The E18 principle of selecting civic leaders has been rejected by numerous Christian conservative activists on the basis of, “it was a suggestion to Moses to run an Israelite theocracy and not a binding principle for a constitutional republic.”
These “exegetical” scholars <insert eye roll> will say, “Sure, we need to try and find people with these 4 qualities, but at the end of our political selection process, pragmatism must rule the day.”
As you might imagine, I hear such things regularly…
Far be it for me to “force” anyone to my exegetical conclusions, but as we all start looking towards 2024, please consider why I consider E18 an inviolate Scriptural precept…
1. Biblical Inerrancy (2Timothy 3:16)
The Bible, whether it be narratives, prophecy, poetry, or precept is “God-breathed”. It is writing of another class and standard. It transcends human inspiration and is codified beyond suggestion. The Timothy passage above clearly tells us that Scripture is “God-breathed” in all that it touches. This would include E18.
2. Jethro was a Priest of Yahweh.
Jethro was not just some experienced politician or pundit. He was not just an endearing father-in-law to Moses who brain-stormed a good idea. Nor was he some pragmatic, antinomian life coach/priest who was an expert in leadership principle.
He was a priest of Yahweh. He, along with Moses, had a unique ministry and communication pipeline with God. He would never have “suggested” to Moses a leadership principle of God’s covenant people based on “best practices” alone.
3. Jethro instructed Moses to confirm his counsel with God.
(V.19) This appears clear that Jethro was confident v.21 was the Will of God. (V.23) Jethro leaves the confirmation in the hands of God speaking to Moses as the command. We know it to be God’s command because Moses implemented the very “suggestion” Jethro offers.
So, Jethro’s “suggestion” carries the full authority of the command of God to Moses and the nation.
Here’s the real problem of teaching E18 as a suggestion…
If we allow such exegetical shenanigans, then why not declare other Scripture, especially narratives, as suggestive?
I understand the need to factor in context and audience when it comes to hermeneutics. I understand that there can be thorny issues navigating Paul’s writings to NT churches with regards to the apostle’s immediate context and corporate application to the church universal. But this is where honesty and consistency have to be embraced by the interpreter.
You cannot cherry-pick what is suggestion and what is command in the Bible. Hermeneutics is not about preference or bias. It is not about what is most palatable in the 21st century. The honest interpreter lands where the careful exposition of the text and the whole counsel of God leads.
More to follow…
No Comments