here a quail, there a quail

[Guest]

I'm brand new here, so if this question has been beaten to death in the past, I apologize. My wife recently asked me why the Israelites were begging for meat during the exodus, when obviously they had livestock all over the place that presumably could have been eaten. I, surprisingly, had never really considered this question, nor did anyone in our Bible study. It was one of those "hey, yeah" sort of moments. I looked through the scripture and couldnt find where they were forbidden to eat their lambs and cows, but of course I may not have looked hard enough. I know they needed the animals for a shocking number of sacrifices, so maybe they were just saving them for that purpose. At any rate, any enlightenment on this topic would be appreciated.

thx, Todd

[Guest]

asked me why the Israelites were begging for meat during the exodus, when obviously they had livestock all over the place that presumably could have been eaten. I, surprisingly, had never really considered this

Hi TK, Welcome How do you know they had livestock all over the place? Granted they had some livestock but maybe not as much as you think and like you said they needed some for sacrifice and some to replenish their herds when they would get to the promised land. God was providing manna for them but instead of being grateful they got sick of it.

[Guest]

thanks for the response-- it just seems by the sheer magnitude of the amount of sacrifices that were made that there had to have been fairly large herds of livestock. perhaps they were simply afraid of running out of animals to sacrifice, although i find it somewhat interesting that there does not seem to be an explicit command not to eat their animals. TK

[Guest]

thanks for the response-- it just seems by the sheer magnitude of the amount of sacrifices that were made that there had to have been fairly large herds of livestock. perhaps they were simply afraid of running out of animals to sacrifice, although i find it somewhat interesting that there does not seem to be an explicit command not to eat their animals. TK

Hi TK, It seems that God actually commanded them to eat the manna. "Then the Lord said to Moses,"I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day . In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions" Exodus 16.4

[Guest]

good point steve.. but i am wondering if the commands regarding the manna meant they could eat ONLY manna... the law allowed for eating other things, locusts for one. Yum!

[Guest]

good point steve.. but i am wondering if the commands regarding the manna meant they could eat ONLY manna... the law allowed for eating other things, locusts for one. Yum!

Well TK is sounds like God used it as a test to get the people to understand they were dependent on Him for everything and He only gave them enough for each day except before the Sabbath when He gave them a two day supply. If they did'nt eat the manna that day it rotted so it seems being able to eat other foods would undercut what God was doing.

[Guest]

i guess i may have always looked at this incorrectly. my assumption was that since they were in the middle of the desert, there just wasnt much to eat. after all, cactus spines in the gums gets old after a while. therefore, given the lack of food, they were hungry, if not starving, so God provided the manna. what i had never considered was why (before they got to the point of starving and grumbling) they didnt have an ox roast or two. when i looked into the matter i expected to find a prohibition against eating the animals but found none. i understand the rules regarding the manna and their purpose, but didnt realize that this was the only thing they were allowed to eat, period, end of story, until they got the promised land (other than the quail that was also provided).

TK

[Guest]

This is a fantastic question and it's had me puzzled for a while. Even if it was to see if they would follow God's limited instruction, why would he need to introduce a new food? They could just break his command and eat what they had seems to me and it would be no different than asking for the quail.

Thanks for the mind boggling question, TK!!

[Guest]

TK,

This is not so much an answer to your question, as much as a sharing of info... I never thought of it before either.. and now wonder as well.

I am not 100% sure of the timing of the following, but it appears that God originally told Israel not to eat meat unless it was brought to the tabernacle (Lev 17:1ff), then later when in the promised land, God allowed them to eat meat.

Snip from my notes:
Dt 12:15
- new/different law, in Lev 17:1ff Jews forbidden to kill animals for food, except at tabernacle, here permission to slaughter and eat meat at home is given

I suppose the Lev 17:1ff prohibition would suffice as a restriction on eating the herd, which is why they would have cried out for meat. I am surprised that there isn't a story about some Israelite eating a sacrificial cow in the field though... but it probably happened...

in Him,
Les

[Guest]

Hello,

Throwing an idea out here - for many pastoralists, their economic (and social) status rested in their flocks/herds. Eating meat from their own animals would have resulted in an attrition of their fundamental economic condition, and they would not have casually slaughtered from their own flocks or herds. Such meat would not have been an easily renewable resource; one would have to wait for the next birthing cycle. Hunting, on the other hand, would have provided meat without digging into the household economic base. For many pastoralists, hunting may have seemed the only viable source for meat, excepting only the most important celebrations.

Shalom,
Emmet