Exodus 18 - Introduction

The visit of Jethro to Moses. Appointment of judges to assist Moses in the administration of justice

Entirely, or with unimportant exceptions (as perhaps in vv.9 11), from E: notice the predominance of God. The chapter is one of great historical interest: it presents a picture of Moses legislating. Cases calling for a legal decision arise among the people: the contending parties come to Moses to have them settled; he adjudicates between them; and his decisions are termed -the statutes and directions (tôrôth) of God." It was the function of the priests in later times to give oral -direction" upon cases submitted to them, on matters both of civil right Deuteronomy 17:11) 1 [158], and of ceremonial observance (ib.Exodus 24:8) 1 [159]; and here Moses himself appears discharging the same function, and so creating the primitive nucleus of Hebrew law. He is not represented as giving the people a finished code, but as deciding upon cases as they arose: decisions given in this way, especially in difficult cases (v.26), would naturally form precedents for future use (cf. on Exodus 21:1): an increasing body of civil and criminal law would thus gradually grow up, based upon a Mosaic nucleus, and perpetuating Mosaic principles, but augmented by the decisions of later priests or judges, framed to meet the needs of a wider and more varied national life. Collections of such laws, dating, as we have them, from post-Mosaic times, are preserved in the -Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 20:23 to Exodus 23:33), and in the Code embedded in the discourses of Deuteronomy.

[158] EVV. teach: but the Heb. verb is the one used technically of the priests, and meaning to direct(viz. how to act in a given case): see the small print note on p. 162.

[159] EVV. teach: but the Heb. verb is the one used technically of the priests, and meaning to direct(viz. how to act in a given case): see the small print note on p. 162.

The Hebrew tôrâh(-law") had a threefold character: it was viz. judicial, ceremonial, and moral. The ceremonial and moral tôrâhas well as the judicial tôrâhis represented in the -Book of the Covenant," and in Dt.; the moral tôrâhalso in parts of the -Law of Holiness" (Leviticus 17-26.); and the ceremonial tôrâhespecially in P (the ceremonial laws of Lev. Nu.); but the tôrôthof Exodus 18:15; Exodus 18:20, as the context shews, are exclusively judicial.

Tôrâh, it may be worth while here further to explain, is derived from the verb hôrâh, to point out, direct, mentioned in footnote 1; and means properly pointing out, direction. It may be used of oral direction given by prophets (as Isaiah 1:10; Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 30:9); but it is used especially of oral direction given by the prieststo the laity, in accordance with a traditional body of principles and usages, chiefly on points of ceremonial observance; in process of time the term came further to denote a body of technical direction(or -law") on a given subject (e. g. on leprosy, Leviticus 14:2; Leviticus 14:32; Leviticus 14:54; Leviticus 14:57), and finally to denote -the law," as a whole. For examples of the use of both the verb (EVV. teach) and the subst. (EVV. law) in the senses explained, see Leviticus 10:11; Leviticus 14:57; Deuteronomy 17:10-11 (-according to the directionwherewith they shall directthee"), Exodus 24:8; Exodus 33:10; Micah 3:11 Jeremiah 18:18; Ezekiel 7:26; Ezekiel 44:23; Haggai 2:11 (render, -Ask, now, directionof the priest"), Malachi 2:6-9 (see the writer's notes in the Century Bible); and see further DB.iii. 65 f.

It is another point of interest that Moses, in the establishment of his judicial system, adopted as his instructor a foreigner (Midianite or Kenite: see the note on Exodus 2:18). Hobab (Jethro) is in Numbers 10:29-32 invited to be the Israelites" guide through the wilderness; and the Kenites actually accompanied them into Judah (Judges 1:16). The contact with the family and people of Moses" father-in-law was thus considerable; and the fact has led to the conjecture that their influence upon early Israel may have been greater than is actually described in our extant narratives, and may have even extended to religious matters (pp. xlix. f., lxiv. n.; comp., with reserve, ATLAO.2 413 f., 433).

There are strong reasons for thinking that this episode stood originally at a later point in the narrative. (1) In v.5 the -wilderness where he was encamped, at the mount of God," cannot be Rephidim (Exodus 17:1), but can only be the -wilderness of Sinai," the arrival at which, however, is not mentioned till Exodus 19:1-2 a. (2) The Deuteronomist quite clearly places the episode at the closeof the Israelites" sojourn at Horeb: he describes viz. the appointment of these judges (Exodus 1:9-18), afterthe Israelites have been told that they have remained long enough in Horeb, and are directed to leave it (Exodus 1:6-8), and beforethe statement that they did leave it (Exodus 1:19). Hence it is almost certain that this narrative stood originally in E immediately before E's account of the departure of Israel from Sinai (narrated in our existing Pentateuch only by P, Numbers 10:11 ff., and J, Numbers 10:33); and that it was still read there by the write of Dt. (Numbers 10:29-32 seems to be J's account of another incident connected with the same visit of Hobab (i.e. Jethro: see on Exodus 2:18) to Moses.