Session Thirty-Three, Verse 60, The Five Parts of the Verse, Part Four

Session Thirty-Three

Verse 60 – The Five Parts of the Verse – Part Four: “Eat and Drink from the Provision of God” – Point Two – Two Possibilities Regarding “Eating” – Two Possibilities Regarding “the Provision of God” – The Preferred View – Point Three

May 4, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

A gap occurred between the previous session of this discussion and the present one, which was, of course, unavoidable; I shall therefore offer a brief recap of the previous discussion. Regarding the fourth part of verse 60, we set forth one point; the fourth part was: “eat and drink from the provision of God” («كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا مِنْ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ»). The first point regarding this verse was set forth.

Point Two

The second point is this: given that the discussion concerned the prayer for water and the gushing forth and flowing of water for the people of the Children of Israel, why has a command to eat been issued here? The verse states: “eat and drink from the provision of God.”

Two Possibilities Regarding “Eating”

Regarding the command to eat, two possibilities, or two aspects, have been put forward, each of which has its proponents.

One possibility is that, in light of the eating of manna and quails already mentioned previously, together with the matter of the prayer for water and water itself, now mentioned here, the verse states “eat and drink.” Hence, the meaning of the verse becomes, as it were: “eat from the manna and quails which God has provided you without toil, and drink from this water without toil” — you should eat from the manna and quails, and drink from this water.
The second possibility is that there is no reference here to manna and quails; “eat” in fact refers to the fact that, since water has now been placed at your disposal, this water serves both to quench your thirst and to provide for the preparation of food. For no food can be produced without water — orchards and agricultural produce alike. Hence, when God granted them water, it is as though He had granted them both food and drink together; for bread and wheat, and even livestock, were they to wish to make use of them, could only be obtained with the help of water. Hence, when the verse states “eat and drink from the provision of God,” it has, in fact, nothing to do with manna and quails; rather, it relates specifically to this very water that was placed at their disposal, this water being the source of that people’s food. Hence, the verse states: from this water that has gushed forth, both drink and partake of drink, and also eat from the foods that will subsequently be produced by means of this water. These, then, are the two possibilities that exist here regarding “eating.”

Two Possibilities Regarding “The Provision of God”

As has already been noted, depending on how we understand “eat,” two possibilities likewise exist regarding “the provision of God”:

One possibility is that what is meant by “the provision of God” is this very water; “eat and drink from the provision of God” means: drink from this water, which is the provision of God, and eat from the foods that are produced by means of this water. Hence, water is, in fact, the basis of God’s provision, and all blessings (at least in this episode) trace back to water. Hence, if we adopt this possibility regarding “the provision of God,” it, in fact, refers to the produce obtained from agricultural lands and orchards, obtained by means of water; that is, these crops do not presently exist in actuality, but will subsequently be made available through this irrigation, and you will be able to make use of them.
The other possibility is that “the provision of God” includes both water and manna and quails together. The possibility we set forth regarding “eat and drink” applies equally to “the provision of God,” since this is entirely dependent on how we interpret “eat and drink.” Here too, according to this possibility, “the provision of God” refers both to manna and quails and to water.

The Preferred View

Of these two possibilities, perhaps the one more consistent with the apparent sense of the verse is the first possibility. For “eat” carries an apparent sense of present actuality; “drink” likewise. Both “eating” and “drinking” carry an apparent sense of present actuality. “Drink” is clearly a reference to water, and water did indeed exist at that time; “and there gushed forth from it twelve springs” carries an apparent sense of present actuality. “Eat” likewise carries an apparent sense of present actuality — that is, it refers to blessings that presently exist, and which God Almighty, or the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him (according to the two possibilities that exist here), commanded them to make use of. In any case, this refers to blessings that exist in actuality at present; to say that “eat” relates to produce that would be obtained, in the future, from agricultural lands and orchards through the irrigation of the land, is not consistent with the apparent sense of the verse.

Point Three

The third point is this: if this command originates from God, why does the verse not say “eat and drink from Our provision” («کلوا و اشربوا من رزقنا»), but instead says “eat and drink from the provision of God” («کلوا و اشربوا من رزق الله»)? The rule is that, when God issues a command, He would say “eat and drink from Our provision.” This may, perhaps, have led some to say that “eat and drink” is not a command from God, but rather, the speech of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. Of course, even if it is the speech of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, he would, in fact, be serving as an intermediary in conveying God’s command; but, in any case, the rule is that, if the command originates directly from God, it would say “from Our provision.” Given that the verse states, “So We said: Strike the stone with your staff; and there gushed forth from it twelve springs, each group of people knowing its own drinking place” («فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبْ بِعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ فَانْفَجَرَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَشْرَبَهُمْ»), it is as though the continuation of the verse should read: “faqulna kulu wa-ashrabu min rizqina” (“so We said: eat and drink from Our provision”).

This, however, constitutes a shift (iltifat) from the first person to the third person, specifically with regard to “the provision of God.” That is, we may here cite a third possibility; the two possibilities were, first, that this is a command from God — in which case the verse would have to say “from Our provision” — and second, that this is a command from Moses, in which case there would be no need for any particular interpretation or explanation of it. The third possibility is that this command does, in fact, originate from God, but that a shift has occurred from the first person to the third person, such that the verse states “eat and drink from the provision of God.” This may be on account of the very point we have already noted; we previously observed that there was a shift in address from “for you” («لکم») to “his people” («قومه»), and that this shift (iltifat) occurred there as well. Here too, in fact, while the verse is narrating the account of the people of the Children of Israel, it seeks to remind the Jews of the Prophet’s, peace be upon him, era of this very matter: that what you eat and drink is from God’s provision — and this is an emphasis and reminder regarding this matter. Hence, the very point we previously made regarding the shift from the first person to the third person applies here as well.

In any case, this is apparently a statement of God, except that, with regard to “the provision of God,” it has been shifted to the third person; rather than saying “Our provision,” it says “the provision of God” — the point being precisely what we have noted.

Question:

Professor: This is correct; but the question concerns a single set of statements, presented within a single context, spoken with the first-person pronoun — if this shifts to the third person within that same context, the discussion here concerns precisely that. The discussion is not about the fact that, in various passages, God attributes certain matters to Himself, while in other places uses the name “Allah”; that point is entirely clear. The question, rather, concerns a shift from the first person to the third person occurring within a single statement and a single context.

Question:

Professor: The shift from the first person to the third person, or from the third person to the first person… in the preceding verses, not in this very verse. We have already noted a parallel to this in these recent verses concerning the Children of Israel and their dialogue with the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him; it is not that this has been raised specifically in this verse alone.

Question:

Professor: Why would it acquire a broader scope? In this respect, it makes no difference whether the verse says “eat and drink from Our provision” or “eat and drink from the provision of God”; what would be the basis for any broader scope in this regard?… “rizquna” (“Our provision”) or “rizq Allah” (“the provision of God”)… this is a matter of attribution to God — whether expressed as “We” or as “Allah”; but in either case, with respect to those who partake of this blessing, it makes no difference; its universality and inclusiveness with respect to everyone remains the same, whether it says “Our provision” or “the provision of God.” This has no bearing on the matter at hand.

Topic of the Next Session

The further part — namely, the fifth part — is: “and do not commit corruption upon the earth, spreading mischief” («وَلَا تَعْثَوْا فِي الْأَرْضِ مُفْسِدِينَ»); God willing, in the coming session, we shall explain this part.