Charles Ellicott Commentary Exodus 17

The children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin. —The route by which Rephidim was reached is very uncertain. From El Markha there are three ways of reaching the Wady Feiran, where Rephidim is placed by most critics. One route (the shortest) is from the northern part of El Markha by Wady Shellal and Wady Magharah, where there was an important Egyptian settlement. This the Israelites would probably have avoided. Another, from the central part of El Markha, leads through the Wady Seih Sidreh to Magharah, and would, therefore, have been equally inconvenient. The third is circuitous, but has the advantage of being very open, and therefore suitable for a vast host. It passes through the whole of El Markha, and then, skirting the mountain, enters Wady Feiran at its south-western extremity. The probability seems on the whole to be that the Israelites pursued this last route.

After their journeys. —We find from Numbers 33:12-13, that Rephidim was reached from the wilderness of Sin by three journeys—from Sin to Dophkah, from Dophkah to Alush, and from Alush to Rephidim. The distance by the route which we have supposed the Israelites to have taken is about fifty miles.

Rephidim means rests, or resting-places, and is an appropriate name for the central part of the Wady Feiran—the most fertile spot in the whole peninsula, where there is usually abundant water, rich vegetation, and numerous palm-trees. (Lepsius, Tour from Thebes to Sinai, pp. 21, 37; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 40, 41.) According to Dean Stanley, “the oldest known tradition of the peninsula” identifies Rephidim with Paran—the seat of an early bishopric—undoubtedly the same word with Feiran.

There was no water. —Though Feiran is usually watered by a copious stream, there have been occasions when the brook has been dried up. Graul found it dry in March, 1858. (Stanley, p. 40, Note 3.)

The people chided. Water is scarce along the route by which, it is supposed, Rephidim was reached. Any supply they might have brought with them from Elim would have been exhausted. They would have looked forward to Rephidim both for their immediate needs and for replenishing their water-skins. They would be suffering from both thirst and disappointment. The needs of their children and their cattle (Exodus 17:3) would be an aggravation of their pain. They would see no hope for the future. Under these circumstances, we cannot be surprised at their "chiding." Nothing but a very lively faith, or complete resignation to the will of God, could have made a people patient and submissive in such an extreme situation.

Give us water. It was not faith that spoke in these words, but wrath. They had no belief that Moses could give them water, and "were almost ready to stone him" (Exodus 17:4).

To kill us. —This was no exaggeration. Thirst kills as surely as hunger, and more quickly. Whole armies have died of it. (Herod. iii. 26.) Ships’ crews have perished of it on the ocean, with “water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.” Unless a supply could somehow or other have been provided speedily, the whole people must have been exterminated.

They be almost ready to stone me. —Hebrew, Yet a little and they will stone me. On riotous stoning, see the second Note on Exodus 8:26.

Go on before the people. — The people were probably in no condition to move. They were exhausted with a long day’s march—weary, faint, and nerveless. Moses and the elders, who probably journeyed on donkeys, would have more strength.

Take with you of the elders — as witnesses. Each miracle had an educational value and was designed to call forth, exercise, and so strengthen the faith of the people.

The rock in Horeb must necessarily designate some particular rock in the Horeb region already known to Moses during his previous stay in this area. It cannot possibly, however, have been the traditional “rock of Moses” in the Seil Leja, under Ras Sufsafeh, since that rock is a long day’s journey from the site of Rephidim, near which the miracle must have been performed. (See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 46-48.)