1. the congregation] P’s standing expression (Exodus 12:3). So v. 2 &c.

the wilderness of Sin] Exodus 17:1, Numbers 33:11-12†. In Numbers 33:10 the people are said to have halted, between Elim and the wilderness of Sin, at the Red Sea. Accepting the oasis in W. Gharandel as Elim (on Exodus 15:27), the ‘Red Sea’ station can hardly have been anywhere but at or near the mouth of Wâdy Ṭaiyibeh,—perhaps in the littoral plain of el-Murkheiyeh, just beyond it. There is no passage along the coast from W. Gharandel to W. Ṭaiyibeh, the abrupt projecting cliffs of the lofty Jebel Ḥammam Far‘un (‘Mountain of Pharaoh’s Bath,’—1570 feet) effectually stopping it: the Israelites, if they came in this direction, must have retraced their steps up the W. Gharandel to the point where (see on Exodus 15:26) W. Hawwârah enters it (Ordn. Surv. 75, 76), and then have turned to the right for 12 miles over the desert uplands at the back of J. Ḥammam Far‘un, till they arrived at the top of W. Shebeikeh (the ‘Wâdy of network’), by which they could descend, ‘through an amazing labyrinth of chalky hillocks and ridges,’ to the head of W. Ṭaiyibeh, and so pass straight down to the coast—in all 21 miles (O.S. 156). In W. Ṭaiyibeh, a little above its mouth, there are a few brackish springs, with some stunted palms growing near them (O.S. 81).

From the mouth of W. Ṭaiyibeh there are two principal routes to Jebel Serbâl and Jebel Mûsâ—one, the northern route, back up to the head of W. Ṭaiyibeh again (4 miles), then to the right along the W. Ḥamr (18 miles), to the long upland plain called Debbet er-Ramleh (the ‘Plain of sand’), and thence through a succession of mountain valleys to either J. Mûsâ or J. Serbâl; the other, the coast route, on to the broad flinty plain of el-Markhâ, and then, either leaving this plain on the E., up the Seiḥ Sidreh, and afterwards along the W. Mukatteb into the Wâdy Feiran, or else keeping along the coast for 7 miles beyond the SE. end of el-Markhâ, and there ascending the W. Feiran from its mouth,—in either case, the W. Feiran leading on to both Serbâl and J. Mûsâ. Knob., followed by Keil and Canon Cook, advocated the former of these routes, supposing the ‘wilderness of Sin’ to be the Debbet er-Ramleh. But, if the Israelites were already on the ‘Red Sea’ (Numbers 33:10), at the mouth of W. Ṭaiyibeh or beyond, the latter is much the more natural route for them to have followed (so Rob. i. 73, 120; and the members of the Ordnance Survey Expedition): in this case el-Markhâ will be the wilderness of Sin. But it must be admitted that neither Debbet er-Ramleh nor el-Markhâ is at all naturally described, as a glance at the map will shew, as ‘between’ Elim and Sinai, at least if Elim be in the W. Gharandel.Verses 1-3. - THE FIRST MURMURING FOR FOOD. From Elim, or the fertile tract extending from Wady Ghurnndel to Wady Tayibeh, the Israelites, after a time, removed, and ca-camped (as we learn from Numbers 33:10) by the Red Sea, probably along the narrow coast tract extending from the mouth of Tayibeh to the entrance upon the broad plain of El Markha. Hence they entered upon "the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai" - a tract identified by some with the coast plain, El Markha, by others with the inland undulating region known at the present day as the Debbet-er-Ramleh It is difficult to decide between these two views. In favour of El Markha are:

1. The fact that the Egyptian settlements in the Sinaitic peninsula would thus be avoided, as they seem to have been, since no contest with Egyptians is recorded;

2. The descent of the quails, who, wearied with a long flight over the Red Sea, would naturally settle as soon as they reached the shore;

3. The greater openness and facility of the El Markha and Wady Feiran route, which is admitted by all; and

4. The suitability of the latter to the particulars of the narrative in ch. 18. In favour of the route by the Debbet-er-Ramleh are,

1. The fact that it is better watered at present than the other;

2. Its being somewhat less removed from the direct line between Wady Ghurundel and Sinai than El Markha; and

3. A certain correspondency of sound or meaning between some of the present geographical names along this route and those of the Mosaic narrative. In "the wilderness of Sin" the Israelites for the first time found themselves in want of sufficient nourishment. They hall consumed the grain which they had brought with them out of Egypt; and though no doubt they had still considerable flocks and herds, yet they were unaccustomed to a mere milk and flesh diet, having in Egypt lived principally upon bread (ver. 3), fish (Numbers 11:5), and vegetables (ibid.). They therefore "murmured," and accused Moses and Aaron of an intention to starve them. It is quite possible that many of the poorer sorts having brought with them no cattle, or lost their cattle by the way, and not being helped by their brethren, were in actual danger of starvation. Hence God was not angry, but "heard their murmurings" (ver. 9) patiently, and relieved them. Verse 1. - They journeyed from Elim, and all the congregation came. It has been noted (Cook) that the form of expression seems to imply that the Israelites proceeded in detachments from Elim, and were first assembled as a complete host when they reached the wilderness of Sin." This accords well with their numbers and with the character of the localities. They could only assemble all together when they reached some considerable plain. Between Elim and Sinai. This expression must be regarded as vague to some extent. On the direct line, as the crow flies, there is no "wilderness" (midbar) between Wady Ghurundel and Sinai. All is mountain and valley. All that the writer means is that "the wilderness of Sin" lay upon the ordinary, or at any rate an ordinary route between Elim and the great mountain. This is equally true of El Markha and the Debbet-er-Ramleh. On the fifteenth day of the second month - i.e., on the 15th of Zif, exactly one month after their departure from Egypt. As only seven camping places are mentioned (Numbers 33:5-11), and one journey of three days through a wilderness (Exodus 15:22), it is evident that there must either have been long stays in several places, or that they must have often encamped in places which had no name. Viewed as an itinerary, the record is manifestly incomplete. Exodus 15:22-24

Leaving the Red Sea, they went into the desert of Shur. This name is given to the tract of desert which separates Egypt from Palestine, and also from the more elevated parts of the desert of Arabia, and stretches from the Mediterranean to the head of the Arabian Gulf or Red Sea, and thence along the eastern shore of the sea to the neighbourhood of the Wady Gharandel. In Numbers 33:8 it is called the desert of Etham, from the town of Etham, which stood upon the border (see Exodus 13:20). The spot where the Israelites encamped after crossing the sea, and sang praises to the Lord for their gracious deliverance, is supposed to have been the present Ayun Musa (the springs of Moses), the only green spot in the northern part of this desolate tract of desert, where water could be obtained. At the present time there are several springs there, which yield a dark, brackish, though drinkable water, and a few stunted palms; and even till a very recent date country houses have been built and gardens laid out there by the richer inhabitants of Suez. From this point the Israelites went three days without finding water, till they came to Marah, where there was water, but so bitter that they could not drink it. The first spot on the road from Ayun Musa to Sinai where water can be found, is in the well of Howra, 33 English miles from the former. It is now a basin of 6 or 8 feet in diameter, with two feet of water in it, but so disagreeably bitter and salt, that the Bedouins consider it the worst water in the whole neighbourhood (Robinson, i. 96). The distance from Ayun Musa and the quality of the water both favour the identity of Howra and Marah. A whole people, travelling with children, cattle, and baggage, could not accomplish the distance in less than three days, and there is no other water on the road from Ayum Musa to Howra. Hence, from the time of Burckhardt, who was the first to rediscover the well, Howra has been regarded as the Marah of the Israelites. In the Wady Amara, a barren valley two hours to the north of Howra, where Ewald looked for it, there is not water to be found; and in the Wady Gharandel, two hours to the south, to which Lepsius assigned it, the quality of the water does not agree with our account.

(Note: The small quantity of water at Howra, "which is hardly sufficient for a few hundred men, to say nothing of so large an army as the Israelites formed" (Seetzen), is no proof that Howra and Marah are not identical. For the spring, which is now sanded up, may have flowed more copiously at one time, when it was kept in better order. Its present neglected state is the cause of the scarcity.)

It is true that no trace of the name has been preserved; but it seems to have been given to the place by the Israelites simply on account of the bitterness of the water. This furnished the people with an inducement to murmur against Moses (Exodus 15:24). They had probably taken a supply of water from Ayum Musa for the three days' march into the desert. But this store was now exhausted; and, as Luther says, "when the supply fails, our faith is soon gone." Thus even Israel forgot the many proofs of the grace of God, which it had received already.

Exodus 16:1 Interlinear
Exodus 16:1 Parallel Texts


Exodus 16:1 NIV
Exodus 16:1 NLT
Exodus 16:1 ESV
Exodus 16:1 NASB
Exodus 16:1 KJV

Exodus 16:1 Bible Apps
Exodus 16:1 Parallel
Exodus 16:1 Biblia Paralela
Exodus 16:1 Chinese Bible
Exodus 16:1 French Bible
Exodus 16:1 German Bible

Bible Hub