“Moreover, you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.”
Exodus 18:21
Exodus 18:21 has become a focal point in recent years with regards to choosing our civic leaders. It is the passage where Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, tells Moses how he should rule the people and not get a heart attack (my take). Jethro adds some qualifications that these men should demonstrate. I use the acrostic FACT, to remember these qualifications…
Fear God
Able men (skilled at ruling)
Covetousness avoiding (not moved by money)
Truth embracing (there are absolutes)
This verse has been used numerous times throughout our American history by our founding fathers and statesmen as a standard in selecting our civic representatives. It’s not an unreachable standard. In fact, it is very much attainable and honestly, a legitimate expectation. Like most biblical precepts, it slowly faded away through the twentieth century giving place to a far more pragmatic and secular selection process of leaders which candidly has left us in the spot we currently face as a nation. Up to recently, Exodus 18:21 was the last measuring stick anyone was using for leadership selection and election.
Somewhere at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this began to slowly change. Several Pastors began to preach this verse as an important and inviolate command of God. When the initial messages and exhortations began to be released through social media platforms the responses were quick and at times passionate. Some quickly embraced the precepts found in this verse and made the application in their obedience with regards to voting. Others instantly reacted stating that this verse was either invalidated because it was part of the “Old” Covenant and therefore has no binding upon us “New” Covenant believers -or- because Israel was a nascent nation and functioning under a government completely foreign to our superior republic, it had no binding ability to our conscience today and was simply a contextual reality. In other words, it was only applicable for that time period. It has caused no small upheaval amongst the ranks of conservative, Bible-believing, civic engagers.
Interestingly, there seems to be an ever-widening interest in the E18:21 precept as we quickly move through another election cycle. More voices that may have recoiled against such application are becoming more receptive to the precept. The application processing has again begun through online platforms with no small flurry of opinions. Along with my First Amendment rights AND sensing an impetus from the Lord, I will add my two cents into the discussion.
I will cut to the chase on E18:21 and simply state, I landed in the “command” square. I understand many fellow believers do not. Some of those are incredibly committed to biblical authority, integrity and fidelity. I won’t break fellowship over these differences, but I wanted to share for others to consider, “why” I landed there. I have three considerations…
Rejecting A Capricious Hermeneutic
To reject a Biblical precept while accepting another precept simply by personal preference is at face value problematic. There has to be a consistent, guiding reason as to why one precept is to be embraced and considered authoritative, while another one is obsolete and avoidable. Obviously, a blog is not a semester hermeneutics class. A consistency in interpretation must answer the question as to why one upholds certain Old Testament passages while dismissing others. For me, some simple hermeneutical statements I believe to be valid are as follows…
…We didn’t switch God’s at the Cross.
The God of the Old Testament was incarnated and revealed in Jesus Christ. They are the same person (in the trinitarian sense). Therefore, there can be no inconsistency between the God of the Old Testament and New Testament. The covenants are harmonious if we rightly understand them. So, the template we find in E18:21 which was obviously approved by God to implement, is the same God who rules today over the affairs of men. What was good for Moses is indeed good enough for us. He is the same “yesterday, today, and forever”.
…The Cross changes only what the Cross was purposed to change.
I will be the first to stipulate that the Cross changed radically the sacrificial system. This is the easiest and most evident of changes. However, many of our personal worship practices are derived from the Old Testament. Our concept of “elders” has roots in the Old Testament. These are only two of a number of examples of precepts which transcend the supposed divide between the Old and New Covenants. Why? Because the Cross doesn’t change everything. The Cross rather FULFILLS everything. This is more than vocabulary gymnastics. If the Cross changes everything, then one could make the case (and some do) that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force. As you might imagine, this application because incredibly problematic with ethical Christian living.
Using the Bible as Suggestion
Some have suggested that Jethro’s input into Moses’ situation was a pragmatic “suggestion” or “advice” rather than an explicit command. This hermeneutic would also include other interpretations which so contextualize the account that there can be no contemporary application. For example, the account of Naaman’s healing does not necessitate that we all find rivers and dunk seven times, nor get a sack of dirt from Israel and bring it home to kneel in as we worship (2 Kings 5:14-17). These were obviously unique, one-time only moments. But the question remains, how are we to distinguish between these moments or an historical (biblically recorded) conversation which could be incidental to the story with an actual command?
The next section probably answers this question more directly than my critique at this point, but if we believe (and I do) that the Bible addresses by precept the whole of life, then we must yield to the thought that selection of “rulers” would indeed be addressed. These precepts would not be invalidated or trumped (forgive the pun) because of binary thinking or political pragmatism which has been established over hundreds of years of political activity. God’s Word speaks solutions to problems. Jethro, whether he recognized it or not, was being used by God to help Moses map a national order of leadership qualifications which can be applied to any form of government in the earth. Therefore, his (Jethro) “suggestion” was a divinely revealed precept (command).
The Nature of Verbal Inspiration
Ultimately, how we handle the Bible boils down to our view of inspiration. Again, it is impossible to spend pages of blog notes reviewing theories of inspiration, but your view of how the Holy Spirit superintended the words of Scripture is vital. How much latitude can we allow with regards to the human-divine partnership in the establishing of Scripture? I obviously have an opinion. I believe that God used the writer’s personality and skill levels to transmit Scripture (which is why Paul’s epistles are grammatically more challenging than Mark’s Gospel or Peter’s epistle in the Greek). However, the words the writers penned in those human-divine moments are authoritatively inspired. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a total authority breakdown. E18:21 precepts are authoritative no matter if Jethro spoke them or had Moses received them carved on stone. By virtue of those words codified within the text, it carries de facto authority.
So, if you have stuck with this lengthy post, I will conclude by simply saying…
Exodus 18:21 carries way more force of authority than many Christian people are processing. These are, in essence, commands that we embrace as we look to those who will represent us.
Now I want you to notice… (I mean REALLY notice)
I have not endorsed, nor dis-endorsed anyone from the top of the federal government to the basement of local politics. I am expounding upon THE BIBLE. You know, the Book which is supposed to guide and direct our lives and actions. I am convinced that if we applied this precept more diligently to local and state elections that this would allow us better candidates at the federal level. The local and state offices are the training ground for the high-profile positions later in life. So, as I conclude, I would simply exhort you to consider the Bible and it’s authority in your life concerning EVERY arena which you walk. There is a way in every situation to “glorify” God. Let’s begin now, to ask ourselves, “How?”
“Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 10:31
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”
Colossians 3:17
No Comments