Moses, the Waters of Marah, and a Lesson for Today

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 3 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
mass human exodus to succeed. 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 well have been easily over 2 million men, women, and children
needing water as well as all the herds of livestock. You do not carry that kind of
water in canteens.

After this 3 day journey without finding water they come to Marah, a place that has
water but water so bitter it cannot be drunk. 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 and they knew that so the complaint was against God.

This manifested a lack of faith in God. How so? Back in Ex. 3:16-17 before the
plagues, before Moses ever entered Egypt after his 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 very thing 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 that was behind this business. 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 after seeing all he had already done on their behalf? Did they not
believe in God? Did they not trust him after all they had both seen and heard?
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 for them on their
behalf, and be patient. 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 that of 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 to man once to die (Heb. 9:27 NKJV).
Nor does it mean we will be blessed in the ways we might like – say a million dollars
in the bank account. But it does mean he will see us through and that even in the
valley of the shadow of death (Psa. 23:4).

But, that is not the lesson I want to get out of this Old Testament story. God did
come to their rescue 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 upon
having done so made those waters 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)

Now I want to ask the reader some questions in order to get at the lesson that I
want the reader to learn from this event. 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 over 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 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 back then 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 have been cleansed of leprosy by doing what
Naaman did? 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 crosses paths with 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
waters, 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 or means. 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 one 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 do it. It fits into the exact
same category of things that were discussed in the earlier part of this article.

The man Jesus' sent to the pool of Siloam would he have had his eye sight restored
had he not gone? Would Naaman have been cleansed had he not dipped in the
Jordan as instructed to do so? Would the walls of Jericho have come crashing down
without the marching around it? You get the idea and you have the right idea
exactly. The answer is an emphatic no. So it is with baptism for the remission of
sins (Acts 2:38).

I have asked the question before and never gotten an answer yet 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 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 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 that "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."
Friends that is adding to the word of God and is just as dangerous as if a man was
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 learn from the event at the waters of Marah are 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 them is to show a lack of faith in God despite all protests to
the contrary notwithstanding.