Exodus Question

I have a question that dogs me, bugs me. Its answer nor the question itself, will effect my faith or salvation. Chalk it up to curiosity, if you will - that would more likely be the case in my situation. I have asked my husband and all he can do is speculate. I have asked Answers in Genesis and they do the same. Perhaps there is someone out there in SI land that has done more then speculate?

Exodus 12:38 says: A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock. (NASB) Now my question: how were these animals sustained during their pilgrimage to Canaan? We read in different places where they still had these herds when they came to Canaan: Exo. 17:3; Num. 20:19, 32:1; Deut. 3:19.

This question generates more: is there a possibility the 'wilderness' they travel in was not barren of vegetation but simply a place were few humans lived? In my KJV Bible there is a probable date of this Exodus as being BC 1458 which make it a few hundred years after the flood, so perhaps this area would not have been a desert? Perhaps this area could not sustain so much livestock and people because there were too many in one given place, hence the grumbling of the people for lack of water? We do not read where the animals ate manna...

I grew up on a profitable farm. Dad was very diverse in his operation and I know right well the feed farm animals and fowl require for sustenance. They eat a lot and drink a lot of water...

What do you think?

ginnyrose

Well, I can't answer it all but I can point out a few things to confuse you more. :) unfortunately!

If they had all of these animals the whole time, why would they need manna? And more so, why would they be complaining about wanting flesh? With the whole ordeal with the quails, what sense does it make if they had sheep hanging around? So did they really have these animals the whole time?

If they had all of these animals the whole time, why would they need manna? And more so, why would they be complaining about wanting flesh? With the whole ordeal with the quails, what sense does it make if they had sheep hanging around? So did they really have these animals the whole time?

Maybe they did not want to slaughter all these animals for food? Or maybe there were always those people that complained, no matter what? Seems to me this is the more likely answer. But then, I am only speculating, knowing how human nature works.

"So did they really have these animals the whole time?"

In Deut. 3:18: "Then I commanded you at that time, saying, 'The LORD your God has given you this land to possess it; all you valiant men shall cross over armed before your brothers, the sons of Israel. 19'But your wives and your little ones and your livestock (I know that you have much livestock) shall remain in your cities which I have given you." These verses point to the time just as they were fixing to enter Canaan. So they did have animals up to the time they entered the Promised land.

And if you recall, there was a mixed multitude that went with the Israelites. This mixed multitude included non-Jews. We do know the Egyptians were idol worshiping folks - all the plagues God sent upon them were against their gods...God worked to prove to the people the powerlessness of their gods.

Whatever.... these animals and fowls required lots of water and if they do not get it NOW they can get noisy about their physical needs!

I still wonder whether the Sinai area sported much vegetation which could have supported these "flocks and herds" in contrast to its barrenness today. And if so, is there any physical evidence to support this theory?

Any more thoughts? Ideas?

ginnyrose

Sister, have you considered that the physiological constitution of humans was a bit different back then? People lived longer, and probably needed less sustenance. Today we're higher maintanance, with way more fuel consumption and far less mileage. Our life span is almost cut in half. I think all anyone can do at this point is speculate, but I think animals may have lived longer back then as well...and required less fuel. Remember Moses not drinking water for 40 days? [i]40 days no water?[/i] Impossible! (Exodus 34:28).

Doctors today say the approximate amount of days that you could go without water in your organism is anywhere from eight to fourteen days. Like I said, today we're gas-guzzling jalopies getting far less mileage on way more fuel. Could this fuel-efficiency not have extended over to the animal kingdom at that time as well? I think God timed everything just right with tanking up on water and food; people may have complained a bit and some beasts made some noise now and then...but surely nobody (beast or human) starved or dehydrated out there.

Conjecture, at any rate.

Brother Paul

Reply to ginnyrose

Exodus describes a spiritual desert, a wilderness of wandering. This was true in the time of the children of Israel during their journey to the Promised Land and it is true to day in our pilgrimage to Paradise. There are places on earth forsaken by God because of sin. A desert was and will always will be a country without streams of water with less arid parts having settled inhabitants that are a separate and distinguishable from the nomadic people passing through searching for a place of rest.

We Christians drink spiritual from the same fountain as the children of Israel. If we spend time concerning the needs of the flesh our wandering could be for forty years also. Jesus is the fountain of the love of God that all God’s children drink Living Waters from, the love of our Father that runs deeper than the oceans. Jesus is our rest in this dead dry place, He is our Sabbath. Who can separate us from the Love of God now that we’ve tasted water so sweet.

The word desert is used symbolically to describe the Jewish church when they had forsaken God.
Isa. 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Nations destitute of the knowledge of God are called a "wilderness" It is a symbol of temptation, solitude, and persecution.
Isa. 27:10 Yet the defenced city shall be desolate, and the habitation forsaken, and left like a wilderness: there shall the calf feed, and there shall he lie down, and consume the branches
thereof.

Eddie

If God can through Moses, telling him to speak to a rock and water flows for all that were in the desert. I am sure He can provide what is necessary to maintain all flesh, until His time for them to go into the land of milk and honey. This pointing to living water, which is Christ and the Land, seated with Him in heavenly places.

I know not, but He does.

In Christ: Phillip

Thanks! Eddie, for sharing these insights.

The beauty of the Old Testament stories are the lessons gleaned from them. Some are so obvious and others require more serious thought and meditation. So it is with the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan. And I wonder whether we will ever be able to glean all there is to learn from these stories. But then does this not teach us how inspiring the WORD is? No other piece of literature has this capability to evoke, to teach, to inspire, to challenge one to become reconciled with God, thus becoming his friend all the while evoking a real sense of awe and worship. So it is with this Exodus story to me.

Paul suggested that since man lived longer, animals likely did, too. Never thought of that before. Interesting.

Many times when we think about the Israelites leaving Egypt, we do not consider what a long time of bondage might do to a people's mentality of self-sufficiency. Consider: The USA had slaves until the civil war ended it. The slave owner had to provide for his slaves needs. On a plantation, a landowner had many slaves that were unprofitable: the young, and the old, the infirm, yet he was required to provide for them. Just like a work horse: if you want to get optimum work out of it, you have to keep the animal healthy by feeding it well and taking care of it. So with slaves. The slave was very dependant on his owner for substance, his physical well-being. I am told that after the War Between the States many slaves were dreadfully poor because now it was up to them to provide for themselves and they did not know how, having been dependant on their owner for their well-being. Could this not have been with the Israelites as well? I can see that since they were given to complain so quickly. And it took 40 years of training to get these people to start thinking differently. How long does God have to work to teach me to think differently? (He also worked 40 years to train Moses!)

Somehow, I have this sense the wilderness was not as barren back then as it is today. There may have been grasses for the flocks and herds to feed upon which means there would have been streams as well. Did this occur naturally, or did God cause this land to produce feed supernaturally to provide for the animals?

When one goes pioneering, all the infrastructure to support life is very primitive. There are no stores, no wells dug to provide water. You have to bring along your own food, hoping it will last until you can get a crop planted and harvested. This happens even in arable land. And life can get difficult. Many a pioneer wife has hankered for life 'back east' after they got to the unsettled west (talking about the settling of the USA in its early years).

My point is: it seems to me the people were out of their comfort zone, and now complained. Things were likely not as bad as they said - did you ever hear of any whiners who were really honest in their evaluation of the situation? Usually, there is a lot of exaggeration although there may have been a situation that needed attention. With the presence of this livestock, knowing the feed required for their sustenance, I get the sense this wilderness was not a barren place, like I had previously thought - reinforced by pics one sees of current conditions.

I still wonder whether there is any archaeological evidence to support this theory? Since there is a controversy over the route the Israelites took to get to Canaan, I wonder whether this aspect of life has ever been taken into consideration?

Another thing that has me awed: How large a place was it the Israelites occupied when they camped? How many square miles? Where did they keep their livestock? Behind the camp? Animals 'go' whenever 'nature calls' and do mind where that may be - could get messy. You basically had 600,000 men besides women and children. Is this 600,000 households? Regardless, how was information communicated to such a throng of folks? They had no modern gadgets to facilitate that!

Moses had a HUGE job...makes the modern preachers' job look simple!

ginnyrose

Going along with what Paul said, I conjecture that the food and water supply was more nutritional. Man and Beast could survive longer because the food sources and water was of higher value nutritionally.
Today we eat food that are devoid of any material, highly processed ding-dongs, sody pops, and vegetables that are smaller and less nutritional.
I have heard topics concerning the soil and such that has depreciated in what it gives the plants that grow. Would like to hear someone more knowledgeable on this topic and if in fact it is true...

rich

I think the animals were with them the whole time. They had to sacrifice something... remember we had the tabernacle...

I don't know a lot about the area where they wondered but I do know that a "desert place" doesn't always mean a place with sand and such.

Mat 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a [b]desert place[/b], and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
Mat 14:16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.
Mat 14:17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.
Mat 14:18 He said, Bring them hither to me.
Mat 14:19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on [b]the grass[/b], and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and broke, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

Desert place..... grass... not what we typically think of when we think of a desert place. In John 6 it says "much grass."

Also, I don't think men lived much longer around the time of the wilderness experience than today. Not like the did before they flood.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet [b]his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.[/b]

Deu 34:7 And Moses was [b]a hundred and twenty years old[/b] when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

EDIT: Although people probably ate less than we Americans... maybe. How many of us have heard of 7 course meals, yet I've never had one! Unless a buffet counts. We just eat all our food in one large course. :-)