Commentary on Exodus 16:2-15

During World War II, researchers at the University of Minnesota recruited 36 conscientious objectors, all healthy men, to participate in what would become known as the “Minnesota Starvation Experiment.” Knowing that the war had brought famine and deprivation to people across the world, the researchers wanted to know what specific effects starvation had on the human body and mind, as well as what strategies might be best for refeeding those who had suffered from prolonged hunger. The volunteers all lost around 25 percent of their body weight over six months, and then were placed into groups that were re-fed within differing parameters. 

The study yielded many important results and has been deeply influential in the treatment not only of famine-induced starvation, but also of eating disorders, especially anorexia nervosa. But for the sake of reading Exodus 16, the key takeaway from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment is this: People who are starving think about food persistently, even obsessively. 

Like the men in the study, the Hebrews commencing their journey through the wilderness are not getting enough to eat, so they are thinking about food a lot. Though the Exodus account is sparing in its details, the narrative indicates that hardship abounds on this walk—and that God continually intervenes to provide what the Hebrews lack. For example, we read in Exodus 15:22–27 that the Israelites are three days into their departure from Egypt before they encounter any water, and then the water is undrinkably bitter (Exodus 15:23). God provides a way to sweeten the water and, further, sends the people to camp besides springs of water (Exodus 15:25–27). Now, a few weeks later, hunger has set in. 

The “grumbling” (Jewish Publication Society, New International Version; “complaining” in the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition; “murmuring” in the King James Version and New English Translation) of the Israelites is really a dramatic lament: “If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, when we ate our fill of bread! For you have brought us out into this wilderness to starve this whole congregation to death” (Exodus 16:3 Jewish Publication Society). Death seems inevitable to these hungry people, so it would have been better, they reason, to have been struck down when they had full bellies, rather than to die now, slowly, as they are enduring emptiness. 

The murmuring of the people against Moses and God is a recurring theme throughout the wilderness journey, and the cumulative effect of those repetitions is to paint the Israelites as a whiny, ungrateful crowd. As the story goes on through Exodus, Leviticus, and into the book of Numbers, the narrator seems eager to shape our perception of the travelers negatively. God even proclaims judgment on the people for their complaining in Numbers 14:20–23. 

But here in Exodus, in these early days of the journey, before the manna, before the quail, and in their throes of hunger, I am inclined to be very sympathetic to them. If they are going hungry, then—as the University of Minnesota’s scientific research has shown—they are physically unable to think of most anything else. Moreover, the same research demonstrated distinctive personality changes in the hungry men, who became irritable, angry, and resentful over the smallest perceived slights. It makes perfect sense that the Hebrews would become angry at Moses and God, and that their complaints would contain vivid descriptions of food.

When the people collect the quail and manna that God sends to them, some of them store some of the food for the next day, despite the fact that God has forbidden it and that they have collected just one day’s provisions—no extra. Although the lectionary reading stops short of these details, it is important to note that saving and hoarding food is another behavior observed in the study of people who have experienced starvation.

The parallels between Exodus 16 and the results of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment underscore the fact that the hungry Israelites are exhibiting typical human behavior brought on by the physiological effects of starvation. Theologically speaking, the science makes God’s provision and God’s expectations all the more striking. 

First, God’s provision: God continues to be responsive to human suffering by addressing physical human needs. Just as God heard the cries of Israel in bondage (Exodus 2:24; 3:7) and brought them out of it, God hears the people’s cries of hunger and provides food for them. In both the exodus and the feeding in the wilderness of Sin, God acts “so that you shall know that it was the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Exodus 16:6). Knowledge of God is not just an intellectual experience; it is a physical one. 

When human sin intervenes in God’s provision—creating systems that keep people and nations in poverty, destroying earth’s resources, and valuing the accumulation of wealth over the honor of service—then we have chosen to distance ourselves from the saving God, relying instead on our own provision and mocking the real human suffering of others.

Second, God’s expectations: The text declares that God’s particular manner of re-feeding the Israelites is a test to see “whether they will follow my instruction or not” (Exodus 16:4). The amount that they gather on the sixth day will be doubled so they may keep the LORD’s sabbath without working on the seventh day (Exodus 16:5, 22–30). Of course, the Israelites fail the first time; they go out on the seventh day to gather, and they find nothing (Exodus 16:28). Throughout the narrative—again continuing into Exodus 16 past the lectionary’s boundaries—the Israelites learn that they have everything they need, and never more than they need. They learn that the provisions from God are enough, and that striving for more is a fool’s errand. 

This expectation for the people’s restraint is a stunning call for “next-level” trust. Keeping the sabbath is both risky and countercultural. In the ancient context, refraining from agricultural work on the seventh day could mean not having enough food to get through the winter, or neglecting the daily care the crops and animals required. In today’s context, refraining from work on one day per week can mean giving up income—putting rest and worship ahead of our culture’s expectations of “success.” 

But the Exodus narrative cries out to us for nothing less than a reshaping of the world into a place where no one starves, where no one has too much, where everyone has opportunities to rest, and where all minds are freed from want or wo srry to focus on the glory of God.