How did the Hebrews react to the problems in the wilderness?

Answer 1

Their attitude was that they were trying to express their relationship with God to the fullest. That's why they requested to hear God Himself speaking at Mount Sinai, not just Moses (Rashi commentary on Exodus ch.19). That's also why they accepted the Torah with its hundreds of commands and restrictions, many of which they had not been accustomed to during the centuries in Egypt.
This is the traditional interpretation of the parable of the two lovers in the Song of Songs: the two lovers represent God and the Israelites. The Israelites were in love with God (Jeremiah 2:2).
When approaching the topic of the complaints which the Israelites made in the wilderness (Exodus ch.15,16,17 and 32; Numbers ch.11,13,16,20 and 21), we should bear in mind the following:
1) The Israelites were intelligent and possessed strong opinions.
2) They were people of initiative.
3) They weren't perfect.
4) The prophetic books magnify their faults because the people were being held to a superlative standard (Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi).
5) God punished them in this world, to leave them unblemished in the next world.
So here are some examples:
a) When they mentioned the lack of meat (Exodus ch.16) despite the fact that they actually did have meat (Numbers 32:1), certainly part of the reason may have been stubbornness (Exodus 32:9). But the voice of prophecy (in Psalms 78:20) reveals another reason: they wanted God to demonstrate His power and provide meat miraculously (which He soon did). They loved seeing the power of God.
b) When they mentioned the lack of water (Exodus ch.15), they had actually journeyed for three days in the arid wilderness without finding any water (ibid). This is a case in which God was holding them to superhuman standards; and they complained not a single word until the third thirsty day. They understood that it was a test and were willing to suffer.
c) The episode of the spies (Numbers ch.13) was a case of people of strong opinions. This is the meaning of the word א×?שים as it is used in Numbers 13:3. The spies were men of leadership. They formed an opinion and stuck to it. Their opinion was that it was as yet too soon to attempt conquering the Holy Land, because of the losses which could occur in war. Better to wait until the nation would increase (see Exodus 23:30). The problem was that this attitude could be seen as a lack of trust in God (Deuteronomy 1:32)
d) The Golden Calf (Exodus ch.32) was a case of taking the initiative.
It was a one-time error which was quickly and decisively stamped out. And while it was a serious offense, it may be a bit less of a puzzle if we consider the following:
1) It seemed that Moses had died (Rashi commentary, Exodus 32:1); and they wanted something or someone to lead them (Exodus 32:1). They felt that this (seemingly) drastic circumstance justified quickly taking unusual measures.
2) They had a tradition that they would eventually build an edifice to God (Rashi, Exodus 26:15); and, not yet having been commanded as to the details (the Tabernacle), they thought that they might now improvise.
3) The actual intent was not to worship the Golden Calf itself, but to worship the Presence of God (Exodus 32:5) which (they hoped) would dwell upon it.
4) The entire event was instigated by Egyptians (Rashi, Exodus 32:4) who had recently joined among the mixed multitude (Exodus 12:38).
5) Those who sinned were, at most, in the thousands (Exodus 32:28). Not hundreds of thousands.
6) That generation was judged by an exacting standard, precisely because they were on a high level (Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi).
7) In each era, there are different spiritual tests. The (main) test in ancient times was whether people would succumb to the lure of idolatry and its preludes. This powerful lure has since been emasculated (Talmud, Yoma 69b), so it is hard for us now to fully comprehend.