Exodus 7:21

7:21 When the fish ¹  that were in the Nile died, the Nile began ²  to stink, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood ³  everywhere in the land of Egypt!

Exodus 15:23

15:23 Then they came to Marah, ⁴  but they were not able to drink ⁵  the waters of Marah, because ⁶  they were bitter. ⁷  (That is ⁸  why its name was ⁹  Marah.)

Exodus 17:1

Water at Massa and Meribah

17:1 ¹⁰ The whole community ¹¹  of the Israelites traveled on their journey ¹²  from the Desert of Sin according to the Lord’s instruction, and they pitched camp in Rephidim. ¹³  Now ¹⁴  there was no water for the people to drink. ¹⁵ 

[7:21]  ¹ tn The first clause in this verse begins with a vav disjunctive, introducing a circumstantial clause to the statement that the water stank. The vav (ו) consecutive on the next verb shows that the smell was the result of the dead fish in the contaminated water. The result is then expressed with the vav beginning the clause that states that they could not drink it.

[7:21]  ² tn The preterite could be given a simple definite past translation, but an ingressive past would be more likely, as the smell would get worse and worse with the dead fish.

[7:21]  ³ tn Heb “and there was blood.”

[15:23]  ⁴ sn The Hebrew word “Marah” means “bitter.” This motif will be repeated four times in this passage to mark the central problem. Earlier in the book the word had been used for the “bitter herbs” in the Passover, recalling the bitter labor in bondage. So there may be a double reference here – to the bitter waters and to Egypt itself – God can deliver from either.

[15:23]  ⁵ tn The infinitive construct here provides the direct object for the verb “to be able,” answering the question of what they were not able to do.

[15:23]  ⁶ tn The causal clause here provides the reason for their being unable to drink the water, as well as a clear motivation for the name.

[15:23]  ⁷ sn Many scholars have attempted to explain these things with natural phenomena. Here Marah is identified with Ain Hawarah. It is said that the waters of this well are notoriously salty and brackish; Robinson said it was six to eight feet in diameter and the water about two feet deep; the water is unpleasant, salty, and somewhat bitter. As a result the Arabs say it is the worst tasting water in the area (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:398). But that would not be a sufficient amount of water for the number of Israelites in the first place, and in the second, they could not drink it at all. But third, how did Moses change it?

[15:23]  ⁸ tn The עַל־כֵּן (’al-ken) formula in the Pentateuch serves to explain to the reader the reason for the way things were. It does not necessarily mean here that Israel named the place – but they certainly could have.

[15:23]  ⁹ tn Heb “one called its name,” the expression can be translated as a passive verb if the subject is not expressed.

[17:1]  ⁷ sn This is the famous story telling how the people rebelled against Yahweh when they thirsted, saying that Moses had brought them out into the wilderness to kill them by thirst, and how Moses with the staff brought water from the rock. As a result of this the name was called Massa and Meribah because of the testing and the striving. It was a challenge to Moses’ leadership as well as a test of Yahweh’s presence. The narrative in its present form serves an important point in the argument of the book. The story turns on the gracious provision of God who can give his people water when there is none available. The narrative is structured to show how the people strove. Thus, the story intertwines God’s free flowing grace with the sad memory of Israel’s sins. The passage can be divided into three parts: the situation and the complaint (1-3), the cry and the miracle (4-6), and the commemoration by naming (7).

[17:1]  ⁸ tn Or “congregation” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV).

[17:1]  ⁹ tn The text says that they journeyed “according to their journeyings.” Since the verb form (and therefore the derived noun) essentially means to pull up the tent pegs and move along, this verse would be saying that they traveled by stages, or, from place to place.

[17:1]  ¹⁰ sn The location is a bit of a problem. Exod 19:1-2 suggests that it is near Sinai, whereas it is normally located near Kadesh in the north. Without any details provided, M. Noth concludes that two versions came together (Exodus [OTL], 138). S. R. Driver says that the writer wrote not knowing that they were 24 miles apart (Exodus, 157). Critics have long been bothered by this passage because of the two names given at the same place. If two sources had been brought together, it is not possible now to identify them. But Noth insisted that if there were two names there were two different locations. The names Massah and Meribah occur alone in Scripture (Deut 9:22, and Num 20:1 for examples), but together in Ps 95 and in Deut 33:8. But none of these passages is a clarification of the difficulty. Most critics would argue that Massah was a secondary element that was introduced into this account, because Exod 17 focuses on Meribah. From that starting point they can diverge greatly on the interpretation, usually having something to do with a water test. But although Num 20 is parallel in several ways, there are major differences: 1) it takes place 40 years later than this, 2) the name Kadesh is joined to the name Meribah there, and 3) Moses is punished there. One must conclude that if an event could occur twice in similar ways (complaint about water would be a good candidate for such), then there is no reason a similar name could not be given.

[17:1]  ¹¹ tn The disjunctive vav introduces a parenthetical clause that is essential for this passage – there was no water.

[17:1]  ¹² tn Here the construction uses a genitive after the infinitive construct for the subject: “there was no water for the drinking of the people” (GKC 353-54 §115.c).