A Tradition Of Wells (part 7)

In the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, following the miracle at the sea, Israel ventures on to Elim, “where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palms trees, and they camped there by the water” (15:27).  Coincidentally, their first stop following their deliverance was at a place called Marah.  It is reported that “they came to Marah, but they were not able to drink the waters of Marah, because they were bitter. (That is why its name is Marah)” (15:23).  Through Moses, the Creator God of Israel is said to have intervened in this situation, making the water safe to drink.  However, it is not until they reach Elim, the place of twelve wells (reminding the reader of the twelve sons/tribes of Jacob/Israel), following the miraculous crossing and defeat of their pursuers, that they are said to have made camp. 

In the book of Numbers one finds an interesting mention of a well.  As it is connected to Moses and to a song, while also occurring during their long exodus experience, it is not difficult to imagine this account having a special place within Israelite memory.  Reading on then: “they traveled to Beer; that is the well where the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Gather the people and I will give them water.’  Then Israel sang this song: ‘Spring up, O well, sing to it!  The well which the princes dug, which the leaders of the people opened with their scepters and their staffs.’” (21:16-18a) 

Fresh on the heels of the song about the well, “Israel sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, saying, ‘Let us pass through your land; we will not turn aside into the fields or into the vineyards, nor will we drink water from any well, but we will go along the King’s Highway until we pass your borders.’” (21:21-22)  This request was rebuffed.  Not only was there a refusal, but “he gathered all his forces together and went out against Israel in the wilderness” (21:23b).  In consequence, “the Israelites defeated him in battle and took possession of his land” (21:24a).  One could rest assured that Israel then drank from their wells and turned aside into the fields and vineyards. 

Is there any way that this particular well-story could come into play when looking at the well-story of the Gospel of John?  Certainly, otherwise why ask the question?  How does that story in the Gospel of John begin?  John reports that Jesus had “left Judea and set out once more for Galilee.  But He had to pass through Samaria” (4:3-4).  Obviously Jesus could have avoided going through Samaria, taking a different route on His return trip to Galilee, but this was the route that He chose. 

Similarly, Israel could have taken any number of routes towards their promised land, but they did not.  Just as they chose (or their God chose for them through Moses) a route that was going to take them through the land of the Amorites (specifically including the “King’s Highway”), so also Jesus chose a route that would take Him through Samaria.  On another level, it would certainly not be a reach to consider the idea that the author of John believed that any road being traveled by Jesus would be the “King’s Highway.” 

Love On John's Terms (part 19)

In the fourth chapter of John, Jesus’ talk of water is linked to Jacob.  The context of everything following the feeding of the five thousand, in the sixth chapter, including His talk of water, is the Moses-and-Deuteronomy-linked statement about “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14b).  Here again, Jesus’ talk of water, when offered to a people that lived in expectation of a messiah and of their God’s working on their behalf to bring about another exodus, and who had a constant consciousness of their history of exile and exodus (especially their primary exodus story), is linked back to Moses.  Upon Jesus’ declaration concerning water, “some of the crowd begin to say, ‘This really is the Prophet!’” (7:40b)  For the author’s purpose, this would almost have to be directly connected to the similar words spoken in the sixth chapter, following the feeding of the multitude. 

Whereas in the sixth chapter Jesus is linked to Moses by the provision of bread, here He is linked to Moses by the provision of water.  This, of course, is connected to the remembrance of the flowing of water from a rock during Israel’s time in the wilderness.  For these people, the Creator God’s love is expressed in such ways, and Jesus is to be seen as the embodiment of that expression of love.  It becomes more and more clear, as the story progresses along, that love is expressed by means of bread and water, and that these things, being the staples of human existence as well as the points of reference by which Jesus is recognized as the Messiah, are far from being simply spiritual terms.   

In the eighth chapter of John, the author offers a very brief reminder of Jesus’ dealings with the Samaritan woman of chapter four.  In verse forty-eight of this chapter, in response to an extended monologue by Jesus, “The Judeans reply, ‘Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a demon?’”  Naturally, this mention of “Samaritan,” within a continuous narrative in which the listener or the reader will have learned about the Samaritan woman and the response of a group of Samaritans that came to believe in Jesus as Messiah, is thought-provoking.  The response from Jesus is “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father---and yet you dishonor Me” (8:49). 

With what is known at this point, it is not surprising to find Jesus completely dismissing the negative statement leveled against the Samaritans, and responding only to the accusation that He is possessed by a demon.  The Judeans are here shown to be putting Samaritans and demons on the same level, but the hearer knows that this is ridiculous.  This seems to be yet another subtle indicator of the nature of the love, modeled by Jesus through this Gospel presentation, that is to be practiced by the Johannine community and of course the wider body of believers.

From there, the story moves to Jesus’ healing of a man that had been born blind.  In that story, Jesus declares Himself to be “the light of the world” (9:5b), which builds on a concept introduced in the first chapter and built on in the eighth chapter.  With this, Jesus adds to declarations of Himself as both bread and water (evidences of love).  As it has been well-established that these statements about bread and water are Moses and exodus related statements, and acknowledging that taking a dogmatic stand in this area would not be warranted, it stands to reason that Jesus’ speaking of Himself as the light of the world might tie in to the same theme, calling to mind the pillar of fire that was said to have accompanied Israel in the wilderness.   

Love On John's Terms (part 14)

Amazingly, the author of this Gospel presents the people as having already forgotten about the bread that was in fact provided, though it has just been referenced by Jesus.  Interestingly enough, if one was to examine Jesus’ statement closely, which was “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted” (John 6:26), there might be an inclination to think that Jesus draws a distinction between the performance of miraculous signs and the provision of bread.  However, taking that step might be drawing the distinction a bit too sharply.  Surely the multiplication of the loaves must be taken as a miraculous sign---as much as was the provision of manna in the wilderness. 

So it seems as if Jesus is indicating that it was not the miraculous sign of the bread being multiplied that has caused the people to continue to come to Him, but rather the filling of their bellies.  This appears to function as a reflection upon Israel in the wilderness, in that even though daily bread was miraculously provided to the people of the covenant God, the story of their time in the wilderness is underlined by a startling lack of belief in their God’s ability to fulfill His promises. 

Even though the people were faithful to go out to gather the manna each and every day (excluding the Sabbath), they did not follow through on the deeds that their God required, which was a faithful belief in His ability to perform on behalf of His people, according to His covenant promises, as He worked out His intention to bring them into the promised land and set them on high as a kingdom of people to represent His glory (making Israel a new Adam in a new garden of Eden, as a microcosm of the Creator God’s intentions for the entirety of His created order). 

It might be the case that Jesus is here making the same type of point, while the author also shows Him reflecting back to the people’s desire to acclaim Him as their king, so that He might take on, overthrow, and drive out the Romans.  If Jesus would have acceded to the people’s demands, such would be yet another instance of Israel not following through on the deeds that their God requires, rather than operating on a faithful belief that their God will enter into history on His own terms and timing, to perform on behalf of His people according to what was understood to be His covenant promises to them.  The taking of actions against the Romans could be akin to the instances of Israel’s wilderness experience in which the people took it upon themselves to act to bring themselves into their God’s purposed kingdom, with these instances never turning out well. 

While all of these things are being considered, while also considering the fact that the author is making a presentation to a community that is hearing this in a single sitting, that is ensconced within a controlled oral tradition, and is well-versed in the history of Israel, it would not at all be a mis-step to consider the provision of bread, prima facie, as an act of love to which disciples of Jesus should aspire.  Even though it was not met with a proper response, or at least with the response that Jesus may have desired, Jesus still met a physical need.  He did so, as far as this Gospel is concerned, as an action of the incarnate God of Israel.  As a loving and compassionate God revealed Himself to His people on a continual basis through the provision of manna, and did so for His people in spite of what are reported to be consistent failings, so Jesus acted out of love and compassion to reveal His God in much the same way.      

In This Is Love (part 12)

The second of the two-fold consideration of Jesus’ experience of forty days in the wilderness also causes Him to be connected, quite rightly, with the nation of Israel as a whole.  Forty is an often referenced and significant number in relation to Israel and to the history of the people pre-Jacob (forty days and nights of rain for the flood in the days of Noah).  In connection with the all-important exodus event itself, Moses is on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights, where he is said to have received Israel’s covenant marker directly from the finger of Israel’s God.  This time of Moses’ absence presents itself as a test of Israel’s faithfulness to their covenant God that had just rescued His chosen people from their slavery in Egypt.  It was a test that they are said to have failed, doing so quite miserably. 

Elijah, the one looked upon as Israel’s greatest prophet, fasts for forty days as part of an experience that will take him to the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8).  Saul, David, and Solomon are each said to have ruled over a united kingdom of Israel for forty years.  Quite naturally then, within the context of His presentation as the Son of God, it is altogether logical to draw an analogy between Jesus’ forty days of wilderness testing and the story of Israel in general.  Forty days in the wilderness for Jesus after baptism in the Jordan---forty years for Israel in the wilderness after what is often referred to as their “baptism” in the waters of the sea. 

Jesus had entered the waters of the Jordan to be baptized at the hands of his cousin, John the Baptist.  For a messiah-like figure, this baptism in the Jordan, at the hands of one who presented himself as the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord (with heavy tones of expectation concerning the coming of Israel’s God), would have been taken to be emblematic of a new exodus movement in anticipation of the Creator God’s working through His messiah on behalf of His oppressed people.  Israel had entered the waters of the divided sea (though they did not get wet) as part of their God’s working on behalf of His oppressed people, with this resulting in the crushing defeat of those that had oppressed them, in the movement that would forever define “exodus,” Israel as the people of exodus, and their God as a God of exodus. 

Of course, there is a major difference between Jesus and Israel, in that Jesus’ wilderness experience was on the heels of having been declared as being pleasing to the Creator God, whereas Israel’s forty year wilderness experience was for the opposite reason.  Though the covenant God had previously shown forth Israel as His elect people (son) by bringing them out of Egypt, much like this God shows forth Jesus as His elect Son (who had also been brought out of Egypt, though that is for a different time), His displeasure was evident. 

Needless to say, Israel had its share of problems during their forty years, but it did serve to strengthen their trust in their delivering, covenant God, as the faithless generation that doubted at the foot of Sinai and at the edge of Canaan is said to have died off in the desert.  Owing to this, the people were prepared to enter into their land of promise, and therefore prepared to enter into the mission that their God had established for them.  Israel would cross through the waters of the Jordan (inviting a direct comparison between Jesus and Israel) into their promised land and to their mission, to carry out the work of their God, to establish a kingdom that would allow them to experience their God’s blessing, to become a light for the surrounding peoples, and thereby elicit praise for and acknowledgment of their God as the true and only God.  Israel was to leave the wilderness and enter their land for the purpose of their God’s glory.  

Remembering Egypt (part 2 of 2)

In his desire to make it so that the people of Israel “remember the day” that they “came out of the land of Egypt” all the days of their lives, Moses continues to present the mighty hand and outstretched arm of Israel’s faithful God, recounting “His signs and His deeds that He did in Egypt…and what He did to the army of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 11:3-4).  Though the people continued to cast their eyes and hopes backwards in a longing for what they thought of as simpler days, Moses bids them look forward, saying that “the land that you are entering to take possession of it is not like the land of Egypt” (11:10).  Because it is the land that is the covenant gift of their God, it is better.  So that they would not be taken by faulty memories of supposed freedom from the want of the wilderness, Moses speaks again of the Lord “Who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery” (13:5).  Belaboring the point, Moses repeatedly refers to “the land of Egypt” as “the house of slavery” (13:10), regardless of the people’s present struggles as they made their way to their promised land.  He goes on to quite bluntly inform the people to “remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you” (15:15). 

When they came to the season of Passover, its purpose was to remind the people that “the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night” (16:1).  They were to remember that they “came out of the land of Egypt in haste” (16:3), wasting no time at all in coming out, because of the great oppression “of the land of Egypt” (16:3).  Moses was very clear in telling the people that God was giving them this celebration of remembrance to mark “the time you came out of Egypt” (16:6), with each person reminding himself, “that you were a slave in Egypt” (16:12).  God wanted His people to have a clean break from Egypt, relying on it for nothing, not even allowing one of their future kings to consider a “return to Egypt to acquire many horses” (17:16).  God is clear in informing His people that He can provide them all things of need and value.  Even in the midst of the fear of those who would come against them with horses and chariots, they were not to turn back, but find value in calling to mind that “the Lord your God is with you, Who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (20:1).  It was made to be understood that there was power in remembering the deliverance provided by the Lord. 

Even their dealings with foreign nations were to be defined by such remembrance.  Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to “enter the assembly of the Lord” (23:3).  Why was this?  “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt” (23:4).  Israel’s treatment of foreigners, the fatherless, and widows was determined according to God’s deliverance, regulated by the remembrance “that you were a slave in the land of Egypt” (24:22).  Later in Israel’s history, God would direct His kings to show no mercy to the Amalekites, because of what they “did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt” (25:17). 

When the people told their story, they were to include the fact that their forefathers “went down into Egypt and sojourned there” (26:5), even though the slavery experienced there would be a source of shame and derision.  This part of the story must be told, for then the rest of the story, that of their faithful, covenant God could be told, and the people could exclaim that “the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, with great deeds of terror, with signs and wonders” (26:8).  This story of their covenant God would necessarily include a recounting of the potential for blessings or curses which He presented to them.  The dreaded curses spoke of “the boils of Egypt” (28:27), and “the diseases of Egypt” (28:60), recounting the plagues that befell those that would attempt to stand against this mighty God.  The greatest of all of the curses associated with Israel’s failure to be faithful to the demands of the covenant, would be for “the Lord” to “bring you back in ships to Egypt” to “offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves” (28:68). 

As he is reported to have worked towards the conclusion of his message to the people, once again, Moses is heard to declare that “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt” (29:2).  Lest the people begin to be deceived by the recollections of the life lived in Egypt, Moses says “You know how we lived in the land of Egypt” (29:16).  If the people began to engage in the practices in which, no doubt, many were engaging in while living in their land of slavery, the Lord would bring calamity upon His people, and “Then people would say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshiped them’.” (29:25)  God’s people would know, by this daily remembrance, that when misfortune befell them, such perdition was of themselves.            

The Creator God, through Moses, seems to have repeated Himself a great deal here.  With that, we who assent to the confession of the covenant (Jesus is Lord) can take a moment to agree and say “Yes, we would do very well indeed to keep the memories of where it was from which our God redeemed His covenant people, and that from which He delivered, close at hand and near to our hearts.”  We do well to remember being dragged out of the house of slavery (which is no doubt on the mind of somebody like the Apostle Paul, in his references to slavery), but along with that, to remember the place that God had originally intended for His creation, and the place from which the divine image bearers fell.  In this, we can have a vision of the place to which our God is bringing us in restoration and renewal and salvation.  Indeed, as it was of great value for God’s covenant people in that day, so it is of great value for God’s covenant people in this day, to not only remember that He brings into covenant for a purpose, but also to hearken to the words spoken by the man who spoke to God face to face, to cast our eyes rearward, so “that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.” 

Beginning An Exodus (part 2 of 2)

In what would appear to be an exodus-ing of the Davidic narrative, we hear David, following his lament for Saul and Jonathan, saying “Should I go up to one of the cities of Judah?” (2 Samuel 2:1b)  David was going up into that which had been prepared for him, again, departing from the exilic state in which he had been hunted by the very same king against whom he would not extend his hand, and whom he mourned upon his death.  David was going up to Judah, much like Israel went up out of Egypt---called out of exile, and much like Jesus, at a young age, who would also go up out of Egypt.  David was going up to the kingship, having consistently experienced the rescuing hand of his God upon his life, but he was not entering fully upon the kingship. 

When David made his initial inquiry as to whether or not he should go up to one of the cities of Judah, the Lord’s reply was “Go up” (2:1c).  “David asked, ‘Where should I go?’  The Lord replied, ‘To Hebron.’” (2:1d)  David followed this instruction and went to Hebron, where “The men of Judah came and there they anointed David as king over the people of Judah” (2:4).  At this point, it is only a partial going-up.  It is only a partial exodus, as David is not crowned as king over all Israel, but rather, only over Judah (his tribe).  This is not unlike the experience of Israel as a whole, in that though they had experienced the Egyptian exodus, it is only partial, as they had not yet entered in to that which was promised to them.  Furthermore, even upon their entering, their exodus remained only partial, because they would fail to drive out the peoples that were dwelling in and defiling the land, as God had clearly instructed them to do.  Here, we can see David’s exodus as a partial re-enactment of the experience of his people. 

Having been established as king over Judah, in Hebron, David begins the long process of consolidating the kingdom.  Once again, this is not going to be unlike Israel’s entrance into the promised land, as even though they were entering in upon that for which they had been specially chosen and anointed, the process of consolidating their dominion over the land was long.  Ultimately, it was incomplete, as the history of their “conquest” is replete with only partial completions of their task, and numerous reports of foreign peoples not being driven out, and as a result, dwelling alongside Israel in the land.  It could be said of David, as well, that even though he would eventually take the throne of Israel as a whole, that his attempts at consolidating power remained incomplete, as he dealt with internal conflicts and the rebellion of his own son in his attempts to take his father’s throne.  To be sure, history, in the case of Israel (and truly the whole of the world), must be said to be a mirror that is reflective of what it is that has gone before.  To know what is coming, we must know what has already come. 

As Israel would deal with the various peoples of the land as they embarked upon its subjugation, so too would David find himself dealing with Abner, the general of Saul’s army.  Abner “had taken Saul’s son Ishbosheth and…appointed him king over… all Israel” (2:8-9).  Ishbosheth would maintain this illegitimate rule over Israel for two years, while the people of Judah looked to David as their legitimate and rightful king (2:10).  This could not have been a happy time for David or for Israel.  Most certainly, Israel was not being a light to the nations throughout these days of conflicting monarchies, as civil war and civil strife effectively prevented them from reflecting their God’s image into the world in a way that would cause the surrounding peoples to look to the God of Israel in worship and honor.  It was a time of intra-national exile, as one part of the people attempted to subdue the other part of the people.  Indeed, we find that “the war was prolonged between the house of Saul and the house of David” (3:1a); and even though it was the case that “David was becoming steadily stronger, while the house of Saul was becoming increasingly weaker” (3:1b), it was the still the case that this prolonged conflict prevented Israel from being for their land, and for the wider world, what it was that God had intended them to be. 

David’s exodus to the kingship saw some fruits of exile, just as Israel’s exodus towards the covenantal land of promise saw them dwelling outside that land, in an exodus-oriented exilic condition, for forty long years.  We should not be surprised to find such congruity, especially as we consider that the wilderness wandering took place because the people of Israel, by and large, continued to look to Egypt, questioning Moses and thereby questioning the Lord Himself.  This runs parallel with the situation in Israel, as a majority of the people continued to look to Saul and his house, questioning David’s claims, and thereby questioning the work of the Lord.  The prolonged war in Israel is emblematic of Israel’s wilderness experience, as Israel found itself in the wilderness of discontent, awaiting deliverance into that which God had promised them through His promises to Saul of a kingdom torn from him, and His promises to David, to whom a kingdom had been granted.