Original Meaning
The Command to Leave Horeb (1:6–8)
MOSES BEGINS WITH A verbatim quotation of Yahweh’s speech to the Israelites thirty-eight years ago, instructing the Israelites to leave Horeb and head for Canaan (1:6–8; cf. Num. 10:11–13). The order consists of three parts. (1) Moses recalls Yahweh’s telling the people that they had camped at the mountain long enough; his goals at Horeb had been achieved. (2) Moses describes the destination, the hill country of the Amorites, the Arabah of their neighbors, and the seacoast and lowland of the Canaanites. (3) Moses reiterates Yahweh’s promise to the ancestors (v. 8). Adapting an ancient grant formula, with deliberately legal language Yahweh announces he has given the land into the hands of his vassal Israel. Alluding to Genesis 15:7–17, he adds that it is the land he had sworn to give their ancestors and their descendants.
Administrative Details (1:9–18)
AFTER VERSE 8 WE expect Moses to report that the Israelites immediately set out from Horeb. Instead he speaks of some administrative homework dealt with prior to their departure—reoganizing Israel’s military structures. Exodus 18 provides background to this report, but Moses’ recollection differs in some details from the earlier account. However, the differences are not fundamentally contradictory, and neither text claims to be exhaustive; condensation and expansion are possible in each account. After almost four decades of hassling by these people, it is understandable that Moses’ reminiscences would exhibit distinctive properties.
Verses 9–18 divide into three sections: (1) Moses’ explanation of the need to reorganize Israel’s administrative structures (vv. 9–12); (2) his explanation of how the assistants were appointed (vv. 13–15); and (3) his report of the charge given to those who had been appointed (vv. 16–18).
(1) In the first part (vv. 9–12), Moses acknowledges that the burden of the Israelites had become heavier than he could bear (v. 9). Remarkably, the underlying cause was Yahweh’s faithfulness: he had fulfilled his promise to the ancestors and transformed Israel from a small clan into this innumerable host (v. 10). The statement is hyperbolic, since the troops had in fact been counted (Num. 1:46; 2:32). Moses’ plea to God to multiply them a thousandfold suggests that numbers was not the real problem (v. 11). The problem lay with the character and conduct of the people; to Moses they were a pain and a burden, and their bickering was intolerable (v. 12).
(2) To take the pressure off himself, Moses proposed that the people pick men of wisdom, understanding, and experience from each of the tribes as leaders over them (vv. 13–15). With this stereotypical triad of qualities (cf. Eccl. 9:11) Moses emphasizes the leaders’ maturity and intellectual qualifications, in contrast to Jethro’s focus on their spiritual and moral qualities in Exodus 18:21. Continuing his pattern of triads, Moses identifies the officials who were chosen with three expressions (vv. 13, 15): (a) “Leading men” (rāʾšîm) refers to those who bear responsibility for the well-being of a social group; (b) “commanders” (śārîm) refers to military leaders within specific spheres of jurisdiction; (c) “tribal officials” (šōṭerîm lešibtêkem) refers to a literate group called upon to record decisions or to muster the troops.13 The vocabulary and pattern of organization suggest that Israel was structured socially as a military camp; they were “the LORD’s divisions” (Ex. 12:41; lit., “the hosts of Yahweh”).
(3) Moses reports his charge to the officials whom he had installed as leaders of the Israelites (vv. 16–18), now identified as “judges” (šôpeṭîm). In the charge Moses makes four basic points. (a) These men were instructed to hear the people’s disputes and judge “fairly” (ṣedeq) (v. 16b). This called for decisions based on the divine standard of righteousness and in the interest of šālôm between disputing parties.14 This principle was to govern all disputes, whether between two Israelites (“your brothers”) or between Israelite and aliens attached to them. By extending the commitment of righteousness to the “alien,” Moses hints at the humanitarian emphasis we find throughout Deuteronomy. In Israel the economically and socially vulnerable are to be as secure as native Israelites.
(b) The men were not to “show partiality” in their judging (v. 17a); they were expected to hear the cases of the small and the great alike (cf. Lev 19:15).
(c) The officials were to judge boldly (“do not be afraid”); they must not fear the accused, a member of the accused’s family, or a superior, because the “judgment belongs to God.” The last clause seems intentionally vague. It could mean: (i) God’s judgment will support the official’s verdict; (ii) the official judges by divine authority; (iii) the official receives wisdom for rendering a just decision from God; (iv) the law by which the official renders judgment is administered on behalf of God, from whom it derives; or (v) the judge will ultimately answer to God for how he has administered justice.
(d) The officials had to recognize their limitations (v. 17b). In keeping with Jethro’s advice in Exodus 18:22, Moses invited the officials to bring cases they found too difficult to handle to him. Judges were not expected to be omniscient (cf. Prov. 16:33).
Bridging Contexts
THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF Moses’ word to Israel at Horeb is obvious. (1) Yahweh is faithful to his covenant promises. To the fathers he had promised descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky, a special privileged covenant relationship, and a land where they would fulfill his intentions and from which they would be a blessing to the world.15 The first promise was fulfilled in Egypt (cf. Ex. 1:1–7), and the second at Horeb. Standing east of the Jordan, the Israelites are about to witness the fulfillment of the third.
That Israel should have camped at the foot of Horeb for more than a year was neither a sign of divine indecision nor loss of focus, for here Yahweh had formally brought the nation into the covenant he had made with Abraham centuries earlier (Gen. 17:7–8), and here they became his vassals.16 However, as Yahweh had promised in Exodus 6:6–8, the confirmation of the covenant would not be the end of the journey; Yahweh brought them out of Egypt to deliver into their hands the land he had promised to the ancestors. Despite the weight of the Israelites on Moses’ shoulders, their presence before Yahweh was testimony to his faithfulness in fulfilling the ancestral promise to make their descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky (cf. Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Ex. 32:13).
(2) While the administration of the community of faith involves economic and judicial decisions, it must be rooted in a robust theology. God defines and demands righteousness; God embodies perfect fairness (Deut. 10:17); God calls and authorizes human leaders to administer the community on his behalf; God remains the ultimate arbiter before whom all will stand; and as Abraham had learned, the Judge of all the earth does indeed judge rightly (Gen. 18:25). With this statement we recognize the transcendent dimension of Israelite constitutional law. While God delegates to humans the responsibility of administering justice, behind Israel’s law stands the God to whom justice belongs.17
Contemporary Significance
THE MISSION OF GOD for Israel. Yahweh’s speech in verses 6–8 describes the mission of God for Israel. When he rescued his people from slavery in Egypt, he had promised them the land of Canaan, which would provide the context from which they would fulfill their mission as a light to the nations (cf. 26:19). However, this generation would perish in the desert, which would prove that they were not true children of the promise, nor had they been born of the Spirit (cf. Gal. 4:29). Physically they had come out of Egypt, and at Sinai they declared their allegiance to Yahweh, but they remained captive to sin.
This perspective underlies Paul’s argument with the Judaizers in Galatians 4:21–31. His detractors seem to have forgotten that the law was not the end goal, nor did it represent the essence of God’s call. While the covenant and the revelation of God’s will were to be received as incredible graces, the promise looked beyond Sinai, and the mission lay far beyond. This is not to minimize the significance of the law; it is simply to emphasize that possession of it is not the end goal. The Lord calls us that we might delight in the fulfillment of his promise, and that in that fulfillment the world may see what he can do for them.
Paradigm for the church. Several features of Moses’ reorganization of the administration of Israel are paradigmatic for the church. (1) Moses’ appointment of and charge to the leaders assumes that God provides the community of faith with the gifts and the personnel needed to govern that community. As Paul would declare so eloquently in 1 Corinthians 12, God has placed within the body of Christ the members needed for its health and effective functioning (v. 18), and he has appointed those who should exercise leadership in the body (v. 28).
(2) While ministers are prone to forget that the mission in which they are engaged is God’s mission, and they are often tempted to act as if both the burden of the mission and the credit for its successes are their own (cf. v. 9–10), the success of the mission depends on casting the burden on God’s strong shoulders and letting him energize his people.
(3) The stresses of service in God’s kingdom may be relieved through the sanctified engagement of common sense and the distribution of responsibilities. Moses’ and God’s answer to his personal fatigue was to delegate administrative duties to wise and experienced leaders of the community.
(4) Those who lead God’s people must be committed fundamentally to the promotion of righteousness. Righteous (ṣedeq) administration demands uncompromising fairness for all, without respect to the social standing of the persons involved. As Leviticus 19:15 recognizes, the righteous administration of justice may easily be derailed by showing either deference to the rich and powerful or sentimentality toward the poor (cf. Deut. 10:17; 16:19; 24:17). Moses’ inclusion of aliens reminds us that those who adjudicate on covenantal matters must be blind to status, race, and citizenship. It may be too much to expect that the world will operate this way, but the current climate of hatred toward specific people groups offers the church a glorious opportunity to display the compassion of God himself (10:17).
(5) In their exercise of authority, leaders must recognize that they do so on God’s behalf and for the achievement of his goals. In cases that exceed the competence of human minds, he provides wisdom, and in cases involving unfair outcomes, he holds those who abuse the office accountable.