When the children of Israel left Egypt, led by Moses, the first major event one reads about in the book of Exodus after the Red Sea crossing is found in Exodus 15:22-26, the crisis at the waters of Marah. I say crisis for that was how the children of Israel perceived it. They had been traveling three days in the wilderness and had found no water to drink during that time.
Was that a crisis? It was when you consider how much water was required for this exodus. In Ex. 12:37-38 we get some idea of the numbers. It reads as follows: "And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds." (ESV) There may have been over 2 million men, women, and children needing water, as well as all the flocks and herds of livestock. You do not carry that kind of water in canteens.
After this three-day journey without finding water, they come to Marah, a place that has water, but water so bitter it cannot be used for drinking. In fact, according to the notes in the NET Bible, the Hebrew word "Marah" means bitter. The Bible says, "The people complained against Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?'" (Ex. 15:24 NKJV) One has to understand Moses was only God's representative; thus, to complain against Moses was to complain against God (see Ex. 16:8). Moses individually had no power to provide them with water; they knew that, so the complaint was against God.
This manifested a lack of faith in God. How? Back in Ex. 3:16-17 before the plagues, before Moses ever entered Egypt after his personal exile, God told Moses at the burning bush incident to, "Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, 'The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, 'I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt; and I have said I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey.' ' " (NKJV)
After entering Egypt, Moses did this according to Ex. 4:29-30 with Aaron being his spokesman. He was also directed to perform miracles before the elders as you read about in Ex. 4:1-9, and according to Ex. 4:30 he did so, as signs of confirmation that it was God who was behind this affair. Afterwards, we know of the plagues that hit Egypt which were further confirmation that God was intent on bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt into "a land flowing with milk and honey." Add to these miracles the Red Sea encounter where the waters were parted for the children of Israel but collapsed on the Egyptians and the children of Israel should have seen God's determination to hold fast to his promise to them.
Why then would the children of Israel believe that God would allow them to perish for want of water at Marah after seeing all he had already done on their behalf? Did they not believe God? Did they not trust him after all they had both heard and seen? According to the footnotes in the NET Bible the Hebrew word translated "complained" or "murmured" or "grumbled," depending on your translation, "is a much stronger word than 'to grumble' or 'to complain.' It is used almost exclusively in the wilderness wandering stories, to describe the rebellion of the Israelites against God … They were not merely complaining--they were questioning God's abilities and motives. The action is something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence."
That they needed water there was no doubt. That they were in want there is no doubt. What should they have done rather than rebel? Well, I can think of several things--trust in God for deliverance, pray to him, ask Moses not in a complaining or murmuring way but in a supplicating way to intervene with God on their behalf. God had told them he would bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey. If they believed in the goodness of God, that he would not lie to them, then surely they should have seen he was not about to let them die of thirst. But, the Psalmist had this to say about them, "They did not believe in God, and did not trust in his salvation." (Psalms 78:22 NKJV) That was said of them at a later date in their history but was true of them basically from the beginning as their first rebellion, based on a lack of faith, was at the Red Sea (Psalms 106:7).
A lesson for all Christians in this is the need to trust in God in our own personal crises. If we are faithful God is on our side and if we will trust and obey and be patient he will work things out for us. This does not mean he will allow us to live eternally upon the earth. It is appointed for man once to die (Heb. 9:27 NKJV). Nor does it mean we will be blessed in the ways we might like--say fame, fortune, and prestige--but it does mean he will see us through our life’s struggles and help us through the valley of the shadow of death (Psa. 23:4).
However, that is not the main lesson I want to get from this Old Testament story. God did come to the rescue of the children of Israel and provide water, but how did he do it? The Bible says he told Moses to cast a tree he showed him into the bitter waters at Marah which having done so the waters were made fit to drink (Ex. 15:25 NKJV). However, it is my understanding that the Hebrew word denotes "wood" and not necessarily a tree, although either is possible; thus, the English Standard Version translates the word as a "log" rather than a tree while other translations say "a piece of wood." (CEV, GNB, NLT)
I want to ask the reader some questions to get to the main point of this article. What power was there in that tree or piece of wood to transform a body of water from bitter to pure sufficient to quench the thirst of perhaps as many as 2 million people with all their livestock? Not one bit of power--none at all. However, what would have happened had Moses not thrown the tree or wood into the water? Would the water have become drinkable had he not?
What power was there in the rod Moses had in his hand to part the Red Sea? God told him, "Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it." (Ex. 14:16 NKJV) None! But what if he had not done it?
What power was there in the rod Moses used to strike the rock, in a later incident where water was needed, to bring forth water out of the rock to provide for the people's thirst? (see Ex. 17:5-6) None! But what if he had not done it?
What power was there in the fiery serpent that God told Moses to make and put on a pole (he made it out of bronze) to heal those who had been bitten by poisonous serpents to save them from death if they would look at it? (see Numbers 21:8-9) None! You surely do not believe your doctor would treat you that way if bitten by a poison scorpion or rattlesnake do you? But, what about those who did not look at Moses' bronze serpent?
What power was there inherent in marching around the walls of Jericho, blowing trumpets, blowing a ram's horn, and shouting to get the walls of the city to fall down? (Joshua 6:2-5) None! But, what if they had not done it?
What power was there in the water of the Jordan River to cleanse Naaman of his leprosy? (2 Kings 5) None! Could all lepers have been cleansed of leprosy by doing what Naaman did? Was the power in the water? What if Naaman had not gone and washed 7 times as directed? (We know, don't we, for until he did so, having refused for a time, he remained leprous and was not cleansed.)
In John 9, Jesus meets a man blind from birth. The Bible says, "He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And he said to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam' (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing." (John 9:6-7 NKJV) What power was there in the water of the pool of Siloam to cure blindness? None at all! But what if he had not gone to the pool of Siloam?
Are you seeing a pattern? The God that spoke the universe into existence and who needs but speak and it is done does not need rods, or bronze serpents, special water treatments, or marching, or horn blowing, or anything else to achieve the end he desires. All he needs to do is speak and it is done but sometimes he chooses to work by means of agency. When he chooses to do so it becomes a matter of faith on our part--faith to believe and do or faithlessness to disbelieve and not do.
Naaman was a person who had a hard time believing and doing. He just could not see the sense in it or the reason for it. Be that as it may, he was not healed until he believed enough to obey.
Let me drive the point home. It does not matter in the least whether you or I see a reason in a command God gives. Sometimes he gives commands just to test our obedience (Abraham being a case in point with the sacrifice of his son Isaac). Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, said to the Corinthians, "For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things." (2 Cor. 2:9 NKJV)
Many, many people who consider themselves to be Christians (the reality is they are not) cannot bring themselves to be baptized. Is it a command of God? They know it is (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21, Rom. 6:3-4, etc.) but they cannot believe it is necessary for they cannot see any reason behind it. How often has one heard the phrase that "the water does not have anything to do with salvation?" It does if God says to be baptized. It fits into the same category of things we have discussed here.
I have asked the question before and never received an answer but I will ask it again. If Jesus (God) wanted you to know baptism was for the remission of your sins how would he have had to phrase it to get the message across to you, if you do not believe that to be the case? He actually said that exact thing, speaking through Peter via the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (NKJV) Then, in Acts 22:16, the Holy Spirit spoke of being baptized to wash away sins. Peter states it again as if we could not understand him in Acts 2:38 when he says, "there is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) and he said the man that would be saved would be the man that "believes and is baptized." (Mark 16:16)
People all over the world are convinced Jesus was in error when he said "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) believing the truth to be "he who believes and is baptized or not baptized, either way, will be saved." That is adding to the word of God and is just as dangerous as if a man were to say, "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved." Add to God's word or contradict it, either one, and face God in the judgment.
The lesson we need to learn from the event at the waters of Marah is that if God decides to use agency or means to save us, then so be it. We must either conform and throw that log or tree into the water, or forget about receiving the blessing. We either believe and obey, or disbelieve and do not obey and forfeit the blessing. The spiritual application is valid until the earth no longer exists. One must respect whatever agency or means God so desires to use to bring blessings and salvation to man. To fail to respect that is to show a lack of faith in God despite all protests to the contrary.
[To download this article or print it out click here.]