15:22-26 The wilderness of Shur was a section of semi-desert to the east of Egypt's border. It occupied the northwestern part of the Sinai peninsula, and it separated Egypt from Palestine (v. 22).
". . . wilderness does not imply a waste of sand, but a broad open expanse, which affords pasture enough for a nomad tribe wandering with their flocks. Waste and desolate so far as human habitations are concerned, the traveller [sic] will only encounter a few Bedouins. But everywhere the earth is clothed with a thin vegetation, scorched in summer drought, but brightening up, as at the kiss of the Creator, into fair and beautiful pastures, at the rainy season and in the neighbourhood of a spring."259
The water at the oasis later called Marah was brackish and not suitable for drinking (vv. 23-24). This made the people complain again (cf. 14:11-12). In three days they had forgotten God's miracles at the Red Sea. This should prove that miracles do not result in great faith. Rather great faith comes from a settled conviction that God is trustworthy.
"When the supply fails, our faith is soon gone."260
". . . we may in our journey have reached the pools that promised us satisfaction, only to find them brackish. That marriage, that friendship, that new home, that partnership, that fresh avenue of pleasure, which promised so well turns out to be absolutely disappointing. Who has not muttered Marah' over some desert well which he strained every nerve to reach, but when reached, it disappointed him!"261
Some commentators have seen the tree cast into the water as a type of the cross of Christ or Christ Himself that, applied to the bitter experiences of life, makes them sweet. What is definitely clear is that by using God's specified means and obeying His word the Israelites learned that God would heal them (v. 25). Throwing the wood into the water did not magically change it. This was a symbolic act, similar to Moses lifting his staff over the sea (14:16). God changed the water.
The "statute and regulation"that God made for Israel were that He would deliver them from all their troubles. Therefore they could always count on His help. God's test involved seeing whether they would rely on Him or not.
The words of God in verse 26 explain the statute and regulation just given. The Israelites would not suffer the diseases God had sent on the Egyptians (i.e., experience His discipline) if they obeyed His word as they had just done. They had just cast the tree into the pool.
God was teaching His people that He was responsible for their physical as well as their spiritual well-being. While doctors diagnose and prescribe, only God can heal. Benjamin Franklin wrote, "God heals the patient, and the doctor collects the fee."262
"We do not find Him [God] giving Himself a new name at Elim, but at Marah. The happy experiences of life fail to reveal all the new truth and blessing that await us in God [cf. Gen. 15:1; Exod. 17:15]."263
This is one of the verses in Scripture that advocates of the "prosperity gospel"like. They use it to prove their contention that it is never God's will for anyone to be sick (along with 23:25; Ps. 103:3; Prov. 4:20-22; Isa. 33:24; Jer. 30:17; Matt. 4:23; 10:1; Mark 16:16-18; Luke 6:17-19; Acts 5:16 and 10:38). One advocate of this position wrote as follows.
"Don't ever tell anyone sickness is the will of God for us. It isn't! Healing and health are the will of God for mankind. If sickness were the will of God, heaven would be filled with sickness and disease."264
15:27 At Elim Israel learned something else about God. Not only would He deliver them (v. 3) and heal them (v. 26), but He would also provide refreshing drink and nourishing food for them as their Shepherd (cf. Ps. 23:2).
A method of God's dealing with the Israelites as His people that He frequently employed stands out clearly in these incidents. God did not lead the Israelites around every difficulty. Instead He led them into many difficulties, but He also provided deliverance for them in their difficulties. This caused the Israelites to learn to look to Him for the supply of their needs. He still deals with His children the same way.265
This chapter records another crisis in the experience of the Israelites as they journeyed from Goshen to Mt. Sinai that God permitted and used to teach them important lessons.
16:1-3 The wilderness of Sin evidently lay in the southwestern part of the Sinai peninsula (v. 1).266Its name obviously relates to Sinai, the name of the mountain range located on its eastern edge.
This was Israel's third occasion of grumbling (v. 2; cf. 14:11-12; 15:24). The reason this time was not fear of the Egyptian army or lack of water but lack of food (v. 3).
"A pattern is thus established here that continues throughout the narratives of Israel's sojourn in the wilderness. As the people's trust in the Lord and in Moses waned in the wilderness, the need grew for stricter lessons."267
16:4-12 The manifestation of God's glory was His regular provision of manna that began the next day and continued for 40 years (v. 7).
The glory of the Lord here was the evidence of His presence in the cloudy pillar (v. 10). This was probably a flash of light and possibly thunder, both of which later emanated from the cloud at Sinai (cf. 19:18).
16:13-21 "These [quail still] fly in such dense masses that the Arab boys often kill two or three at a time, by merely striking at them with a stick as they fly. . . . But in spring the quails also come northwards in immense masses from the interior of Africa, and return in autumn, when they sometimes arrive so exhausted, that they can be caught with the hand. . . ."268
The Hebrew word man, translated into Greek mannaand transliterated from Greek into the English word "manna,"is an interrogative particle that means "What?"The Greek word mannameans "grain"or "bread."From this has come the idea that the manna was similar to bread. An omer is about two quarts dry measure (v. 16).
Students of Exodus have explained verse 18 in various ways. The old Jewish commentators, the Rabbins, said it describes what happened when each family had finished collecting the manna and had gathered in their tent to pool their individual amounts. Then they discovered that they had collected just the right quantity for their needs. Some Christian commentators have suggested that the Israelites gathered all the manna each day in one central place and from there each family took as needed. There was always enough for everyone. The former explanation seems to fit the context better.
16:22-30 The Israelites had not observed the Sabbath or a day of rest until now (v. 23). This is probably one reason they did not immediately observe it faithfully as a distinct day. As slaves in Egypt they probably worked seven days a week. However, God was blessing them with a day of rest and preparing them for the giving of the fourth commandment (20:8-11). This is the first reference to the Sabbath as such in Scripture.
16:31-36 Evangelical commentators generally have felt that the manna was a substance unique from any other edible food (v. 31). Some interpreters believe it was the sap-like secretion of the tamarisk tree or the secretion of certain insects common in the desert.269In the latter case the miracle would have been the timing with which God provided it and the abundance of it. Normally this sap only flows in the summer months. If this is the explanation, it was a miracle similar to the plagues, not totally unknown phenomena but divinely scheduled and reinforced. Even though there are similarities between these secretions and the manna, the differences are more numerous and point to a unique provision.270
The Lord Jesus compared Himself to the manna (John 6:32-33, 35, 48, 51). It is a type (a divinely intended illustration) of Christ.
The "testimony"was the tables of the Mosaic Law that Aaron later kept in the ark of the covenant (cf. 25:16). Moses told Aaron to preserve a pot of manna before the Lord's presence (v. 34; cf. Num. 17:10-11).271These physical objects memorialized God's faithful provision of both spiritual and physical foods (cf. Deut. 8:3).
The Israelites were not completely separate from other people during their years in the wilderness. As they travelled the caravan routes they would meet travelers and settlements of tribes from time to time. They evidently traded with these people (cf. Deut. 2:6-7). Consequently their total diet was not just manna, milk, and a little meat, though manna was one of their staple commodities.272
God sought to impress major lessons on His people through the events recorded in this chapter. These included His ability and willingness to provide regularly for their daily needs and His desire that they experience His blessing. He gave them Sabbath rest to refresh and strengthen their spirits as well as ample, palatable food for their bodies: manna in the mornings and quail in the evenings.
Again the Israelites complained because there was no water to drink when they camped at Rephidim (cf. 15:24). At Marah there was bad water, but now there was none.
". . . the supreme calamity of desert travellers befell them--complete lack of water."273
Rephidim was near the wilderness of Sinai (v. 1; cf. 19:2; Num. 33:15) and the Horeb (Sinai) range of mountains (v. 6).
The Israelites' grumbling demonstrated lack of faith since God had promised to supply their needs (v. 2). They wanted Him to act as they dictated rather than waiting for Him to provide as He had promised. This was how they tested or challenged the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 10:10). It was proper for God to test them (15:25; 16:4), but it was improper for them to test Him.
"One of Moses' most characteristic and praiseworthy traits was that he took his difficulties to the Lord (v. 4; 15:25; 32:30; 33:8; Num 11:2, 11; 12:13; 14:13-19 et al.)."274
By using his staff (v. 5) Moses proved that God was still enabling him to perform miracles as he had done in Egypt. He still had divine regal authority, and the power of God was still with him. The elders apparently accompanied Moses as representatives of the people since the whole nation could not get close enough to witness the miracle.
Horeb may refer to the mountain range at the southern tip of the Sinai peninsula (v. 6; cf. Deut. 1:2; 1 Kings 19:8) also called Sinai.275Wherever the Horeb range may have been, Moses struck the rock somewhere near these mountains.276
Massah means "testing"or "proof"and Meribah "murmuring,""dissatisfaction,"or "contention"(v. 7).277The first name commemorated the Israelites' second action toward God and the second name their first action toward Moses. They failed to believe that the Lord was among them as He had promised He would be.
"In our own time the same demand is made, the same challenge repeated. Men are not satisfied with the moral evidences of the Being and providence of God, they point to the physical evils around, the hunger and thirst, the poverty and misery, the pollution and self-will of our times, crying--If there be a God, why does He permit these things? Why does He allow suffering and sorrow? Why does He not interpose? And then, when the heavens are still silent, they infer that there is no God, that the sky is an empty eye-socket, and that there is nothing better than to eat and drink, because death is an eternal sleep."278
God had assured the Israelites in Egypt that He would bring them into the Promised Land. Consequently all their grumbling demonstrated a lack of faith. This second instance of complaining about lack of water was more serious than the first because God had provided good water for them earlier in the desert (15:25).
Whereas the Israelites had feared the possibility of having to battle the Egyptians (14:10) they now did engage in battle with the Amalekites.
"The primary function of this section in its present location is the demonstration of yet another proof and benefit of Yahweh's Presence with Israel. The occasion for the demonstration this time is an attack from the outside instead of an internal complaint. The result, however, is once again an undeniable supernatural intervention of Yahweh. . . . Yahweh is present, when the need arises, to fight alongside and even on behalf of his people."279
17:8-13 Moses used "Amalek"to represent the Amalekites as he often used "Israel"for the Israelites (v. 8). The Amalekites were a tribe of Semites. They had descended from one of Esau's grandsons (Gen. 36:12) and had settled in the part of Sinai the Israelites now occupied. They also inhabited an area in southern Canaan (cf. Gen. 14:7). They evidently opposed Israel in battle because they felt Israel was a threat to their security.
This is the first biblical reference to Joshua (v. 9). Moses selected him to lead Israel's warriors. Moses' staff was the means God used to accomplish miracles for Israel and to identify those miracles as coming from Himself (cf. v. 5, et al.).
Hur was the son of Caleb (v. 10; 1 Chron. 2:19; not the Caleb of later fame in Numbers and Joshua) and possibly the grandfather of Bezalel, the architect of the tabernacle (31:2, et al.). Josephus said he was the husband of Miriam.280He was an important man in Israel (cf. 24:14).
Moses' actions on this occasion seem a bit confusing in the text (vv. 11-13).
"Moses went to the top of the hill that he might see the battle from thence. He took Aaron and Hur with him, not as adjutants to convey his orders to Joshua and the army engaged, but to support him in his own part in connection with the conflict. This was to hold up his hand with the staff of God in it. To understand the meaning of this sign, it must be borne in mind that, although ver. 11 merely speaks of the raising and dropping of the hand (in the singular), yet, according to ver. 12, both hands were supported by Aaron and Hur, who stood one on either side, so that Moses did not hold up his hands alternately, but grasped the staff with both his hands, and held it up with the two."281
"Moses lifted his hands, in symbol of the power of Yahweh upon the fighting men of Israel, surely, but in some miraculous way Moses' upraised hands became also conductors of that power."282
Moses' actions indicate that he was engaging in intercessory prayer.
"The lifting up of the hands has been regarded almost with unvarying unanimity by Targumists, Rabbins, Fathers, Reformers, and nearly all the more modern commentators, as the sign or attitude of prayer. . . . The lifting up of the staff secured to the warriors the strength needed to obtain the victory, from the fact that by means of the staff Moses brought down this strength from above, i.e., from the Almighty God in heaven; not indeed by a merely spiritless and unthinking elevation of the staff, but by the power of his prayer, which was embodied in the lifting up of his hands with the staff, and was so far strengthened thereby, that God had chosen and already employed this staff as the medium of the saving manifestation of His almighty power. There is no other way in which we can explain the effect produced upon the battle by the raising and dropping . . . of the staff in his hands. . . . God had not promised him miraculous help for the conflict with the Amalekites, and for this reason he lifted up his hands with the staff in prayer to God, that he might thereby secure the assistance of Jehovah for His struggling people. At length he became exhausted, and with the falling of his hands and the staff he held, the flow of divine power ceased, so that it was necessary to support his arms, that they might be kept firmly directed upwards . . . until the enemy was entirely subdued."283
"The significance of this is that Israel's strength lay only in a continuous appeal to the Lord's power and a continuous remembrance of what He had already done for them . . ."284
"Why do you fail in your Christian life? Because you have ceased to pray! Why does that young Christian prevail? Ah, in the first place, he prays for himself; but also, there are those in distant places, mothers, sisters, grandparents, who would think that they sinned, if they ceased to pray for him, and they will not fail to lift up their hands for him until the going down of the sun of their lives!"285
This battle was more important than may appear on the surface.
"As the heathen world was now commencing its conflict with the people of God in the persons of the Amalekites, and the prototype of the heathen world, with its hostility to God, was opposing the nation of the Lord, that had been redeemed from the bondage of Egypt and was on its way to Canaan, to contest its entrance into the promised inheritance; so the battle which Israel fought with this foe possessed a typical significance in relation to all the future history of Israel. It could not conquer by the sword alone, but could only gain the victory by the power of God, coming down from on high, and obtained through prayer and those means of grace with which it had been entrusted."286
What was the significance of this battle for Israel? Israel learned that God would give them victory over their enemies as they trusted and obeyed Him.
"Jehovah used the attack of Amalek on Israel, at the very beginning of their national history, to demonstrate to His chosen people the potency of intercession. The event reveals a mighty means of strength and victory which God has graciously afforded His people of all ages."287
17:14-16 This is the first of five instances in the Pentateuch where we read that Moses wrote down something at the Lord's command (cf. 24:4, 7; 34:27; Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9, 24).288
God promised the eventual destruction of the Amalekites to strengthen Joshua's faith in God's help against all Israel's enemies (v. 14). Later God commanded him to exterminate the Amalekites after he had conquered Canaan (Deut. 25:19). The Bible mentions the Amalekites for the last time in 1 Chronicles 4:43 when a remnant of them perished in Hezekiah's day. Some commentators have identified Haman, called an Agagite in the Book of Esther, with the Amalekites.289Agag was evidently an Amalekite name or title (cf. 1 Sam. 15:32-33). There is serious question, however, that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites, as some of the better commentaries on Esther point out.
The altar commemorated God's victory and self-revelation as the One who would provide victory for Israel against her enemies (v. 15). The banner was a flag that the victor could raise over his defeated foe.
"The sight of Moses so blessing Israel and judging Amalek would symbolize Yahweh, by whom all blessing and all cursing were believed to be empowered; thus the altar was named not Moses is my standard,' or The staff of Elohim is my standard,' but Yahwehis my standard.'"290
God set Himself against the Amalekites because they set themselves against His people and His purposes through them (v. 16).291
"The battle between Yahweh and Amalek will continue across the generations because the Amalekites have raised a hand against Yahweh's throne, that is, they have challenged his sovereignty by attacking his people."292
"In Amalek the heathen world commenced that conflict with the people of God, which, while it aims at their destruction, can only be terminated by the complete annihilation of the ungodly powers of the world. . . . Whereas he [Moses] had performed all the miracles in Egypt and on the journey by stretching out his staff, on this occasion he directed his servant Joshua to choose men for the war, and to fight the battle with the sword. He himself went with Aaron and Hur to the summit of a hill to hold up the staff of God in his hands, that he might procure success to the warriors through the spiritual weapons of prayer."293
"I am convinced beyond any doubt that virtually all advances for Christ come because of believers who understand and practice prayer."294
In all the crises the Israelites had faced since they left Egypt, God was teaching them to look to Him. They should do so for deliverance from their enemies (at the Red Sea), for health and healing (at Marah), and for food and guidance (in the wilderness of Sin). They should also do so for water and refreshment (at Massah-Meribah) and for victory over their enemies (at Rephidim). He was teaching them how dependent they were on Him and that they should turn to Him in any and every need (cf. John 15:5).
Once again the Lord provided for His people, continued to provide for them, and proved His presence again to Israel and to Israel's enemies.295
"The present narrative in Exodus 17 appears to have been shaped by its relationship to the events recorded in Numbers 21:1-3, the destruction of Arad. The two narratives are conspicuously similar. Here in Exodus 17, the people murmured over lack of water and Moses gave them water from the rock (vv. 1-7). They were attacked by the Amalekites but went on to defeat them miraculously while Moses held up his hands (in prayer?). So also in the narrative in Numbers 21, after an account of Israel's murmuring and of getting water from the rock (20:1-13), Israel was attacked but miraculously went on to defeat the Canaanites because of Israel's vow, which the narrative gives in the form of a prayer (21:1-3).
"The parallels between the two narratives suggest an intentional identification of the Amalekites in the Exodus narratives and the Canaanites in Numbers 21:1-3."296
AManna and quail (Exod. 16:4-34)
B40 years (Exod. 16:35)
CWater from the rock (Exod. 17:1-7)
DJoshua, the next leader (Exod. 17:8-13)
EBattle with the Amalekites (Exod. 17:14-16)
Sinai
A'Manna and quail (Num. 11:4-34)
B'40 years (Num. 14:21-22)
C'Water from the rock (Num. 20:1-12)
D'Eleazar, the next priest (Num. 20:23-29)
E'Battle with the Canaanites (Num. 21:1-16)297
As a Midianite, Jethro was a descendant of Abraham as was Amalek. Both were blood relatives of the Israelites. Nevertheless the attitudes of the Amalekites and Jethro were very different, though Midian as a nation was hostile to Israel. Set next to each other in the text as they are, the experiences of Israel with Amalek and with Jethro illustrate two different attitudes that other nations held toward Israel. These differences have characterized the attitudes of outsiders toward God's elect throughout history.298Jethro was a God-fearing man, part of a believing minority in Midian.
18:1-12 The names of Moses' sons (vv. 3-4) reflect his personal experiences in the providence of God. However not all biblical names carry such significance.
"It is a very precarious procedure to attempt to analyze the character or disposition of an Old Testament character on the basis of the etymology of his name alone."299
Many names were significant (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, etc.), but not all were.
The mount of God (v. 5) is the mountain where God revealed Himself and His law to Israel, Mt. Sinai. The wilderness was the wilderness near Sinai.
"Moses' summary [vv. 8-10] is a proof-of-Presence summary, a confession of Yahweh's powerful protection of and provision for Israel."300
Jethro acknowledged the sovereignty of God (v. 11). This does not prove he was a monotheist, though he could have been. He gave evidence of his faith by offering a burnt offering and by making sacrifices to Yahweh (v. 12). The meal that Moses, Aaron, and the Israelite elders ate with Jethro was the sacrificial meal just mentioned. Eating together in the ancient Near East was a solemn occasion because it constituted the establishment of an alliance between the parties involved. That is undoubtedly what it involved here. The fact that Aaron and all the elders of Israel were also present demonstrated its importance.
18:13-23 Moses experienced a crisis of overwork (cf. Acts 6:1-7). Previously he had had to cope with a lack of food and a lack of water. This section explains how he overcame the present crisis. It also explains the beginning of Israel's legal system. Here we see how the requirements and instructions of the Mosaic Covenant became accessible to the ordinary Israelite and applicable to the problems that arose as the Israelites oriented their lives to that code.301
Clearly Israel already at this time had a body of revealed law (v. 16; cf. 15:26).302God greatly expanded this with the giving of the Mosaic Covenant.
Evidently the people were becoming unruly because Moses was not dispensing justice quickly (v. 23). Jethro's counsel was wise and practical, and he presented it subject to the will of God (v. 23). Moses may not have realized the seriousness of the problem he faced. He seems to have been a gifted administrator who would not have consciously let Israel's social welfare deteriorate. However, his "efficiency expert"father-in-law pointed out how he could manage his time better.
Notice the importance of modeling integrity in verse 21. Integrity means matching walk with talk, practicing what one preaches. This has always been an important qualification for leaders.
"Mr. [Dwight L.] Moody said shrewdly: It is better to set a hundred men to work, than do the work of a hundred men. You do a service to a man when you evoke his latent faculty. It is no kindness to others or service to God to do more than your share in the sacred duties of Church life."303
18:24-27 Moses allowed the people to nominate wise, respected men from their tribes whom he appointed as judges (v. 25; cf. Deut. 1:12-18). These men handled the routine disputes of the Israelites, and this kept Moses free to resolve the major problems.
Jethro returned to his native land (v. 27), but he visited Moses and his daughter and grandchildren again (cf. Num. 10:29), perhaps often during the following 40 years.
"In times of great crises God always provided men to lead the way to deliverance. Moses is an eloquent example of this very fact. The hand of God providentially prepared this man for this very moment. He was cognizant of Egyptian manners and was therefore able to articulate demands before the King of Egypt. Moses had been trained in military matters and was therefore capable of organizing this large mass of people for movement across the deserts. His training in Egypt had given him the ability to write and therefore provided a means by which these accounts would be recorded for eternity. Forty years of desert experience had given Moses the know-how of travel in these areas as well as the kind of preparation that would be needed to survive the desert heat. All of this a mere accident of history? No indeed. The history before us is a supreme example of God's sovereign ability to accomplish His purposes for His people. Those who belong to Him have every reason to be confident that that which God has promised He will perform."304
"The present narrative has many parallels with the accounts in Genesis 14 and 15. Just as Melchizedek the priest of Salem (salem) met Abraham bearing gifts as he returned from the battle with Amraphel (Ge 14:18-20), so Jethro the Midianite priest came out with Moses' wife and sons to offer peace (salom, 18:7; NIV they greeted each other') as he returned from the battle with the Amalekites. . . . The purpose of these parallels appears to be to cast Jethro as another Melchizedek, the paradigm of the righteous Gentile. It is important that Jethro have such credentials because he plays a major role in this chapter, instructing Moses, the lawgiver himself, how to carry out the administration of God's Law to Israel. Thus, just as Abraham was met by Melchizedek the priest (Ge 14) before God made a covenant with him in Genesis 15, so Moses is met by Jethro the priest (Ex 18) before God makes a covenant with him at Sinai (Ex 19)."305
