The Pulpit Commentary — Exodus — Volume 2 — Section 62

viction of sin, it is specially the thirst for pardon and holiness (Ps. Ii.; cxix. 41, 81, 123, 166,174). By bestowing on the Israelites supernatural water to quench their thirst, God declared at the same time his ability and willingness to supply these higher wants of the soul; nay, held out in type the promise of this gift. This is not a far-fetched appli- cation of the incident. The word spoken to the Israelites at Marah, "I am .Jehovah that healeth thee" (eh. xv. 26), gave them a key to the interpretation of this whole series of miraculous facts. We cannot say to what extent they used it; but the key was there. Just as at Marah, the healing of the waters was a symbol of the truth that Jehovah would be their healer in every sphere of their existence ; as the gift of manna was the type and pledge of the gift of "that meat which endureth unto ever- lasting life" (John vi. 27); so, in the case before us, was the water from the rock, this supernatural water, an emblem and token of a supply in God for the satisfaction of spiritual thirst, and a pledge to his people that this supply would actually be made available for their wants. II. THE CHIDING (vers. 1-5). The behaviour of the people (making all allowance for their sore necessity) showed how little they had profited by past experiences of God's kindness. 1. They chw,ed with Moses. This is, they blamed, rebuked, reproved, reproached him for having brought them into this unhappy situation. How unreason- able was this, to chide with Moses, when they knew that in every step by which he had led them, Moses had only done God's bidding. It was God's arrangements they were quarrelling with, not the arrangements of Moses. But it· is usually in this indirect way that murmuring against God, and rebellion against his will are carried on. Because of this chiding of the people, the place was called Meribah (ver. 7). 2. They asked Mose:ifOT the impossible. They said, "Give us water to drink" (ver. 2). Here was further unrea- sonableness. They knew very well that Moses could not give them water. There was none to give. Probably they meant that he should supply their wants by miracle. If so, the spirit of their demand was wholly unbecoming. (1) They addressed themselve!I to Moses, not to God. They ()'11,ght to have addressed themselves to God, but they did not. (2) They did riot in a becoming manner ask for the water, but violently demanded it. (3) The demand was made in a spirit of unbelief. This is evident from verse 7-"they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?" They did not believe that water could be provided for them. 3. They taunted Moses with a design to kill them. This was a further disclosure of their unbelief. Twice, on previous occasions, they had made the same complaint, ostensibly against Moses, but really against God (eh. xiv. 11; xvi. 3), and twice had God shown them how unfounded were their ungenerous suspicions. He had saved them from the Egyptians. He bad supplied them with bread. Could they not now trust him to supply them with water? Perhaps, as a writer bas remarked, bad the combination of circumstances been exactly the same as before, their hearts would aot have failed them. "But when are combina- tions of di-cumstances exactly the same? and when the new combination arises, the old faith is apt to fail" (Gibson on the miracle at Marah, "the Mosaic Era"). This, how- ever, was part of the design, to reveal the Israelites to themselves, and show them the strength of this" evil J::.eart of unbelief" within them, which was ever prompting them anew to depart from the living God (Heb. iii. 12). We have equal need to beware of its operations in ourselves. 4. They were like to stone Moses. Moses speaks, in verse 5, as one driven to his wits' end by the unreasonableness and violence of the mob. He did, however, the right thing-betook himself in his strait to God. There is r.erhaps no prayer, which in the discharge of public duties, servants of God are more frequently tempted to offer, or do offer with greater heartiness than this, that they "may be <leli- vered from unreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith" (2 'l'hess. iii. ~). III. THE DELIVERANCE (vers. 5, 6). God, as before, grants a supply for the people's 'll'ants. lly bringing streams out of the rock for them, and causing waters to run ,luwn like rivers (Ps. lxxviii.15, 16; Is. xlviii. 21), he showed how wanton and ungrateful l,a,l been their suspicions of him, and how foolishly they had limited his power. Notice- I. Golfs louiny-kindness in this gift. This was very marked, when we reme_mber huw soon the people bad forgotten previous mighty works. (1) The water was :;1ven with- out cliicling and rebuke. Save, indeed, as it was itself the most pointed of all rebukes of the unbelief of the murmurers. They had chided with Moses; but Go<l, iu return, iloeB not cb\u.e with them. He is merciful to their unrighteousness, a.nu seeks to over-  THE BOOK OF EXODUS. (CH. 'XVTT. 1-i. -------------------------------~• come it by showering on them his undeserved bene6ts. He does not return them evil for evil, but seeks t-0 overcome their evil with his good. It is the same loving-kindness which we see in the Gospel. God seeks to conquer us by love. (2) The gift wrw plentiful. Ali scripture allusions to the miracle confirm this idea (Ps. lxxviii. 20; cv. 41; Is. xlviii. 21). The tradition was, that the waters continued to flow, and followed the Israelites wherever they went. The Habbins had a fable that the rock it:;ell~ in some way, accompanied the people in their journeys. In a figure, or parabolically e,en this was true, for the real rock was God himself, whose presence and agency in the miracle is denoted by the words, " &hold, l will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb" (ver. 6). It was probably in the parabolic sense that the Rabbins used the expression. 2. The m.:;.nner of the gift. This is to be carefully noted. (1) Elders were to be taken as witnesses of the transaction (ver. 5). This denoted that in what he did, God was looking beyond the immediate supply of the people's bodily wants. The design was, of course, to secure for posterity a properly authenticated account of the miracle. The importance attached to evidence in this whole series of transactions is very marked (cf. chs. iv.1-10; vii 9). A similar importance is attached to evidence in the law (Dent. xvi.i. 6, 7; xi.x. 15-21). This suggests to us how far we are, in believing scripture, from relying on "cunningly-devised fables" (2 Pet. i. 16). God took pains that his mighty works should not lack contemporary authentication. Christ, in like manner, took security for the transmission to posterity of a faithful account of his words and works, by appointing twelve apostles (Luke xxiv. 48; Acts L 21, 22). What additional confidence all this inspires in the historic ground-work of our religion! The direction for the appointment of formal witnesses had no doubt in view the character of the miracle as a pledge and type of spiritual blessings. As myths, these miracles might still suggest to us certain spiritual ideas; but their value would be gone as Dinne acts, positively pledging the Divine fulness for the supply of "all the need" of the children of faith. (2) Moses was to work the miracle by means of the rod (ver. 5). The rod appears here as the symbol of the authority with which Moses was invested, and also as the vehicle of the Divine power. 'l'he personal character of Moses sinks in this miracle as nearly out of sight as possible. God stands before him on the rock, and is all in all in the cleaving of it, and giving of the water. God is everything, Moses nothing. (3) The rock was to be smitten (ver. 6). The distinction made between this miracle and that at Kadesh in the 40th year (Nu.m. xx. 7-12), where the rock was only to be spoken to, shows conclusively that the act of smiting was meant to be significant. 'l'he smiting was, first, a cleaving of the way for the passage of the waters, which otherwise would not have flowed, as contrasted, in the later miracle, with a renewal of what was practically the same supply. God would plainly have the people recognise a continuity in the supply of water at different stages of the journey, the outward rock merging in the spiritual and invisible one from which the ~upply really came, and which was with them at all times and pla.ces (cf. 1 Cor. x. 4). Hut this is not the whole. The singular fact remains that the rock was to be smitten, and smitten with the rod wherewith" thou smotest thti river." In other words, the way was to be opened for the waters by an act of violence, the smiting here, as in the case of the river, almost necessarily suggesting judgment. If there were indeed in this any typical allusion to the actual mode in which living waters were to be given to the world, viz. by the smiting of the rock Christ, it must have remained an enigma till later prophecies, and ultimately the event itself, threw light upon it. 'l here is, how- ever, nothing extravagant in believing that t~s _form _was given. of desi~n to_ the transaction, that, when the truth was known, believmg mmds, revertmg to this smitten rock, might find in it all the more apt and suggestive an emblem of the great facts of their redemption. 3. Its spiritual tea.,;hing. 'l'he rock points to (!hrist (1 lior. x. 4). The waters which flowed from it, accordingly, are to be taken, not simply as streams of literal refreshment for the Israelites, but spiritually, typically, symbolically-may we not almost say sacramentally ?-as representative of spiritual blessings. So, in the :i.bove-cited passage, the apostle calls the water" spiritual drink," even as the manna was "spiritual meat" (1 Cor. x. 3, 4). See below. We may extend the figure, and th!nk of Christ, in turn, smiting with his cross the hard rock of the human heart, and causmg living waters to flow forth from it (cf. John vii. 38). While this obvious lesson i11 taught in addition, that in providing and ministering spiritual refreshment to his peoJ!le, CH. XVII. 1-7,] TIIE OOOK OF EXOD"C'S.