin of our Bibles is more just: They said one to another, What is it? man hu? quid hoc? what is this? In allusion to which, and to commemorate the universal surprise and doubt respecting this celestial food, they called it by the name of man, manna, Exo 16:31. And in this interpretation all the ancient versions agree. This manna fell with the dew, which being exhaled by the heat of the sun, Exo 16:14 the manna then appeared upon the face of the ground. The sun, as the heat of it increased, melted also the manna, Exo 16:21. In Num 2:9, it is said, the manna fell upon the dew, which might more properly be rendered the manna fell with the dew, alau. (See Noldius, in , 9.) The Vulgate renders it descendebat pariter et man, and the manna equally descended. As to its size, it is described as a small round thing (a mode of expression which evidently proves what we have before observed, that it was something new to them: something, whereof they knew not either the name or nature. Indeed, Moses expressly asserts that they did not, Deu 8:3 where he calls it manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know). It was as small as the hoar-frost upon the ground: and still further in Exo 16:31 it is said to be like coriander-seed for roundness and size; and for colour, it is said to have been white: or, as in Num 11:7, of the colour of bdellium, which, according to Bochart, was a kind of pearl. See Gen 2:12. Its taste is said to be like wafers made with honey; and, in Num 11:8 as the taste of fresh oil. It is to be observed, that it is spoken of in Numbers as prepared and baked; but here, as it first fell; and therefore the sweetness which it had, when eaten fresh, may be supposed to have evaporated when baked, &c. See Wis 16:20-21 the author of which, following perhaps some Jewish traditions, asserts, that it suited itself to every man’s taste; which may be so far true, that, as the Almighty designed it for a general food, so it was in general pleasing, as is the case with bread.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Exo 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw [it], they said one to another, It [is] manna: for they wist not what it [was]. And Moses said unto them, This [is] the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
Ver. 15. It is manna, ] i.e., What shall I call? Herba Anonymus non inveniendo nomen, invenit, saith Pliny; a so manna. Others interpret manna, a portion, an admirable gift, or meat prepared.
a Lib. xxvi. cap. 14.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
“It is manna”. Hebrew. man-hu = ” What is that? for they knew not what ‘that’ was”. See on Exo 16:31.
wist = knew. From Anglo-Saxon, witan, to know.
it = that.
This = that.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
manna
(See Scofield “Exo 16:35”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
It is manna: or, What is this, or, It is a portion, Exo 16:31, Exo 16:33, Deu 8:3, Deu 8:16, Jos 5:12, Neh 9:15, Neh 9:20, Joh 6:31, Joh 6:32, Joh 6:49, Joh 6:58, 1Co 10:3, Heb 9:4, Rev 2:17
This is: Exo 16:4, Num 21:5, Pro 9:5, Luk 12:30
Reciprocal: Exo 34:29 – wist Num 11:7 – the manna Pro 30:8 – feed Mat 4:4 – but Luk 11:3 – Give
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
BREAD FROM HEAVEN
The bread which the Lord hath given.
Exo 16:15
Six weeks of the desert, part of which was spent beside the wells and under the palm-trees of Elim, were enough to sicken the people of freedom. They were but a mob of slaves in heart yet, and, like children, lived in the present, and were more influenced by hunger and thirst than by fine words about liberty and serving God. The natural man has a very short memory for anything but good living, so by the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt, task-masters and brick-making, and all other miseries, were forgotten, and the flesh-pots only remembered, which made their mouths water.
I. Human ingratitude.The murmurings of the people fill a larger space in this Lesson than the supply of the manna, and we may well pause on them. We may learn from them how quickly men forget Gods benefits when difficulties or losses come, and may ask ourselves if our thankfulness is more stable and independent of the moments circumstances than theirs was. There are flowers that shut themselves up if a cloud comes over the sun, and there are flowers that hold their petals wide open all the day, though the light comes only from a veiled sky. Which of the two is our gratitude to God like? Can we sing in a darkened cage? There are moods in which we remember the flesh-pots and forget the bondage, and that not because we have learned to look wisely at past sorrows, but because we are looking unwisely at present ones.
II. Divine goodness.The writers preoccupation with the manna explains the slight way in which the extraordinary flocks of quails are told of. These birds make their migration in countless numbers still, and their coming then was a proof of Gods working in so far as the coincidence in time and the prevision of their flight spoke of One Who knew beforehand, and could direct the course of the birds of the air. The manna is but partially described in our Lesson. We have to add that it was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey, and, further, that it melted when the sun grew hot, that if too much was gathered it corrupted and bred maggots, except that gathered for the sabbath, which kept sweet over night. It is quite vain to try to keep the miraculous out of the narrative. No doubt, certain of the scanty shrubs of the Sinaitic Peninsula do at certain seasons of the year, when punctured by insects, exude a substance having some of the qualities of the manna. But how many such shrubs would it have taken to have made up one days rations for the camp, not to say to keep up the supply for forty years? Besides, the manna was continuous, and the product which is pointed to as equivalent to it is confined to certain times of the year. And was there ever a natural substance that was so obliging as to accommodate its tendency to corruption to the law of the Sabbath? No doubt, there are miracles in the Exodus where the substratum is supplied by some natural phenomenon, but it is impossible fairly to include the manna as one of such. The continual sense of dependence was to be cultivated, and continual evidence of Gods bounty was to be given by the daily gathering and the impossibility of ever having a days store in advance, or too much in the omer for immediate use, in order that thereby blind eyes might see, and hard hearts be won to obey. Though we can make provision for the future, and have no such visible manifestation of the Divine working in giving our daily bread, yet we too have to live from hand to mouth; for who can tell what a day may bring forth? And we shall be wise if we realise our dependence on the unseen Hand which feeds us as truly as if it showered manna round our tents, and are led by thankful love to walk in His law.
Illustration
(1) There is as much of the glory of God in the fish caught from a lake, or the kernel of grain raised in a field, or the loaf of bread baked in the oven, as in the miraculous food that fell from heaven. In every drop of water there is the majesty of an ocean, in every star the beauty of a universe, in every child the grandeur of humanity. To the reverent mind the glory of God is seen as clearly in feeding a raven or clothing a lily as in quenching the hunger or hiding the nakedness of an army.
(2) Let me not murmur: it hinders immeasurably my own spiritual life. The growing soul is the glad soul. The desponding and complaining soul is stagnant, and, it may be, retrograde. I advance in faith, in hope, in love, in wisdom, in purity, in all that commends Jesus to others, if I set myself to count my benefits rather than my griefs. Discouragement, said David Brainerd, is a great hindrance to spiritual fervency.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Exo 16:15. They said one to another, It is manna The original words, , man hu, should certainly have been rendered here, as they literally mean, what is it? or what is this? for it is plain, from what follows, they could not give it a name, for they wist not what it was It is to be observed, that although it came down from the clouds, not only with the dew, but in a kind of dew, melted, yet it was of such a consistency, as to serve for strengthening food without any thing else. It was pleasant food: the Jews say it was palatable to all, according as their tastes were. It was wholesome food, light of digestion. By this spare and plain diet we are all taught a lesson of temperance, and forbidden to desire dainties and varieties.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
16:15 And when the children of Israel saw [it], they said one to another, It [is] {f} manna: for they wist not what it [was]. And Moses said unto them, This [is] the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.
(f) Which signifies a part, portion, or gift: also meat prepared.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
MANNA.
Exo 16:15-36.
The manna which miraculously supplied the wants of Israel was to them an utterly strange food, the use of which they had to learn. Thus it was another means of severing their habitual course of life and association of ideas from their degraded past. And while we may not press too far the assertion that it was the “corn of heaven” and “angels’ food” (i.e. “the bread of the mighty”– Psa 78:24-25, R.V.), yet the narrative shows, even without help from later scriptures, that it was calculated to sustain their energies and yet to leave their appetites unstimulated and unpampered. For they were now called to purer joys than those of the senses–to liberty, a divine vocation, the presence of God, the revelation of His law and the unfolding of His purposes. Failing to rise to these heights, they fell far, murmured again, and perished by the destroyer, not merely to avenge the petulance of an hour, but for all that it betrayed, for treason to their vocation and radical inability to even comprehend its meaning. In the language of modern science, it answered to Nature’s rejection of the unfit.
Their calling was thus, though under very different forms, that which the apostles found so hard, yet did not quite refuse: it was to mind the things of God and not the things of men.
It is well known that the manna of the Israelites bore some resemblance to a natural product of the wilderness, still exuded by certain plants during the coolness of the night, and formerly more plentiful than now, when all vegetation has been ruthlessly swept away by the Bedouin. But the differences are much greater than the resemblance. The natural product is a drug, and not a food; it is gathered only during some weeks of summer; it is not liable to speedy corruption, nor could there be any reason for preserving a specimen of this common product in the ark; it could not have sufficed, however aided by their herds and flocks, to feed one in a hundred of the Hebrew multitudes, even during the season of its production; nor could it have ceased on the same day when they ate the first ripe corn of Canaan.
And yet the resemblance is suggestive. Unbelievers find, in the links which connect most of our Scripture miracles with nature, in the undefined and gradual transition from one to the other, as from a temperate day to night, an excuse for denying that they are miraculous at all. But the instructed believer finds a confirmation of his faith. He reflects that when Fancy begins to toy with the supernatural, she spurns nature from her: the trammels under which she has long chafed are hateful to her, and she flies from them to the utmost extreme.
It could not be thus with Him by whom the system of the world was framed. He will not wantonly interfere with His own plan. He will regard nature as an elastic band to stretch, rather than as a chain to break. If He will multiply food, in the New Testament, that is no reason why His disciples should fare more delicately than Providence intended for them: they shall still eat barley loaves and fish. And so the winds help to overthrow Pharaoh and to bring the quails; and when a new thing has to be created, it approaches in its general idea to one of the few natural products of that inhospitable region.
Now let it be supposed for a moment that the supply of manna had never ceased, so that until this day men could every morning gather a day’s ration off the ground. Such continuance of the provision would not make it any the less a gift; but only a more lavish boon. And yet it would clearly cease to be regarded as miraculous, an exception to the course of nature, miscalled her “laws,” since men do strive to subvert the miracle by representing that such manna, however scantily, may still be found. And this may expose the folly of a wish, probably sometimes felt by all men, that some miracle had actually been perpetuated, so that we could strengthen our faith at pleasure by looking upon an exhibition of divine power. In truth, no marvel could excel that which annually multiplies the corn beneath the clod, and by the process of decay in springtime feeds the world in autumn. Only its steady recurrence throws a veil over our eyes; and it is a vain conceit that the same web would not be woven by use between man and the Worker of any other marvel that was perpetuated. Already the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord, for all who have eyes to see.
It is also to be observed that the manna was not given to teach the people sloth. They were obliged to gather it early, before the sun was hot. They had still to endure weary marches, and the care of their flocks and herds.
And, in curious harmony with the manner of all the gifts of nature, the manna sent from heaven had yet to be prepared by man: “bake that which ye will bake, and seethe that which ye will seethe.” Thus God, by natural means and by the sweat of our brow, gives us our daily bread; and all knowledge, art and culture are His gifts, although elaborated by the brain and heart of generations whom He taught.
Moreover, there was a protest against the grasping, unbelieving temper which cannot trust God with tomorrow, but longs to have much goods laid up. That is the temper which forfeits the smile of God, and grinds the faces of the poor, to make an ignoble “provision” for the future. How often, since the time of Moses, has the unblessed accumulation become hateful! How often, since the time of St. James, the rust of such possession has eaten the flesh like fire! Men would be far more generous, the difference between wealth and poverty would be less portentous, and the resources of religion and charity less crippled, if we lived in the spirit of the Lord’s prayer, desirous of the advance of the kingdom, but not asking to be given tomorrow’s bread until tomorrow. That lesson was taught by the manner of the dispensation of the manna, but the covetousness of Israel would not learn it. The people actually strove to be dishonest in their enjoyment of a miracle. It is no wonder that Moses was wroth with them.
Among the strange properties of their supernatural food not the least curious was this: that when they came to measure what they had collected, and compare it with what Moses had bidden,[31] the most eager and able-bodied had nothing over, and the feeblest had no lack. Every real worker was supplied, and none was glutted. This result is apparently miraculous. St. Paul’s use of it does not, as some have supposed, represent it as a result of Hebrew benevolence, sharing with the weak the more abundant supplies of the strong: the miracle is not cited as an example of charity, but of that practical equality, divinely approved, which Christian charity should reproduce; the Christian Church is bidden to do voluntarily what was done by miracle in the wilderness: “your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may be equality; as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack” (2Co 8:15).
It is quite in vain to appeal to this passage in favour of socialistic theories. In the first place it applies only to the necessities of existence; and even granting that the state should enforce the principle to which it points, the duty would not extend beyond a liberal poor rate. When contributions were afterwards demanded for the sanctuary, there is no trace of a dead level in their resources: the rulers gave the gems and spices and oil, some brought gold, with some were found blue and linen and skins, and others had acacia-wood to offer (Exo 35:22-24).
In the second place, this arrangement was only temporary; and while the soil of Canaan was distinctly claimed for the Lord, the enjoyment of it by individuals was secured, and perpetuated in their families, by stringent legislation. Now, land is the kind of property which socialists most vehemently assail; but persons who appeal to Exodus must submit to the authority of Judges.
Socialism, therefore, and its coercive measures, find no more real sanction here than in the Church of Jerusalem, where the property of Ananias was his own, and the price of it in his own power. But yet it is highly significant that in both Testaments, as the Church of God starts upon its career, an example should be given of the effacing of inequalities, in the one case by miracle, in the other by such a voluntary movement as best becomes the gospel. Is not such a movement, large and free, the true remedy for our modern social distractions and calamities? Would it not be wise and Christ-like for the rich to give, as St. Paul taught the Corinthians to give, what the law could never wisely exact from them? Would not self-denial, on a scale to imply real sacrifice, and fulfilling in spirit rather than letter the apostle’s aspiration for “equality,” secure in return the enthusiastic adhesion to the rights of property of all that is best and noblest among the poor?
When will the world, or even the Church, awaken to the great truth that our politics also need to be steeped in Christian feeling–that humanity requires not a revolution but a pentecost–that a millennium cannot be enacted, but will dawn whenever human bosoms are emptied of selfishness and lust, and filled with brotherly kindness and compassion? Such, and no more, was the socialism which St. Paul deduced from the equality in the supply of manna.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] The “omer” of this passage is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture: it is known to have been the one-hundredth part of the homer with which careless readers sometimes confuse it, and its capacity is variously estimated, from somewhat under half a gallon to somewhat above three-quarters.