Exodus
18
JETHRO’S
VISIT TO MOSES
It has
been noticed, in the comment on ch. 4., that shortly
after the circumcision of
Eliezer,
Moses’ second son, he sent back his wife, Zipporah, to her own kinsfolk, the
Midianites, together with her two sons, Eliezer and Gershom.
Reuel, [Reuel – friend
of God – implies monotheism – “thou shalt
have no other gods before me”] –
Zipporah’s
father, was then dead (Exodus and had been succeeded in his priesthood
and headship of the tribe by Jethro, probably
his son, and therefore the brother-in-law,
and not the father-in-law, of Moses. (The
Hebrew word used, as already observed,
has both meanings.) Jethro gave protection to his sister and her
children until he heard
of the passage of the
and to convey back to him his wife and his
sons. The meeting took place “at the mount
of God” (v. 5), or in the near
vicinity of Sinai, probably in some part of the plain
Er-Rahah,
which extends for five miles, or more, to the north-west of the Sinaitic
mountain-group.
vs. 1-12 – “When Jethro, the priest of
Midian, Moses’ father in law” - Rather,
“Jethro, priest of
Midian, Moses’ brother-in-law” - “heard of all
that God had
done for Moses, and for
out of
after he had sent her back, And her two sons” - Zipporah
had borne Moses at least
two sons before his return to
name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I
have been an alien in a strange land:
And the name of the other was Eliezer; for
the God of my father, said
he, was
mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh” - Eliezer
had not been
previously mentioned by name; but he was probably the
son circumcised by Zipporah,
as related in ch. 4:25. We learn from I
Chronicles 23. 15-17, that he grew to manhood,
and had an only son, Rehabiah, whose
descendants were in the time of Solomon very
numerous. Eliezer
means literally, “My
God (is my)
help.” It would seem that
Zipporah,
when she circumcised her infant son, omitted to name him; but Moses,
before dismissing her, supplied the omission, calling
him Eliezer, because God had
been his help against the Pharaoh who had sought his
life (ch.2:15), and of whose
death he had recently had intelligence (ch 4:19).
Thus the names of the two sons
expressed respectively, the despondency natural to an
exile, and the exultant gratitude
of one who had just learned that by God’s goodness, the term
of his banishment was over.
“And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, came with
his sons and his wife unto
Moses
into the wilderness, where he encamped at the
mount of
God: And he said unto
Moses, I thy
father in law Jethro (brother-in-law) am come unto thee,
and thy wife,
and her two sons with her. And Moses went out to meet his father in law,
and
did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other
of their welfare; and
they came into the tent. And Moses told his father in law all that the
LORD had
done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for
Midian the
general outline of what had happened (v. 1). Moses now gave him a full and
complete narrative (misphar) of the transactions. Compare
Genesis 24:66; Joshua 2:23;
where the same verb is used – “and all the travail that had come upon them
by the
way” - Literally, “the weariness.”
Compare Malachi 1:13, where the same word is
used –
“and how the LORD delivered them” - The
Septuagint adds “from
the hand of
Pharaoh and
from the
hand of the Egyptians.” “And Jethro rejoiced for all the
goodness which the LORD had done to
the hand of the Egyptians.
And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath
delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh,
who hath delivered the people from under the
hand of the Egyptians.” Moses
had attributed his own deliverance, and that of
accepting the facts to be as stated, blessed the
Lord. “Now I know that the LORD
is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above
them.” - The superiority of Jehovah
to other gods was shown forth even in the very matter
of the proud dealing of the Egyptians, which
was brought to shame and triumphed over by
the might of Jehovah. The allusion is
especially to the passage of the
Moses’ father in law,
took a burnt offering and sacrifices
for God: and Aaron
came, and all the elders of
God.” Moses,
Aaron, and the elders, partook of the sacrificial meal, regarding the
whole rite as one legitimately performed by a duly
qualified person, and so as one
in which they could properly participate. Jethro, like
Melchisedek (Genesis 14:18),was
recognized as a priest of the true God, though it
would seem that the Midianites
generally .were, a generation later, idolaters (Numbers
25:18; 31:16). [What a
difference a day makes!
24 little hours! but they develop into years –
I am 66
years old and just a generation ago,
by the ACLU – .00013 % of the rest of the
American population of 99.987% -
we live with a corrupt judiciary – these
statistics show that we are not a
democracy where the majority rules – GOD WILL AND IS JUDGING THIS
SITUATION – there will be a lot of
embarrassment in the Judgment Day of
ACLU card
holders and the general populace of the
this to happen – remember – that judges are
representative of God, The Judge
of all the earth! He will do right! (Genesis 18:25) THEY WILL
BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. – CY – 2010].
THE
BLESSEDNESS OF FAMILY REUNIONS
The family
is God’s ordinance, and among the most sacred and blessed of His ordinances.
All
fatherhood is based upon His (Ephesians 3:15); and human family ties reproduce
those
of the celestial region. Upon earth partings must and will
occur, the family bond being
thereby not broken, but strained and impaired.
Sometimes necessity breaks up the
household. Wife and children may not go whither the
husband and father
is ordered to proceed, as in the naval and military services.
Sometimes prudential
considerations assert themselves, and the children must quit
the domestic hearth to
get their own living, or even the wife and husband must seek separate
employments with
the same object. Occasionally, the husband, having to go on a
difficult or dangerous
mission, where wife and children would be encumbrances,
has to part from them
temporarily, and to provide for their support and
sustenance during his absence. This
last was the case of Moses. In returning to
of his nation, he confronted great dangers. The presence of
wife and children would
have hampered him, and, therefore, he resolved to
return alone. Zipporah and his infant
sons were left with her nearest male relative. But
now the time had come for reunion.
We may note
as blissful elements in the reunion:
- THAT IT WAS COMPLETE,
NO DEATHS HAVING OCCURRED SINCE
THE PARTING. The bitterness of parting is especially in the uncertainty
whether we shall ever see again in this life the
individuals from whom we part.
Death comes
suddenly, and without warning; infants are especially subject to
his attack; and when Moses, having recently parted from Jethro
(ch. 4:8), sent
back his wife and two young sons to be under his
charge, he must have felt that
it was exceedingly doubtful whether
there would ever again be a meeting of the
five near relations. But God
brought it to pass. Jethro, with a promptitude which
indicates a warm heart, no sooner heard of his kinsman’s safe
arrival in the
region of the “wilderness,” than he put himself to the trouble of a long
journey,
partly to congratulate him, but mainly to restore to him
the wife and children,
whom he had received as a sacred trust. He could not
be content unless he
himself delivered them safe into the hands of Moses, and
thus “gave a
good
account of his stewardship.” And he was
fortunate in being able to deliver
them all
safe and sound, and apparently in good health. No insidious
disease had
nipped the life of either child in the bud; no unlucky accident
had removed
either from the land of the living. Moses was able to greet, at
one and the
same moment, his wife, his two sons, and his brother-in-law.
Doubtless, he felt that God
had been specially good and gracious to him in
restoring
to him all his treasures.
- THAT IT WAS
CHARACTERISED BY COURTESY AND GOOD
FEELING, AND FREE FROM ANY REPROACH ON EITHER SIDE.
Jethro sent a message to announce
his arrival, which was a courteous act,
not
strictly necessary. He relieved at once any anxiety which Moses might
naturally
feel, by letting him know that he had brought with him his wife
and both
his sons. That they had been able to make the long journey
implied
that they were well. Moses, on his part, responded by going out to
meet his
brother-in-law, thus requiting courtesy with courtesy; when he
met him, he
“did obeisance,” not standing upon his own present dignity;
having done
obeisance, he rose and “kissed him,” thus
showing tender
affection.
Greetings by word of mouth followed, and then friendly
conversation.
The great leader had much to relate, and gave a full account,
both of his
perils and hair-breadth escapes, and of his divinely-wrought
deliverances.
Hereat Jethro “rejoiced.” No word of
reproach or blame
seems to
have been uttered on either side. No discord marred the perfect
harmony. Over the
still tenderer meeting of the husband and father with his
wife and
children, the sacred historian, with a wise reticence, draws the
veil. There
are scenes which are at once too private and too sacred for
description;
and this was one of them.
- THAT IT WAS
CROWNED BY AN ACT OF RELIGIOUS
THANKFULNESS AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE GOODNESS
OF GOD. The sense that God has been good to us should lead in all cases
to an act of acknowledgment. Jethro was
not content with mere words of
joy and
gratitude — not even with a solemn ascription of praise and
blessing to
Jehovah (v.10). He must shew his feelings by an act; so, in
accordance
with the ritual of the time, he “took a burnt-offering and
sacrifices.” Christians should similarly signalize their own
reunions, and
other
important events in their lives, by joining together in the highest act
of
Christian worship-the Holy Communion. Joint participation in the
“bread of life” and “cup
of the Lord” brings home to us the sense of family
oneness, as
nothing else has the power to do. Prayers uttered side by side
bind men’s
hearts together in indissoluble union; participation in the same
precious
gifts gives the sense of unity in Him who is the source of unity to
all who are
His. (Once upon a time, I entered in my commentary these words:
T’Ebony Torain, Lenoir Sprague, such
tender prayers – CY – 2010) –
Compare Hebrews 12:22-24) - Aaron and the
elders do well to join; their
presence
does not mar the family concord; it does but enlarge the family circle,
and add new
links to the chain that binds Heaven to earth. Some day the whole
Church will be one family, of which
all the members will worship God
perpetually
in the Father’s house. The nearest approach to happiness on
earth is
that anticipation of the final bliss which Holy Communion furnishes.
JETHRO’S
ADVICE TO MOSES AND ITS ADOPTION
The office
of ruler in ancient times, whether exercised by a king, a prince, or a mere
chieftain,
was always understood to include within it the office of judge.
In the Greek ideal of the origin
of kingly government (Herod. 1:96), the able discharge of
judicial functions marks the
individual out for sovereignty. The successors of Moses,
like the chief rulers of
bore the title of “Judges” (shophetim,
suffetes). Moses, it appears, had from the time
when he was accepted as leader by the people (ch.
4:29-31), regarded himself as bound
to hear and decide all the causes and complaints which arose
among the entire Israelite
people. He had not delegated his authority to any one.
This can scarcely have been
because the idea had not occurred to him, for the
Egyptian kings ordinarily decided
causes by judges nominated ad
hoc. Perhaps he had distrusted the ability of his countrymen
— so recently slaves — to discharge such delicate functions. At any rate, he had reserved
the duty wholly to himself (v. 18). This course appeared to
Jethro unwise. No man could,
he thought, in the case of so great a nation, singly discharge
such an office with satisfaction
to himself and others. Moses would “wear himself
away” with the fatigue; and he would
exhaust the patience of the people through inability to keep pace with the number of cases
that necessarily arose. Jethro therefore recommended the appointment
of subordinate judges,
and the reservation by Moses of nothing but the right to decide
such cases as these judges
should, on account of their difficulty, refer to him
(v. 22). On reflection, Moses
accepted this course as the best open to him under the circumstances,
and established
a multiplicity of judges, under a system which will be
discussed in the comment on v.25.
vs. 13-26 – “And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the
people: and the people stood by Moses from the
morning unto the evening. And
when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did
to the people, he said, What is this
thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the
people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in
law, Because the people come unto me to
enquire of God: When they have a
matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one
and another, and I do make
them know the statutes of God, and His laws.” This cannot mean less than to seek
a decision from some one regarded as
entitled to speak for God; thus making them to
know the statutes of God and His eternal
written laws and it is certainly assigned by
Moses
as the reason why he judged all the causes himself, and did not devolve the
duty
upon others. They could not be supposed to know
the mind of God as he
knew it.
Jethro,
however, points out, that it is one thing to lay down principles, and another
to
apply them. Moses might reserve the legislative
function — the inculcation of
principles — to himself, and so still, “be for the people to Godward” (v.
19); but he
might find “able men” among the congregation,
quite capable of applying the
principles, and delegate to them the judicial function (vs. 21-22) – “And
Moses’
father in law said unto him, The thing that thou
doest is not good. Thou wilt
surely wear away, both thou, and this people that
is with thee: for this thing is
too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform
it thyself alone. Hearken now
unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and
God shall be with thee: Be thou for
the people to God-ward” – continue,
as at the present, to be the intermediary
between God and the people - “that thou mayest
bring the causes unto God” –
In
difficult cases, Moses actually laid the cause before God, and obtained
directions
from God as to the manner in which he was to decide
it. See Numbers 27:5-11.
“And
thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way
wherein they must walk” – the
general line of conduct which all are bound to pursue -
“and the work that
they must do.” – the special task which each
has to perform
individually - “Moreover
thou shalt provide out of all the people able men such as
fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness;” -
Literally, “men of might” — i.e.,
of capacity or ability — men competent for
the office of judge; who are further defined to
be, such as possess the three qualities of piety,
veracity, and strict honesty, or incorruptness.
Jethro’s
conception of the true judicial character leaves little
to be desired. If among every
ten Israelites there was one such person, the moral condition of
the nation cannot have
been so much depressed by the Egyptian
servitude as is sometimes represented – “and
place such over them, to be rulers of thousands,
and rulers of hundreds, rulers
of fifties, and rulers of tens” - A decimal organization naturally presents itself to
men’s minds as the simplest in a simple state of
society, and was probably already in
use
among the Arab tribes with whom Jethro was familiar. The graduated series —
rulers of tens,
of fifties, of hundreds, and of thousands,
implies a power of three-fold appeal, from the “ruler
of ten” to the
“ruler of
fifty” — from him to the “ruler of a hundred” — and from him
to the “ruler of a thousand.” Whether
there was an appeal from the last-named to Moses,
is doubtful. Probably there was not; Moses
deciding those cases only which the “rulers
of thousands”
reserved for him as being specially difficult or important. “And let
them judge the people at all seasons” - Instead
of occasional court-days, on which
Moses
sat from morning to evening hearing causes, judgments were to be given
continually by the rulers of tens, fifties, etc., the
accumulation of untried causes being
thus avoided, and punishment following promptly
on the committal of an offence.
(Ecclesiastes
8:11) – The elaborately minute organization was only suited for the
period of the wanderings, and was of a
semi-military character, such as might have
suited an army on the march When the Israelites
became settled dwellers in
“and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee,
but every
small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier
for thyself, and they shall
bear the burden with thee. If thou
shalt do this thing, and God command thee
so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people
shall also go to their
place in peace.”
- cheerfully, contented - “So
Moses hearkened to the voice of
his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of
all
himself, which would have been an invidious task, Moses
directed their nomination
by the people, and only reserved to himself the investing them
with their authority -
“and made them heads over the people” – the rulers were not
merely judges, but
“heads” of their
respective companies, with authority over them on the march, and
command in the battle-field (Numbers 31:14). Thus the
organization was at once civil
and military – “rulers
of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers
of tens.”
JUDGES
AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
Few positions
in life are more important than that of the judge. Not only are the lives
and liberties of individual citizens at his disposal, but the
very existence of the State
depends on him, since unless justice is in the main
administered states fly to pieces. It
has been said that the whole elaborate machinery of the British
Constitution has been
designed and arranged with the ultimate object of
putting twelve honest men together
into a jury box.
(The
the functions to be discharged are so important, it is of the
utmost moment that qualifications
should be laid down in theory, and strictly adhered to
in practice. (The Spiritual Qualification
is that they are to be like God, the Judge of all the earth who only doth RIGHT! –
[Genesis
18:25] – CY – 2010) - Jethro saw
that judges ought to be:
- MEN OF ABILITY. Ordinary,
common-place powers are not enough..
“Non ex quovis ligno Mercurius fit.”
Something above the average is
necessary.
Jethro thought one man in ten among the Israelites might
possess
sufficient intelligence and discrimination to judge the lowest class
of causes,
those of the least account. This was a somewhat sanguine
estimate.
In modern communities, which boast of their general
enlightenment,
considerably less than one-tenth of the citizens have their
names
inscribed upon the jury lists. The standard of intelligence however
varies in
different ages and countries, so that no hard-and-fast line can be
laid down
on the subject. All that can be insisted upon is this — the judge
should be a
person recognized to possess ability for his office, i.e.,
sagacity
and
practical discernment. If he has not these gifts, it is no use his
possessing
others, as learning, scholarship, artistic or scientific attainments.
He will not be respected; no
confidence will be felt in him; his decisions
will carry
no weight, and will injure rather than
benefit the community.
- MEN OF PIETY. “Provide out of all the people such as
fear God,” said
Jethro. It
is greatly to be feared that this qualification is in modern times
but
slightly regarded. (Consider the lowly judges that have instituted
the
anti-christian
policies of the American Civil Liberties Union – both their
works will
grow like the proverbial “initials on the tree” and posterity
will view
their foul contribution – and if not in this world – certainly
God
will take care of it in the Judgment – “I
appeal to God” – CY –
2010) How seldom do we hear it asked of any newly appointed
judge — Is
he a religious man? (this was written in the 18th
century –
CY – 2010) And yet unless God is feared, there
can be no security that
justice
will be done even by the judge of the greatest possible intelligence.
(It is vain to expect mercy from
someone who will not do justice – so says
one of
allow prejudice,
passion, even caprice to sway his judgments, he may
gradually become
like the “unjust judge,” who “feared not God neither
regarded man.” (Luke 18:2) Or, again, he may have to pronounce judgment
in matters concerning religion, for such will
often come before courts, and
then what weight can he expect his decisions to
have? (Thus today, the
Ten Commandments, once housed in the
Pulaski County, Kentucky
Courthouse, are now relegated to a
two-room school house at Pisgah
elementary
school –
above – see
photos below. – I attended this school in 1950-52 – I guess the
local
official got the last laugh as the Ten Commandments are in Pisgah
School House – only problem is that
it has been restored and children go
to school
there - CY – 2010) - It is a wise and venerable custom which
makes
it
incumbent on our “judges
of assize” to preface the opening of their
commission
in each assize town by attendance at Divine service and hearing of
God’s word
preached by a minister of the Gospel. It would be still better if those
who
nominate judges would follow Jethro’s counsel, (Can you envision certain
Presidents of the
Gommorah – I recommend rejected
Supreme Court Nominee, Robert Bork’s
book – SLOUCHING TOWARDS
have people in
in this travesty – CY –
2010) and take care in each instance to select for the
(Places
like this were contributors to the greatness of the
man in a discussion about
zenith was the 1950’s – I appeal to God to explain in
great detail “
associated with
CY – 2010)
(corrupt and liberal judges – con’t) - He will not
be respected; no confidence will be
felt in him; his decisions will carry no weight, and will injure rather than benefit
the community.
- MEN OF TRUTH. There can be no
real piety without truthfulness, so
that this
qualification is, in fact, included in the last. But there is a
semblance
of piety which is not over-scrupulous with regard to truth, or
“pious frauds” would not
have passed into a byword. Truth, the love of
it, the honest desire to search
it out, and make it manifest, is so essential a
quality in a judge, that it
deserves separate mention, and can never be
dispensed with, whatever other
qualifications a man may have. Let there be
any
suspicion of a man’s truthfulness, and then, whatever reputation for
piety may
attach to him, he is not fitted to be a judge, and ought not to be
selected
for the judge’s office.
- MEN
OF PROBITY who would scorn to take a bribe. The “corrupt
judge” is the
opprobrium of debased nations, the disgrace of his calling, the
destroyer
of the state to which he belongs. In many ancient kingdoms
corruption,
when detected in a judge, was punished by instant execution.
Where it has been regarded as venial
and punished inadequately, as at
supervened.
We may congratulate ourselves that judges in our own country
are not
only incorrupt, but beyond suspicion, so far above taking a bribe
that no one
would dare to offer them one. (This speaking of
the 1800’s
– CY – 2010) - In the East, on the contrary, according to the
universal
testimony of travelers, it is scarcely possible to find the office of
judge
exercised by any one who is not notoriously open to corrupt influence,
who does
not expect, and is not anxious to receive, bribes. Among the
Jews,
judicial
corruption is first noticed among the sons of Samuel, who “turned
aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment’’ (I Samuel 8:3).
In the decline of the nation,
the evil grew and increased, and is
frequently
denounced
by the prophets (Isaiah 1:23:
Jeremiah 5:28; Ezekiel 22:27;
Micah 3:11;
7:3, etc.).
THE
DEPARTURE OF JETHRO
The
time of Jethro’s departure, and indeed of his entire visit, has been matter of
controversy. Kurtz
is of opinion that Jethro waited till the news of
over Amalek reached him, before setting
out from his own country. Hence he
concludes, that “a whole month or more may easily have
intervened between the
victory over Amalek and the arrival of Jethro,” whose
arrival in that case “would
not even fall into the very earliest period of the sojourn at
Sinai, but after the promulgation
of the first Sinaitic law.” Those who identify Hobab with
Jethro find in Numbers 10:29-32
a proof that at any rate Jethro prolonged his visit until
after the law was given, and
did not “depart to his own land” before the removal of the
people from the wilderness
of Sinai to that of Paran, “in the 20th day of the second month of the
second
year” (ib,
v.
11). The position, however, of ch. 18., together with
its contents — both
what it says and what it omits — are conclusive
against this view. Jethro started on
his journey when he heard “that
the Lord had brought
not when he heard that
Moses (vs.
7-11) ranged over the entire series of deliverances from the night of the
departure out of
giving of the law. The occupation of Moses on the day
after his arrival (v. 13) is
suitable to the quiet period which followed the
Amalekite defeat, but not to the
exciting time of the Sinaitic manifestations. It may be added
that the practice of inculcating
general principles on occasion of his particular
judgments, of which Moses speaks (v.
16),
is suitable to the period anterior to the promulgation of the
law, but not to that following it.
The
argument from Numbers 10:29-32 fails altogether, so soon as it is seen that
Jethro and
Hobab are
distinct persons, probably brothers, sons of Reuel (or Raguel), and
brothers-
in-law of Moses.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This
material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com