Interpretation and the art of telling a story

When I taught OT, I generally cautioned my students from reading too much into a story and, at first glance, it might look like I have gone against my own advice when I make a connection between the tree that turned bitter water to sweet and the tree of life as obedience to God’s will. First, it is important to make a distinction here. I am not suggesting that God mysteriously led Moses to the actual tree of life, which when thrown into the waters magically changed it. There is nothing inherently special about the physical tree/piece of wood thrown into the water at Marah. Whether it had natural healing properties, acted as a filter or achieved the sweetening of the water purely by God’s supernatural intervention does not matter. On the level of what happened to the Israelites who experienced this event first-hand, the lesson is a plain and simple one. Trust and obey God and He will provide for you.

However, these events were written down for future generations and this is where the art of telling a story comes in. As evangelical Christians, we tend to understand truth as a factual and unadorned account of ‘what really happened’ and may be suspicious of embellishments and artistry as elements that feel like a falsification of a true record. The truth is though that reality as we live it is messy with false starts, irrelevant details and tangents. When we tell a story (even as simple as a testimony of how we came to faith), we are selective on what we report. We might omit some details, conflate others for brevity, highlight yet others for emphasis, make connections to other events even if we did not see the link at the time when we lived through them. This is not a falsification of the record, simply a necessity. Giving a blow-by-blow account is boring, rambling and ineffective. Often, meaning emerges as we look back on events with hindsight and sift through details. Thus, what we tell is never a simple ‘what really happened’ but a selection and organisation of significant material from a vast amount of detail available. In other words, every telling of a story is an interpreted story.

The incident by the waters of Marah is an example of this. There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the events but beyond the basic outline, the biblical writer deliberately recounts the story in such a way that we, later readers or hearers, may be drawn into pondering more deeply the will of God and the course of our lives. The lesson he communicates is in line with what the first Israelites would have learnt by living through the events, but he has the benefit of hindsight, and depending on when he wrote, a broader perspective of God’s revelation and will. Additionally, as Christians, we also bring to our interpretation the viewpoint we have from the NT, although it is important to admit that this knowledge was not available to the ancient writer of Exodus. The key to being faithful in our reading is to ask two questions. First, is the interpretation in line with the main point of the passage as communicated by the writer even if it is an extension of that original message? Second, are there indications in the text that point us in a certain direction?   

Our reading today is a case in point. My interpretation gives the same essential message evident on the surface level of the story, but by unpacking some of the allusions and connections to other incidents, I hope that my reading illuminates and enriches that main point in the light of wider Scripture. That the writer intends us to see this story as emblematic of much of the wilderness wanderings is clear from the story’s position at the head of a larger section with a preview of key themes deliberately incorporated into the recounting of the episode.

Finally, the shaping and wording of the story give us clues to the message. Repetition of words or concepts in the OT are always a sign of emphasis. Thus in a few short verses we get the frequent repetition of ‘water/waters’ (4x) and the play on words between ‘bitter’ (mar) and ‘Marah’ (altogether 4x). Likewise, the second half of the reading has a cluster of words for commandments (statute(s), regulation, commandments – 4x) and obedience (give heed, do what is right, give ear, keep – 4x), which is linked to the first half through God ‘instructing’ Moses about the tree. Thus, through these repetitions we are made aware that the resolution to the bitter water is obedience through instruction, which in the second half of the story is broadened into a more general lesson about the connection between obedience and healing.

The allusions to other biblical stories can also be mapped out. The link between testing and obedience leads us back to the testing of Abraham in Gen 22:1, when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac. This association has long been recognised by commentators and it is uncontroversial. Regarding the tree in Exod 15:25, rabbinic interpretation connects it to the tree of life as Torah/law, though many modern commentators dismiss this as fanciful. The link to Genesis 3 is perhaps less obvious, but the fact that Exodus 15 has already alluded to Genesis 1-2 (see my posts here and here) makes me think that the connection is not unreasonable to assume. Even if the author did not intend or have in mind that story, juxtaposing the two is, I believe, illuminating and does not change the central message in any way, but simply explores it from yet another angle. I hope that explaining the background to how I arrived at my interpretation in more detail and how writers shape their material to communicate meaning is helpful and will assist you to read Scripture more faithfully and attentively.