NOTES for Exo 17:1-16

All the stories about Israel's testing in the wilderness are built according to this pattern: unforeseen difficulties arise, and the same central question arises again: "Is the Lord among us or not?" Then come the Lord's indignation at their lack of faith, miraculous signs, and salvation or punishment from God.

The paradox is that the "right," affirmative answer, "God is with us," can testify to fanaticism and spiritual complacency just as much as to real faith. But the question asked of oneself and of one another, "Is the Lord with us or not?" can truly put everything in its place. Here, in the wilderness, faith ceases to be a habit or an ideology; it becomes what it should be: a search, a hope, a striving toward God.

Today's reading consists of two parts that at first glance are not directly connected. The first mentions an incident in the wilderness connected with the people's indignation as they demand water and blame Moses for something for which he, of course, was in no way at fault (vv. 1-7). It should be noted that this is not the first such case: something similar happened very soon after the people came out of Egypt into the wilderness, so there was already a precedent for a successful resolution of this kind of situation (Ex 15:22-25). The second part is devoted to a description of the clash that happened to the Jews on the way to Sinai with the tribe of the Amalekites (vv. 8-13).

Here before us is a description of how God continues to educate His people spiritually, preparing them to receive the commandments and enter the Covenant. Of course, the situations with water, or rather with its absence, through which the people had to pass were a kind of lesson in trust in God. And it must be admitted with regret that these lessons were learned poorly. In such cases, two developments are possible. In one case, if there is enough time, the same lessons are repeated again and again until the students learn everything properly. If time is short, however, the program has to be shortened, so to speak, and a final exam arranged, with the risk that careless or slow students will fail it.

And if the situations with water were lessons, then the encounter in the wilderness with the Amalekites became the exam. Still, such an exam in life often itself becomes a lesson, and often an extremely harsh one. This is what happened in the encounter with the Amalekites. There was no longer anything to wait for; it was necessary to act, and to act while fully relying on God and hoping for a miracle. Earlier they could be indignant and demand something from Moses and from God; now there was no room for indignation. They had to gather their will and go into battle.

Was the people ready for such a turn of events? Judging by the story at Rephidim described in this same passage, hardly. But there was no more time left for longer preparation: Sinai lay ahead, where the full responsibility for relationship with God would have to be taken up not by Moses alone, but by each person among the people. The critical situation experienced by each person at the moment of meeting the enemy face to face forced each one to experience responsibility as well. In battle it turns out that, besides God and the opponent you face, there is nothing and no one else in the world. And such an experience prepares one for entering the Covenant better than any other lesson.

The lessons of life with God continue. Again and again the people ask the same question: is God among us or not? Again and again they demand that the leaders, most often Moses, solve the problems that arise. Otherwise they threaten to stone the leader. In short, the situation is quite ordinary for any crowd. Even the story of Moses' raised hands, when Amalek was defeated thanks to his prayers, changed nothing. After all, it was still the leader. It was still he, his prayers, his hands that brought the victory. And so, long live the leader!

Yet why not stone him too, if the leader has stopped satisfying them, if things were good with him and then became bad, if there were no problems and then problems appeared? Sometimes, of course, the opposite happens, as in this chapter: first they nearly stoned him, and then they glorified him. The order does not matter here; from the love and adoration of a crowd to its hatred is always one step. The task is something else: to stop being a crowd. But that is the hardest thing. Not because God does not help, or because He hides or turns away. On the contrary, on the way from Egypt to Sinai He is always there, always intervening, allowing everyone to experience His presence quite really and tangibly.

It would seem that under such conditions everyone can and should become convinced that God is near and should turn directly to Him, without demanding from leaders what no human being can give by definition. There is, however, one difficulty that is essential for fallen humanity: responsibility. To turn to God oneself, directly, means that one will also have to maintain one's relationship with Him oneself, and then settle all questions with Him, not with some intermediaries who take that task upon themselves.

One can make demands of a leader, of a human being, and constantly remind him: you led us after you, so now solve our problems. But one can only follow God oneself; one cannot say to Him, why did you bring us out here into this wilderness? Here each person decides for himself whether to go into the wilderness where God is, or to remain in Egypt where He is now absent. Irresponsibility is always easier than responsibility, and a crowd always chooses the easiest path; that is why it is a crowd. Only it is possible to reach the promised land, conquer it, and live on it only after ceasing to be a crowd. Otherwise the holy land will very quickly turn into Egypt, with all the consequences that follow.

Moses is leading the people who knows where; all around is wilderness, and there is no water. And the people react just as one would expect: they make claims against the one who started this venture. "What were you thinking when you began the journey through the wilderness? Did you not know there was no water here? Oh, you knew? Then you did this on purpose; you wanted us to die of thirst?" Moses' reaction is remarkable, as are the words with which he turns to God. Moses does not say: "Lord, they are right; there is wilderness all around. What are You thinking?" More than that, he does not say: "Well, I know that You are almighty; prove it to them, give them this water, let them know how strong You are." He offers God no solutions. He simply says: "Lord, I am terrified. They may kill me. Tell me what to do." And the Lord does not say: "Do not worry, Moses, now I will show them who is in charge here." He explains what needs to be done so there will be water.

Israel trusted neither its leader Moses nor its God. In essence, Israel wanted proof. But the Lord did not set Himself the goal of proving anything to the people of Israel. He simply gave them water because they were thirsty. Perhaps this is precisely the main "rebuke" for the Israelites. God does not react to the attempt to manipulate Him: "Is the Lord among us or not?" He simply lets those words pass and answers the real need of the people, not in order to prove something, but because He loves this people.

During the Exodus, already in the wilderness, after the Hebrews had left Egypt, the same story keeps repeating. When the people face yet another problem, one that was, in general, perfectly ordinary for desert dwellers, they begin demanding from Moses and from his God that the problem be solved immediately. And God's answer to such claims becomes harsher and harsher. This is understandable: over time everyone, one way or another, gets used to changed living conditions.

Especially since no one drove the people into the wilderness by force. It was not hard to realize that a nomad's life in the Sinai wilderness differs markedly from the life of an Egyptian. At first, of course, one could still understand the reaction of people who panicked at the first difficulties: for someone unaccustomed to it, the wilderness is a serious trial. But the panic repeated again and again, and then it became clear that the issue was not an inability but an unwillingness to live this new, difficult, but free life. An unwillingness to change.

Of course, distrust of God was also plain: after all, He had often brought His people out of situations that seemed hopeless to them. But behind this, so to speak, local distrust stood an absolute distrust, which in the end led God to give up the possibility of bringing the first generation that had come out of Egypt into the land He had promised to Abraham. It is no accident that so many times the people wanted to turn back to Egypt. Fear, of course, did its work. But there was more than fear here. This first generation of Hebrews who left Egypt was sure of nothing. Should we go there, into an unknown land? Will we make it? Or would it be better to turn back right away? There is no freedom there, no one needs us there, but at least we will stay alive...

With such an attitude, of course, there could be no talk of trust in God. People used to slavery trust no one. Trust is possible only for a person who is inwardly free, and among those who had left Egypt there were almost none like that. So the conquest of the land had to be postponed, postponed for two generations. The land was conquered by the grandchildren of those who had left Egypt. They were free, they knew how to trust God, and they proved worthy to receive the land promised by God to their fathers.