Exodus 17:1-7

The Wilderness of Sin in this first verse, is just a place. If you were reading the whole book of Exodus, you would see this is right after they left Egypt. It is not the Sinai. “Sin” and “Sinai” are transliterations of Hebrew words, “sin” meaning thorn, “sinai” means thorny. Some also say it is a reference to the Moon God, Sin, but it is still only used as a location for this passage. Scholars have changed the possible locations of this story recently and most agree there never was an Exodus. If you are doing the reading, “sin” in this context is pronounced either “seen” or “zin”. It's hard to avoid confusion on this one.

It's also helpful to remember where you are in the story, because it seems kinda reasonable to ask the guy who is leading you on a desert hike for water. Even if that was a delegated responsibility, to whom did he delegate it? Water is pretty important. But, don't forget, this is no camping trip. That leader has just performed a few miracles and pulled off some major negotiating to get you out of slavery, and now you're complaining? The response from Moses is not great however. Instead of working to solve the problem, he accuses everyone of not being on board with the great vision of the event. How many of us have heard that one from our leaders?

We can also see the slave's dilemma here. The escape route from slavery is often a high risk choice. Europeans were not able to enslave Native Americans as easily because they knew their own territory and could escape back into it. But even long after slavery was abolished it was difficult to fight off the physical oppression of the KKK and the more covert oppression in the North. It was easier to accept the limited rights and limited freedoms they actually experienced than endure the punishment that resulted when they spoke up. But that risk needed to be taken and the punishments endured for slavery and oppression to end. When Martin Luther King Jr. led them to resist using “non-violent” resistance, what that meant was, they were not violent, but much violence was perpetrated upon them.

And while we're comparing MLK to Moses, let's look at how the stories end. In this passage, Moses has no idea what to do, so he says “trust God”, and God delivers. King didn't have that option. For whatever reason, God doesn't do that anymore. Instead King asked people to do incredibly heroic acts. Some of them died. He made sure it got in the papers and in the case of the March to Selma, on the evening news. This inspired many more to join. And he created leaders along the way. You can look at pictures of the people walking with him in the front of those marches and see that today those are congressman and leaders of organizations that have continued the work.

The place where Moses found the water is named after the “quarreling” of the people and “testing” of the Lord. The question was, “is the Lord among us?” If I asked for such a proof of God today, I would be dismissed as an angry atheist. I would be told to read the Bible. I guess God got tired of doing proofs and expected the documentation to the work for him. A more inspiring story, or a more edifying one at least would have had God say to Moses, “What are you asking me for? I'm in heaven where I have everything. Surely there is someone in the tribe who knows how to find water. I saw on the internet there's this thing you can do where you dig a hole and lay a canvas over it or something.” Then he would suddenly stop, remembering Moses wouldn't know what the internet is. Then he'd switch to his fatherly calm voice, “Look, I am found in relationships. I am found in cooperation and acknowledging the gifts each of you brings. You have everything you need down there, you just don't know it because each of you feels alone and limited. Stop looking to the clouds and expecting a savior. Look to each other, then get to work.”

John 4:5-42

We get a lengthy passage from the gospel of John on this 3rd Sunday in Lent. Quite a bit to digest. This is the longest conversation in the Bible between Jesus and someone else, and it's a woman from a disliked tribe of Israel. Just a note on verse 26, Jesus says “I am he” when she mentions the Messiah. This is used often in the gospel of John, but nothing quite like it in the others. One of the reasons those are called the synoptic gospels.

A theology professor who fits into something called the “emergent” movement of evangelicals, Scot McKight, puts a modern spin on this conversation,

If only that had been the interpretation throughout time, or if it was more embraced today. There is however a shift going on in this gospel. John is trying to set Christ apart from Judaism. Judaism was based on law, this new way is based on faith, in Jesus. It was still possible in the 2nd century that Christianity would form itself as something separate from the God of Abraham. But the passages about “fulfilling” the law won the day, and we ended up with something even more strict.

A few points on the symbolism here. She is a Samaritan, which makes her an “other”, an outsider to Jews, but they are meeting at a place that was once part of the united Jewish tribes. Her having had 5 husbands does not make her immoral. It is unlikely those could have been divorces, more likely they died. It does make her single though, which puts her at a disadvantage socially. This might be why she is there at midday, a time when she is less likely to encounter other women who might look down on her. The story then is one of healing a centuries old divide of Jews and Samaritans. This makes Jesus greater than Jacob.

There are other possible interpretations. One fits the odd switch from talking about husbands to talking about worshiping in verse 20. It is that the husbands are symbolic of the five alien tribes. The man she is with now, not her true husband, represents the religion practiced in Samaria, not a true version of Judaism according to many at the time. So this is a theological discussion in disguise. The “lost” or “alien” tribes are a post-Biblical idea, so we can't be sure what theologies are being represented here, but it doesn't really matter. The location is a bit sketchy, but the use of Jacob's and Joseph's names are an attempt to make it significant and connect it to an early time of greatness.