More Laws for the Holy Man of God

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 22:1) “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep."

Chapter 22 continues with God giving more moral laws or judgments following His giving of the Ten Commandments.  Verse 1 concerns the theft of an ox or a sheep.  If a man killed or sold an animal that he stole, he was required to give five oxen for the one he stole, or four sheep for the sheep he stole.  Evidently, the oxen were considered more valuable than the sheep.

(2) “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood shed for him. (3) If the sun has risen on him, there shall be blood shed for him, for he should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (4) If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double."

If the thief was caught while breaking in to steal, and he was struck so that he died, there was to be no guilt placed on the man who struck him.  This apparently only applied if the theft was at night, because if the thief was caught by the light of day, there would be blood required for blood.  This may be because by the light of day, the thief could be identified and more easily apprehended.  Someone breaking in by the light of day was not likely intending to murder, but more likely was hungry or in need, and the master of the house could call for assistance.  If the thief was caught by the light of day, he was expected to make full restitution.  If he was caught in the act, and no harm was yet done to the animal he may have been trying to steal, he was to restore double as punishment for trying to steal in the first place, but was not required to pay four or five times as was the case if the animal was killed or sold.  If he was stealing by light of day because he was hungry, then chances were pretty good that he would not be able to pay restitution.  If he had nothing, and had restitution to pay and could not, then he was sold into servitude for his theft.

(5) “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and puts in his animal, and feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard."

If a man allowed his animal or animals to feed in another man's field, then he was required to make restitution for the damage or loss by giving the best of his own field and vineyard, even though it may be better than what was damaged.  In this way, he would be more careful in the future about letting his animals roam free.  Worth noting is that it was not acceptable to keep another's animal because it had wondered into your field.

(6) “If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that the stacks of corn or standing corn or the field be consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution."

Possibly the point is that while trying to burn thorns, a fire might spread beyond the thorns and do damage to another man's crops.  If that was the case, the man who started the fire was responsible for negligence and had to make restitution.

(7) “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. (8) If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods."

If a man delivered to his neighbor money or articles to keep for him, whether as a pledge (a deposit of goods by a debtor to his creditor to be kept until the debt was paid), or perhaps as to a carrier to be conveyed or to a warehouse to be kept, or perhaps he delivered his cattle to graze in a neighbor's field by mutual agreement--for whatever reason his property was in the hands of his neighbor, that neighbor was responsible for it as if it was his own.  As in verse 4, if the thief was found with the stolen article, then the thief had to pay double.  However, we may assume that, as in verse 1, if the article was not found, but the thief was, he had to pay four or five times, and I would imagine these restitutions would have been made to the original owner.  If the thief was not found, the owner of the house in whose care the articles had been entrusted would have to go before the judges to determine if he had anything to do with the loss of the goods.  In the words of Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "this teaches us that we ought to be very careful of every thing we are entrusted with, as careful of it, though it be another's, as if it were our own. It is unjust and base, and that which all the world cries shame on, to betray a trust."

(9) “For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing, which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor."

In all manners of disputes concerning property of any kind, as it was a case of "he said, she said", both parties would have to go before the judges to have the ownership determined, and the guilty party would be required to pay double to the injured party.

(10) “If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, (11) Then an oath of the LORD shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good."

If a man had under his care a neighbor's animal, and that animal was lost and there was no witness to what may have happened to it, then an oath, swearing by the name of the Lord, would be made between them both.  The owner would have to swear that he brought the animal to his neighbor for safe-keeping, and the neighbor would have to swear that he had nothing to do with the loss.  In Biblical times, an oath to the Lord was a serious thing, and one was to accept it as truth.  In such a case, restitution was not required.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, put it this way:  "So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbor’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses."

(12) "And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. (13) If it is torn to pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn."

However, if the animal was stolen from the caretaker, then he was required to make restitution to the owner.  If he was able to find the thief, then the thief would have paid him restitution that could in turn be passed on to the owner, but if the thief was not found, then I assume it was considered negligence that he allowed the animal to be stolen without having seen the thief.  Then again, if the animal was torn to pieces by a wild animal, he was not required to pay restitution if he could provide evidence that the animal was indeed torn to pieces by a wild beast.

(14) “And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. (15) But if its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was a hired thing, it came for its hire."

If a man borrowed from his neighbor, again he must give it the care he would his own, and if it was injured under his care, he was required to make it good.  However, if the owner was with the borrowed thing (presumably an animal), as when he might be doing work for his neighbor, it was assumed that he would take responsibility and care for his own animal.  If it was a hired thing, then the cost of hire covered the risk of accident.

(16) “And if a man entices a maiden who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."

If a man took advantage of a young woman, he must marry her and give her a dowry.  This law spoke of a young woman who was not betrothed, because being betrothed was like being married, and that fell under a different law.

(17) “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

However, it had to be by the young woman's father's consent that the man who took advantage of her was allowed to marry her.  If the father refused, then the man had to pay the sum of money as would be a handsome dowry for the injured female, and would allow her to enter with proper dignity and respect the house of whatever man might later become her husband.

(18) “You shall not permit a witch to live."

Witchcraft was to be a capital crime.  Witches and wizards called on other spirits other than the Holy Spirit of God to perform spells, so was the very definition of idol worship, which had already been forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments.  The fact that God made a point to call out witches, I believe proves that witchcraft and sorcery is real and probably has some power.  There are other scriptures in the Bible that confirm that one could communicate with other spirits (Isaiah 8:19, 1 Samuel 28:12).  The fact that the witch in 1 Samuel 28:12 was so surprised that she actually conjured up the spirit of Samuel proves that many witches were probably just fakes and deceivers, but the fact that they sought these dead spirits was evident of their desire to interact with them and was forbidden by God. 

(19) “Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death."

Obviously, this meant to lie with in the same way one would lie with a person of the opposite sex in a sexual sense.  The fact that this law had to be made proves that the practice of bestiality existed, but it was so abominable and detested by God, that it was to be a crime punishable by death.

(20)  “He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Sacrificing to any god other than the one true God was obviously false idol worship and was considered a capital crime punishable by death.

(21) “You shall neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

The original word for "vex" was "yanah" and it meant "to rage or be violent, to suppress, to mistreat".  The people were not to mistreat or oppress strangers in their land.  The Lord reminded them that they were once strangers, and they should treat others the way they would want to be treated in that situation.

(22) “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. (23) If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; (24) And My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless."

The word translated as "afflict" was "anah", very similar to "yanah" above, but more completely meant "to look down on, browbeat, humiliate, mishandle, deal hardly with, defile, hurt, ravish, weaken".  No one was to look down on or mistreat in any way a widow or fatherless children.  I find it interesting that God put it the way He did.  Obviously, he would know what anyone did to anyone else.  He would not need to hear the cries of the victims to know that they had been mistreated.  I believe the point is to show that as widows and fatherless children, they had no husbands or fathers to protect them from unfair dealings, but God would act as their Father and Protector, and if He heard of any mistreatment, His anger would be kindled and He would take swift action against the one who mistreated them.  I like the way Adam Clarke wrote about this, "It is remarkable that offenses against this law are not left to the discretion of the judges to be punished; God reserves the punishment to himself, and by this he strongly shows his abhorrence of the crime. It is no common crime, and shall not be punished in a common way; the wrath of God shall wax hot against him who in any wise afflicts or wrongs a widow or a fatherless child: and we may rest assured that he who helps either does a service highly acceptable in the sight of God."

(25) “If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a usurer, neither shall you charge him interest."

If one lent money to a poor person, he was not to loan as a creditor charging interest, and dealing harshly with the borrower if he was not punctual in his repayment.  If a poor person had to borrow, it generally meant he had to just to survive, and it was forbidden to add extra hardship on him.

(26) “If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. (27) For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin; what will he sleep in? And it will come to pass, when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious."

It seems a little odd that the law wasn't stated that one must not take clothing as security for a loan, but perhaps the situation didn't fall under the law forbidding extortion in lending to a poor man.  Perhaps a neighbor asked to borrow something short-term, as for a few hours, and left his clothing or bed clothes as collateral.  The lender must not keep the borrower's clothing overnight even if the borrower failed to keep up his end of the bargain.  To do so would be cruel as his clothing was a necessity.  Once again, our gracious God as Provider of our needs, would protect the borrower against such cruelty.

(28) “You shall not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of your people."

I had to take this one almost one word at a time to fully understand it.  "Revile" or "qalal" meant "to make light, trifle, bring into contempt, despise".  The gods, plural...this is a harder one to understand.  The original word is "elohim", is plural, and is the same name given to the one true God of Genesis, understood to be the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The word was also used in scripture to mean generic gods.  However, when you consider that God had already forbidden the worship of any other gods than Him, it makes no sense that God would now be forbidding the reviling of those false gods.  The word occasionally was used to mean a judge (Exodus 21:6, 1 Samuel 2:25), or godly or divine (Malachi 2:15).  Since it can't possibly mean false gods, the word would have to refer to either God Himself, godly or divine things, or judges.  God went on to say that you should not curse the ruler of your people.  God often reiterated a point, so it is reasonable to believe He meant not to despise, make light of, or curse your judges or rulers, either one, but it is also quite possible He meant not to make light of or despise godly or divine things of God Himself.  This would hearken back to the filial laws of the Ten Commandments that commanded our respect for all authority--parents, government, and God.  In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul took this commandment to heart even though the ruler of his people was his unrighteous persecutor:

"And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?' And those who stood by said, 'Do you revile God’s high priest?'  Then Paul said, 'I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."'" - Acts 23:2-5

Wow!  This one really hits home when I think of my lack of respect for President Obama (I had to force myself to even use his title) and other seemingly godless liberals in authority.  But God said to respect them and not dishonor them.  Imagine if everyone prayed for seemingly godless rulers every time they thought to curse them!  I am speaking mainly to myself!  If we worked out of love wanting the best for the rulers of our people, might it be that we and they and all of us would better benefit?  Wow, real food for thought...and action! 

(29) “You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe fruits and your liquors; the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. (30) Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep; seven days it shall be with its mother, on the eighth day you shall give it to Me."

The people were not to delay in their offerings to God.  In postponing their duties, they were in danger of omitting them altogether.  Matthew Henry in his Commentary on the Whole Bible explained it beautifully this way, "There is danger, if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity, in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time. Let not young people delay to offer to God the first-fruits of their time and strength, lest their delays come, at last, to be denials, through the deceitfulness of sin, and the more convenient season they promise themselves never arrive."

The people were to offer the first of their ripened produce to God, and the first of their liquors, which was probably the wine of their grapes.  The giving of their firstborn sons was a repeat of the law initially given by God in Exodus 13:2:  " Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast; it is Mine.”  The firstborn of their oxen and sheep was to be offered to the Lord, but these were to stay with their mothers for seven days, and be offered on the eighth day.

(31) “And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs."

The Israelites were to be God's holy people, set apart by Him.  One mark of that distinction was that they were not to eat the flesh of any animal torn by beasts in the field.  This may have been for the reason Matthew Henry explained, "not only because it was unwholesome, but because it was paltry, and base, and covetous, and a thing below those who were holy men unto God, to eat the leavings of the beasts of prey."  However, I believe Adam Clarke more fully grasped the point, "The reason of the prohibition against eating the flesh of animals that had been torn, or as we term it worried in the field, appears to have been simply this: That the people might not eat the blood, which in this case must be coagulated in the flesh; and the blood, being the life of the beast, and emblematical of the blood of the covenant, was ever to be held sacred, and was prohibited from the days of Noah."  Probably both points were true.  The holy man of God was not to be as a savage, but eating and drinking deliberately and conscientiously, giving glory to God.

Verse 31 at the conclusion of this chapter summarizes the reason for all the laws contained in the chapter.  God's laws were given to His people that they might be His holy people, set apart from the rest of the world.  His laws were given to His people as restraints on disorderly passions and as incentives to holiness.

God's Common Sense Laws, Including Slavery in the Bible

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 21:1) “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them."

In the last chapter, the Lord had just verbally given the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the people.  Moses had returned to the mountain where the Lord was, and the Lord had begun to speak to Moses alone.  The people feared the Lord and His awesome power that He demonstrated with the giving of the Ten Commandments, and had asked that Moses be their mediator and tell them the words of the Lord.  The Lord now gave Moses some additional laws called judgments, apart from the Ten Commandments.  John Wesley explained them this way:  "These laws are called judgments; because their magistrates were to give judgment according to them. In the doubtful cases that had hitherto occurred, Moses had particularly enquired of God, but now God gave him statutes in general, by which to determine particular cases."

(2) "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."

God began with judicial laws concerning servants.  The Israelites had recently been servants themselves, and the Lord thought it most important that they not abuse their servants as they had been abused, but know how to justly treat them.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, laid out six reasons why a Hebrew might lawfully become a servant (actually he credited Augustin Calmet with these reasons):  

•  In extreme poverty they might sell their liberty. (Lev. 25:39)
• A father might sell his children. (Ex. 21:7)
• Insolvent debtors became the slaves of their creditors. (2 K. 4:1)
• A thief, if he had nothing, could be sold for his theft. (Ex. 22:3)
• A Hebrew was liable to be taken prisoner in war, and so sold for a slave.
• A Hebrew slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew might be sold by him who ransomed him, to one of his own nation.

God said that for whatever reason one might buy a Hebrew servant, that servant was to serve for only six years and then was to be freely released in the seventh year.

(3) “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. (4) If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself."

God added several qualifiers to the judgment about servants.  If the servant was bought and came into a household by himself, then he was to leave by himself the seventh year.  However, if he came into the household married, then his wife was also to leave with him.  If the servant came in by himself, but was given a wife by his master, and even if she had since borne him children, the wife and the children were to be considered property of the master, and the servant was to leave by himself in the seventh year.  That is not to say a servant husband and wife were not ever allowed to be together again; the wife would have her own set of seven years to serve, and she might be allowed to go free at the end of her years of servitude (although I am not sure about her children).  If this still seems harsh, we will see that the husband had a choice about whether or not he would go free at the end of his six years and leave his family.

(5) "And if the servant shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ (6) Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."

Here we see that God indeed allowed a servant to make a lawful choice about whether he wanted to go free at the end of his six years and leave his wife and family.  He could declare his love for his master and for his wife and children, and could choose not to leave.  It appears he needed to make this declaration before judges.  Then the servant was brought to the master's door and the master bore the servant's ear with an awl, a ceremonious act that meant permanent servitude, the hole in his ear being a permanent reminder of his intention to hear and obey his master forever.  "Forever" meant till the death of the master (or obviously of the servant) or until the year of Jubilee, which will be introduced later.

(7) “And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (8) If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a strange nation, seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her."

 If a man sold his daughter as a maidservant, she was to be treated differently with regard to her freedom after six years.  Her servitude was considered a betrothal.  I am assuming that this might have been because a family was poor and had no dowry to give, so the daughter herself was given as a servant with the intention of becoming a wife.  In this case, she wouldn't be set free after six years because she was a wife or a concubine, and the rules must be different in this situation.  However, if she didn't please her master as a wife, he must let her be redeemed by her father or another family member.  Actually, I have read that she could redeem herself.  If she wasn't to be the master's wife (or his son's), then she was to be redeemed and allowed to leave the household.  That could be done at any time with a pro-rated redemption fee according to how much time was left on her six-year term of servitude.  The term "strange nation" actually more accurately meant a different or non-relative tribe.  She could only be redeemed by her family or herself.  The original master could not sell her to be a wife of another man, just because he chose not to fulfill his promise to the girl's father (acted deceitfully).  If he had taken her as a wife and had consummated that marriage, then passed her on to the highest bidder, she would be no more than a prostitute, and that was not allowed by God. 

(9) “And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. (10) If he takes him another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. (11) And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."

Rather than marry a young servant girl himself, if the master instead betrothed her to his son, then she was to be forever treated as his daughter.  She was to be given a dowry as any other daughter, and if the son took another wife, the servant girl's food, clothing, or any other rights of marriage, could not be diminished or denied.  If the original master did not do one of the three things mentioned above for the servant girl, that is, allow her to be redeemed, give her in marriage to his son and treat her as his daughter, or allow her to retain her place and privilege in the event the son married another, then she was to be allowed to go free from servitude without paying anything for her freedom.

(12) “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

One of God's commandments was not to kill.  He now began a series of judgments regarding murder.  The first statement is that if a man strikes another and he dies as a result, he shall be put to death.  

(13) "And if a man did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee."

Now God added qualifiers.  If the murderer did not actually lie in wait and plan to strike and/or kill the victim, a description of premeditated murder, but rather the opportunity happened to present itself, then a provision was made for the murderer to flee to a safe place.  I don't believe the point is that God personally delivered the victim into the hand of the murderer to murder him, but because God is in control of everything, and nothing happens that He doesn't allow to happen, in that way God delivered him.  However, God did use people to bring His judgment to other people, so I suppose that could be a literal statement.  But then again, I believe no one ever loses his free will to kill or not to kill, but if it was not premeditated and just came about as a result of a chance encounter that turned violent, God would appoint a safe place to which the killer could flee.  A person who had killed another accidentally, having had no previous malice against him, might be killed by the avenger of his relation's blood, so God would provide a safe place to which the accidental manslayer might flee until the incident was investigated and judged.  God would later come to provide cities of refuge for such cases.

(14) “But if a man comes presumptuously upon his neighbor, to kill him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die."

However, if a man came upon his neighbor rebelliously or arrogantly proud in order to kill him with shrewdness or trickery, he would not be allowed safe haven.  There apparently came about superstitions that merely taking hold of the horns on the altar of God would somehow protect the murderer (1 Kings 1:50 and 1 Kings 2:28), but God said you could take such a person from His altar and he should die for the murder.

(15) “And he who smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The original word for "smite" is "nakah" and it is the same word translated as "strikes" in verse 12.  It means "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill".  In verse 12, it said to smite (or strike) so that the victim died.  In verse 15, God speaks of striking either parent, period!  A man need not kill his parent to be put to death himself.  It seems harsh in this day and age when we hear of parents beating and abusing children, and the normal and healthy and nurturing parent/child relationship is so broken.  However, all the old commentaries wrote about why respecting parents was so important to God.  Adam Clarke said it the most succinctly:  "As such a case argued peculiar depravity, therefore no mercy was to be shown to the culprit."  To strike a parent in a manner which showed contempt or malice, or left marks of violence, was seen as proof of so ungrateful and unnatural a disposition, that no provocation was admitted as an excuse.  It has already been discussed about how the commandment to honor your parents is one about filial relationships.  Thomas Scott wrote, "The law of God, as delegated to parents is honoured when they are honoured, and despised when they are despised, and to rebel against the lawful exercise of this authority is rebellion against God."

(16) "And he who steals a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."

Stealing a person against his will would be kidnapping, and that was strictly forbidden and punishable by death, period.

People often find it uncomfortable that the Bible seems to condone slavery, especially when they think of slavery as it was portrayed in more recent times especially in the U.S.  It never bothered me so much that the Bible spoke of it, because it just dealt with customs of the time, and God laid out just laws about how servants should be treated.  The Israelites in Egypt were true slaves against their wills, and God certainly did not condone that.  However, in most cases of slaves in the Bible, people usually sold themselves as a means of living when they had no money.  They might sell their children, which makes us shudder, in this day of human trafficking, but once again, there was a more honorable reason for it.  A daughter was sold with the intention of becoming a wife, with all the rights and privileges of marriage.  In all cases, slaves were to be well treated, and given their freedom after six years, so they were never permanent "property" of free men.  It can be argued that a person should never be a slave to another, but to have forbidden it back then in Biblical times may have meant a person starved to death because he had no other way of feeding himself or his family.  It was a way to make a living, not that being a slave was a "living" as a job, but it was a way to live or survive.

When I saw the movie, "The Help", I thought about my grandmother's maid, Eva, with whom I grew up, whom I considered almost a second grandmother.  Eva was always part of our family, and my sisters and I, as well as some cousins, were all her "babies".  That movie had an underlying message that it had been wrong to hire black women as maids for the low pay they received.  In the movie, there was a line from one of the maids about not receiving social security.  Even one of my sisters commented about it being wrong, after having seen that movie.  However, I thought about Eva, and her babies, and her employment with my grandmother for 40 years, and wondered what her life would have been like without it.  It was her choice to work for my grandmother.  She could have certainly left, and found another position, if she was not happy with us.  Maybe it could be argued that was the only type of position available to a relatively uneducated black woman back then.  But it was an option as a living, and now it no longer is.  Today, there would have been no way my grandmother could have afforded to pay mandated minimum wage, and social security, and benefits.  Eva would have probably been sitting at home living off government benefits, and both sides would have missed a great deal with regard to love and human relationships.  It just made me think.  With that thought, in a Biblical time before government hand-outs, some people survived by selling themselves into slavery, but God had laws about how they were to be treated.  In verse 16, He said that if a man kidnapped another for the purpose of selling him, he was to be put to death, even if he was caught before he actually sold the slave.

(17) “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

Once again, we see how important respect for one's parents is to God.  Parents are the instruments through which God chose to bring us into this world.  They are the instruments through which we first learn about God and all authority.  At our youngest stages, they may even seem to stand in place of God to us; therefore rebellion against their lawful instruction is considered rebellion against God.  Once again, it may be argued that some parents do not seem worthy of that respect, but God has said otherwise.  Just by being our parents, they are due respect.  From an early age, it teaches us about authority.  How often must we obey corrupt laws in government?  There are times when we must obey God rather than government (Acts 5:29), so I do believe if a parent asked a child to do something against God's laws, and the child refused, that would not be considered a breach of the commandment to honor his parents.  Likewise, if a child felt he must honor his parents, and do something contrary to God's laws, God would do as He always does, and judge the hearts of the child and the parents, and judge righteously.  Some people are eager to come up with "gotchas" when it comes to the word of God; we forget that God is always fair and just (Deut. 32:4, Psalm 19:9).

(18) "And if men strive together, and one strikes another with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, (19) If he rises again and walks about on his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted; he shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed."

If men argued or fought with one another, and one struck the other with a stone or with a fist that it injured the other so that he was taken to his bed, then the one who stuck him was required to pay for the injured man's healing and loss of time.  Provided that the injured man recovered and was able to walk about on his own, with only the aid of his staff, then the deliverer of the injurious blow would be acquitted.

(20) “And if a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."

As this law initially made me a little uncomfortable, I defer to the words of Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible:  "The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment."

Additionally, other early commentators referred to the even earlier writings of Jarchi and the Targum of Jonathan, that said this referred to only the use of a rod for the correction of servants, and not to a sword or any weapon designed to kill.  If the servant died immediately or on the same day of the beating, the man was punished for his cruelty.  However, if the servant continued a day or two after the correction was given, the master had supposedly suffered enough by losing his servant.  This law was made to deter masters from using severity and cruelty toward their servants.

(22) "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) And if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, (24) Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

If men fought together and hurt a pregnant woman so that she delivered her baby prematurely, as long as no harm followed, like injury or death of the mother or baby, the one who struck the woman and/or caused her premature birth would be punished and pay damages to the husband as determined by the judges.  However, if harm did occur, and either the mother or the baby died, then it was to be considered as in verse 12--one who struck another so that he died was to be put to death.  If injury or loss of limb was done to the mother or child, then the perpetrator was required to pay like for like damages, equal to the harm done.   This law was not meant for the public to exact revenge by literally cutting off the hand of someone who accidentally cut off the hand of another, but was designed for the judges to protect the community and to execute judgment equal to the harm done.

I have always loved this passage that shows the importance of an unborn baby to our Lord.  These verses absolutely speak of an unborn baby, and say that if any harm is done to that baby, the baby is considered a life as important as the one who harms him.  I believe this positively relates to the issue of abortion.

(26) "And if a man strikes the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. (27) And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

Back to God's laws regarding servants, if their masters abused and maimed them, they were given freedom as an equivalent for permanent injury, including even the loss of a tooth.  This was another law certainly designed to deter masters from using severity and cruelty toward their servants.

(28) “If an ox gores a man or a woman that they die; then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted."

An ox that killed a man or woman was to be destroyed, but its flesh was not to be eaten.  I would imagine it was considered an unclean murderous beast, but also the owner would receive no benefit from the animal.  He would be acquitted as his punishment was losing the animal.

(29) “But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death."

However, if the animal had been known to thrust with its horns in times past, and the owner had done nothing to protect people from his dangerous animal, then he would be held responsible and found negligent.  His animal would be stoned to death, and the owner would also be put to death.  

(30) “If there is laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatever is imposed on him. (31) Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. (32) If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned."

It appears that although his life was required for his negligence in not confining a dangerous animal, that sentence could be commuted for a monetary fine.  Whether the animal gored an adult or a young son or daughter, any age or gender of human life was regarded the same with the same laws of retribution.  However, in the case of a servant that was considered the owner's property (at least for six years), the owner was fined the standard cost of a slave, thirty shekels of silver, whether the servant be big and strong and worth triple that, or small and weak and worth much less.  It's interesting to note that this was the exact amount at which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was sold.  In all cases, the animal was to be stoned.

(33) “And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, (34) The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to their owner, and the dead animal shall be his."

Once again, a person had to act responsibly and would have to pay if found negligent.  If he left an open pit and another's animal fell into the pit, then he would have to reimburse the owner for the animal.  However, as he had paid for the animal, the dead animal would be his.

(35) “And if one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide. (36) Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own."

If a man's animal killed another man's animal, assuming it was accidental and not known that the first animal was a danger, then the two men were to sell the live ox and divide the money from it, and divide the dead ox.  However, if it was known that the first animal was dangerous and prone to thrusting its horns, and its owner was negligent in not keeping it confined, then that owner would have to pay full price for the lost animal, but the dead animal would be his since he paid for it.

The laws in this chapter are moral laws and common sense rules of natural justice.  You can see the bases of some of our current laws, especially with regard to capital punishment and to negligence.  The laws in this chapter deal largely with the treatment of slaves, and deal with human life, in general.  You can really get insight into how much the Creator of all life values each and every life, including the unborn baby and the slave.

The Ten Commandments

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 20:1) And God spoke all these words, saying, (2) “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

In chapter 19, God told Moses to clean and sanctify the people and bring them to the mountain and He would speak to Moses in the hearing of the people.  He spoke these words in an audible voice out of a thick fiery smoke on top of the mountain.  He began by telling the people that He was their God, the One who had brought them out of bondage in Egypt, perhaps showing them that He alone had the sovereign right to enact the laws He was about to give them, as their part of the covenant with God that they unanimously agreed to obey and keep.

(3) “You shall have no other gods before Me."

God began with the first of what we call the "ten commandments".  His people were to worship Him only.  They had come from Egypt where they had been exposed to many gods.  It was Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible, who pointed out that the meaning was more than having no other gods "in front of" or "above" and in that respect "before" God, but rather literally have no other gods "before My face", or in God's presence.  No other god was to be worshiped, period.  I've always learned this to mean that we shouldn't put any idols of worship above God, or more important than God, but God doesn't want us to have any idols at all, but we are to worship only Him.

(4) “You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; (5) You shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, (6) And showing mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments."

This has always been a difficult one for me.  Are we not to have any pictures of Christ or symbols of God in our churches?  I don't want to flippantly disregard a commandment with "just as long as we don't worship it" to fit what I want the commandment to be.  I really want to understand the commandments as they were intended by God.  I do believe it must be a case of not making statues or images of God Himself who has no body, for the sake of bowing down and worshiping this image of God.  God is more awesome and unimaginably wonderful than anything our human minds could conjure up; to make Him into this carved image of our imagination is to greatly diminish Him.  The commandment surely couldn't mean that there could be no images at all of things that are in heaven, etc., because cherubim were instructed to be used in the tabernacle furnishings and for the ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18).  Therefore I believe that we may have symbols of our worship, spiritual symbols, but the key is that we don't bow down to a symbol we have made as if we were bowing to our one true God.

Indeed, God commanded that the people not bow down or serve false idols because He was a jealous God!  "Jealous" has a negative connotation these days--envious and resentful, creating bitterness and fear.  There are two other dictionary definitions of "jealous"--"solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something" and "intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry".  I believe these are the more accurate descriptions of God's jealousy for His people.  God loved His people as the most loving husband would love his spouse, actually much more, and He is jealous for their fidelity, solicitous and vigilant in guarding it, because He is always about what is best for His people.

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..." is a little harder to get my head around, but after reviewing other references, it becomes clear that God does not punish children for their father's sins, but they will indeed suffer because of their father's sins.  Deuteronomy 24:16 says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin."  However, there are references to the fact that children suffer because of their father's sins, such as written in Lamentations 5:7, "Our fathers sinned and are no more, but we bear their iniquities."  Likewise, those descendants who come from parents and grandparents who walk in the ways of the Lord and obey His commandments will reap benefits and blessings.  There are definite consequences for actions that will pass down to subsequent generations.  That is not to say that sovereign God never personally blesses or punishes.  Romans 9:18 says, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."  God constantly refines His people, and uses His rod and staff to keep them on the correct path.  I find that His chastisements are usually always about getting His people back to Him and back on the right path, reminding them of where they should put their trust and faith.

(7) “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

We have tended to make this commandment about using God's name in profanity, but it is about much more.  The original word "shav" translated as "vain" more completely means "empty, vain, false, worthless".  Actually, Leviticus 19:12, speaks of two distinct abuses of the Lord's name:  "And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD."  God's name is to be used with deep reverence and respect and should never be flippantly used in exclamations, swearing, or appealed to as a witness of the truth.  The LORD "will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."  We have a tendency to believe that words don't actually harm, so we don't usually give them the same level of importance as we give actions.  Although there may not seem to be any real consequences for abusing the Lord's name, and the abuser himself may say he didn't mean anything by it, the Lord finds it of utmost importance and says He will account him guilty.

(8)  “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

The Israelites had already been observing a Sabbath day.  In Exodus 16, they were instructed to gather twice as much manna on the sixth day because the seventh day was the rest of the holy sabbath to the LORD (Exodus 16:23).  God had actually blessed and sanctified the sabbath day in the beginning (Genesis 2:3).  Whether it was something the Israelites had been observing for a long time or something the Lord had begun to institute with the manna, He now told the people that they were to remember the Sabbath day and to keep it holy.  The original word that was translated as "holy" here is "qadash", and it meant something causatively set aside, pronounced or observed, as morally or ceremonially clean.  The day was to be a day set aside and observed as a holy day of God.

(9) "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, (10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. (11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."

The Israelites were allowed six days to labor and do their work, but they were to do no work on the seventh day.  I believe by including all other household members, cattle, and strangers, the implication is that they also shouldn't hire out or use their animals to have any work done on the sabbath day.  Exodus 23:12 added, "that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and the stranger may be refreshed."  The day was to be observed as holy by the Israelites, but was also to be considered a day for rest for all people and animals.  Why did the Lord command this?  Verse 11 further explained what had been told us in Genesis 2:3, that the Lord Himself rested on the seventh day and had blessed and hallowed the sabbath day.  It's not as if the Lord was wearied from creating and had to rest, but his created beings do need rest, and He chose to rest and symbolically set aside a day for His people to likewise rest.  It's a day for them to rest in Him; they physically rest, but they also spend time in prayer and communion with the Lord which spiritually feeds them for the tasks of the week ahead.  The Sabbath day is a holy day to the Lord, but it was created for the benefit of the Lord's people.  We must not become legalistic and forget the spirit of the law.  Luke 13:14 spoke of a ruler of a synagogue who was indignant with Jesus because He healed a woman on the Sabbath; he specifically quoted the scripture in verse 9, that there were six days on which men ought to work and therefore could come and be healed on them, but not on the Sabbath day.  Jesus Himself said in Mark 2:27 that the "Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."  He added that He, Jesus Christ, was Lord of the Sabbath.  I believe the rest on the Sabbath was symbolic of the rest we have in the Lord of the Sabbath, as described in Hebrews 4.  So does there still remain a commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy?  I have personally struggled with this and wondered if I am justifying myself by saying that Jesus Christ IS the Sabbath and by resting in Him, I obey this commandment.  I will continue to study this as it is written about in scripture, but I thought this quote by Adam Clarke in his Commentary on the Bible, was beautiful food for thought:  "...but the thing signified by the Sabbath is that rest in glory which remains for the people of God, therefore the moral obligation of the Sabbath must continue till time be swallowed up in eternity."

(12) “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God gives you."

The ten commandments have always been considered to be able to be divided into two groups, possibly grouped as such, one on each stone tablet that the Lord wrote (Deut. 4:13).  Jesus summed up the commandments into two:  "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37-39)  The first few commandments, and possibly the first tablet, deal with how we honor and love the Lord with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and the last few deal with how we are to love our neighbors.  "Honor your father and mother" has been most of the time considered part of how we deal with others, and would mean the ten commandments were divided into two groups as the first four, and then the last six.  However, I like what Albert Barnes wrote, in his Notes on the Bible:  "According to our usage, the fifth commandment is placed as the first in the second table; and this is necessarily involved in the common division of the commandments into our duty toward God and our duty toward men. But the more ancient, and probably the better, division allots five commandments to each table, proceeding on the distinction that the first table relates to the duties which arise from our filial relations, the second to those which arise from our fraternal relations. The connection between the first four commandments and the fifth exists in the truth that all faith in God centers in the filial feeling. Our parents stand between us and God in a way in which no other beings can."  Mr. Barnes also referenced the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:9, where he summarized just five commandments for how we ought to love our brother, and he did not include honoring our parents.

The Apostle Paul also pointed out that this commandment was the first with a promise (Eph. 6:2), which may tell us how important this commandment is to God.  It is expanded upon a little more in Deuteronomy 5:16, "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you."  A long life in that good land was promised particularly to obedient children.  Those who do their duty to their parents are most likely to have the comfort of that which their parents gather for them and leave to them.  Besides physical property that parents might leave, there are usually continual prayers for their children.  In this day, there may be some who believe their parents do not deserve such love and respect, but God used those parents as instruments to bring those children into the world, whomever they may be, and for that they are deserving of some degree of honor.  If indeed this commandment is one that teaches us filial respect, then it helps us to learn respect for all authority--parents, government, and ultimately God (Heb. 13:17, 1 Pet. 2:13).  Isn't that usually the way with our sweet Lord?  His laws are generally always about our ultimate good, rather than a commandment just for commandment's sake.

(13) "You shall not kill."

The word translated as "kill" is "ratsach".  It is generally understood to mean "murder".  Strong's says it this way:  "A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er)."  Discussions can and have been made far and wide over what this actually means.  Does it include war, capital punishment, abortion, suicide, and killing animals?  These will be debated until Jesus returns.  And speaking of Jesus, He said this:  “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council, but whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt 5:21-22)  I am not going to try to decipher every word of that passage in Mark just yet, but I believe the gist is that one word might be judged by the council, but another is still judged by Jesus; He said in so many words that it was possible to have murder in our hearts, and that is what is judged by God.  Personally, I believe that we must follow the examples put forth in the Bible regarding what actions constitute murder.  Once again, we can debate whether war is ever justified, but I don't believe it is considered murder and breaks this commandment, as we have many examples of war in the Bible.  Once again, we can debate capital punishment, but it would not be considered murder to lawfully execute someone who had committed a particularly heinous crime; again we have examples in the Bible.  Abortion?  In that case, I believe we have examples to the contrary, that God never condoned the taking of an innocent baby's life.  Suicide?  As we should not take the life of any other living human being, I believe we don't have the right to take our own lives.  The killing of animals for food and clothing is certainly permitted in the Bible, but certainly no torturing of animals for sport would be.

(14) “You shall not commit adultery."

In its strictest sense, committing adultery is having relations outside the marriage relationship, whether it is one married person with a single person, or two people married to others.  However, once again our Lord had stricter guidelines:  “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)  Once again, it is about what's in a man's heart, and notice that Jesus didn't say "whoever looks at a married woman"; he just said "woman".  Consider also the fact that Jesus included fornication when He spoke of the wickedness that comes from the heart: "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:18-19)  I believe it is no stretch to conclude that the seventh commandment refers to all sexual activity outside the marriage bed.  Sex apart from marriage would be an adulterous act against God's design for marriage and sexual relations in the marriage bed.

(15) “You shall not steal."

The eighth commandment is pretty straight forward.  We are not to take another's property.  This means physically taking by force or taking stealthily or by fraud or deception.  Unjust contracts, withholding a worker's pay, making a slave of a person against his will, not repaying agreed upon debts, not restoring what is borrowed, etc., would all be examples of stealing.

(16) “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I had occasion to study this commandment back when I studied the first chapter of Exodus when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh and would not kill the baby boys as commanded.  God blessed the midwives, and I had to wonder if God could bless liars.  It was suggested to me that perhaps God blessed them in spite of their lying, but after studying the words of this commandment, I do not believe it is a blanket commandment against all lying.  I honestly believe "white" lies to protect people and their feelings would not be sins against this commandment.  This commandment is about injuring your neighbor by bearing a false witness against him, either a public false charge or private gossip and slander whereby he may suffer in his character, reputation, or in his business.  Rather than a long list of what we must not do, the 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes explained this commandment succinctly, "But further his good name, and speak truth."  Further your neighbor's good name and do not speak falsely in a way that will diminish him.  If the commandment is truly about building up your neighbor and not tearing him down, then I honestly don't believe that a "white" lie meant to protect or build up a person could be considered a breach of this commandment.  In the New Testament, Paul went as far to say in Philippians 2:3 that we should esteem others better than we esteem ourselves.

(17) “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Jesus seemingly took the commandments against killing and adultery to another level by adding that if you even think about those things, you have committed a breach of the commandment.  However, this last commandment in itself does seem to suggest that we not injure our neighbor in thought.  The sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments forbid us to injure our neighbor in deed, the ninth forbid us to injure him in word, and the tenth in thought.  Once again, I point to Matthew 22:37-40, when Jesus summed up all the commandments into two--loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind; and loving your neighbor as yourself.  The last five commandments all pertain to how we are to treat one another.  This final one commands us not to covet or to desire or long after those things belonging to or accomplished by our neighbor.  James in the New Testament explained why this was so important:  "But every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it brings forth sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." (James 1:14-15)  Sinful actions start with our own covetous desires.  I like what Adam Clarke wrote in his Commentary on the Bible.  His words were a little too flowery for my taste, but I will give him credit for his idea that this commandment "is a most excellent moral precept", and that observing it alone would prevent "all public crimes".  I am giving him credit for part of his words, but actually that idea is obviously why Jesus was able to sum up half the commandments with just loving your neighbor as yourself.  Certainly, if we treated everyone the way we wanted to be treated, I can't imagine there would be any crimes against people.

(18) And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. (19) And they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”

In the last chapter, before the Lord began speaking in the hearing of the people, there were thunderings, lightnings, smoke, and a loud trumpet.  This statement is either repeated, or these things continued or perhaps just occurred again at the end of the Lord's speaking.  Before God spoke, the people were breaking forth to gaze upon Him, or at least desired to do that which was what the Lord wanted to prevent, lest they die (Exodus 19:21).  After hearing Him, they were so moved with awe and fear, they moved themselves back and stood afar off.  Those same people who would have pushed themselves out front to approach God now realized their need for a mediator and welcomed Moses to speak to them on God's behalf.

(20) And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

Moses reassured the people not to fear that the Lord had come to destroy them.  He indeed could easily destroy them and it was important that they understood His power and respected it.  Thus they understood their need for a mediator, and they had a reverent awe and fear for the Lord that would make them careful (as opposed to being careless and flippant) to obey His laws.

(21) And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.

At the end of the last chapter, the Lord had sent Moses back down the mountain to insure the people would keep their distance.  However, He had told him at that time that he, Moses, and Aaron, alone, were to come up the mountain.  Moses, having had that prior authorization, now left the people standing afar off and went back to where God was.

(22) And the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. (23) You shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.'"

The Lord told Moses to tell the people the words of the Lord, that He had indeed spoken to them from heaven.  I find it very interesting that the Lord took this opportunity to repeat and more fully describe His commandment that the people not make little gold or silver idols to be representative of Him.  John Wesley suggested this was because "they were more addicted to idolatry than to any other sin."  Perhaps it was just a preface to what was to come afterward, not to make idols for Him, but rather make a simple altar as instructed.  Most likely, the Lord knew that was exactly what the people would do as they did in Exodus 32 when they made a golden calf.  I suppose that indeed suggests the statement of John Wesley is true; the people were so addicted to idolatry and symbols of worship, that the Lord knew they needed this extra reiteration.

(24) "‘An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in all places where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you.'"

I believe the point here is that these are directions for constructing temporary altars before the tabernacle was built.  God would have very specific instructions for the tabernacle, but if His people wanted to construct a temporary altar for Him, then it was to be a simple one from the earth.  There they could sacrifice their offerings.  In all places, that is, wherever the Lord was worshiped at this makeshift altar, He would come to them and bless them.  That sentiment was repeated by Jesus Christ in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

(25) "‘And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have polluted it.'"

If the people chose instead to make a stone altar, perhaps because they were in a rocky place, then the altar was still to be a simple one with natural rocks.  They were forbidden to use hewn stones or to use any tools to carve out or make their altars.  Perhaps in carving, they would be tempted to carve idols.  Without God's specific instructions for a more elaborate altar, the people were to keep theirs simple and natural, for as was discussed with the second commandment, the people could in no way imagine and create anything equal to God, and anything they created would diminish Him and become a worthless idol of their worship.

(26) "'Neither shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be discovered on it.’"

And finally, regarding the building of a temporary altar, it should not be made with steps going up to it.  I feel like partly this was to again keep it simple, but Matthew Henry in his Commentary on the Whole Bible had a reasonable explanation for why this was added.  He wrote they were appointed to "make their altars very low, so that they might not go up by steps to them. That the higher the altar was, and the nearer heaven, the more acceptable the sacrifice was, was a foolish fancy of the heathen, who therefore chose high places; in opposition to this, and to show that it is the elevation of the heart, not of the sacrifice, that God looks at, they were here ordered to make their altars low."

I had a little difficulty understanding the second half of that verse regarding their nakedness, but the old commentaries took that literally.  It has already been discussed and established that it was foolish to make steps going up to a high altar anyway, so in doing so, the only thing accomplished is that you would expose yourself to those underneath.  Dr. John Gill put it this way in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, anyone doing this would "be in danger of discovering those parts which would make them the object of contempt and ridicule with the people", and "all immodesty and indecency, and whatever tends to create impure thoughts and stir up unclean lusts, should be carefully avoided in his worship."  In summation, the altar should be a simple one where God promised to come to them and bless them.  I will close this study with the words of Matthew Henry:

"Afterwards, God chose one particular place wherein to record his name: but that being taken away now under the gospel, when men are encouraged to pray every where, this promise revives in its full extent, that, wherever God's people meet in his name to worship him, he will be in the midst of them, he will honour them with his presence, and reward them with the gifts of his grace; there he will come unto them, and will bless them, and more than this we need not desire for the beautifying of our solemn assemblies."

Covenant Between God and Israel at Mount Sinai

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 19:1) In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, that same day they came to the wilderness of Sinai. (2) For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the desert of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mountain.

The third month of the Jewish calendar, Sivan, contained part of our May and part of June.  It was then that the children of Israel came into the wilderness of Sinai.  The above passage could also be read that it was three months after they left Egypt that they came into the wilderness of Sinai.  That day was one and the same, as the new calendar began on the original Passover when the Israelites began the great exodus (Exodus 12:2).  The people had left Rephidim and had come to the wilderness or desert of Sinai.  I have noted previously that Horeb and Sinai were two peaks of the same mountain.  Horeb was on the western side, near to which lay the plain of Rephidim, and Sinai was on the eastern side, at which the wilderness or desert of that same name lay.  The Israelites camped at the foot of the mountain.

In this particular chronological study, I am using an order set forth by Skip Andrews.  It now takes me to Numbers 33:15:

(Numbers 33:15) And they departed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinai.

This is just an abbreviated account of the same fact.  We now return to Exodus 19:

(Exodus 19:3) And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: (4) ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself.'"

Moses went up to God, which suggests that God was in the pillar of cloud now situated above the top of the mountain.  The Lord called to Moses from there and told him to speak to the people, calling them both "the house of Jacob" and "the children of Israel".  Perhaps this was to remind them of Jacob's former and lower state of life as the people may have likewise felt lowly, but now they were called by the name given Jacob by God as they were partakers of the promises made to Jacob or Israel.  God told Moses to remind the people of what He had done to the Egyptians, and how He lifted the children of Israel up and carried them as on eagles' wings, denoting the strength, size, speed, and care, with which He brought them to Himself.

(5) "‘Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. (6) And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Moses was to tell the people that God had said to them if they would obey Him and keep His covenant, they would be His special people above all people, as He had sovereignty over the whole world.  They would be a holy nation of priests consecrated to God.  Instead of being in their former lowly state of servitude to the Egyptians, they would become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation of God.

(7) And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him. (8) And all the people answered together, and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses returned the words of the people to the LORD.

Moses took the words of the Lord to the elders of the people and laid before them God's proposal for a covenant between Him and the people.  I assume that the elders then took the words to the people, or else they answered for the people; either way, the people answered unanimously that they would do just as the Lord had spoken.  Moses then took the words of the people back to the Lord.

(9) And the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I come to you in the thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you forever.” And Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.

I believe the point of what the Lord was telling Moses was that He would come to Moses in a different form that they would recognize as their Lord speaking directly to Moses, so that they would know that the Lord spoke directly with Moses, and they could forever trust him.  This "thick" cloud would be different from the normal pillar of cloud the people were used to seeing.  This cloud is better described in a later verse as a smoke of a fire that enveloped the whole mountain and the mountain even quaked (Exodus 9:18). The fact that Moses told the Lord the words of the people is repeated.  It seems like the thoughts put forth in this verse are reversed, but at any rate, Moses relayed to the Lord the unanimous words of the people, and the Lord told Moses He would speak to him in a manner that the people would have no doubt was the Lord speaking directly to him.

(10) And the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. (11) And be ready for the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people on mount Sinai."

The Lord told Moses to go back to the people and they were to purify themselves inside (spiritually, set aside for the Lord) and out for the next couple of days, for on the third day the Lord would come down Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.  

(12) “And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Take heed to yourselves that you do not go up into the mountain or touch its border; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. (13) There shall not a hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether man or beast, it shall not live.’ When the trumpet sounds long, they shall come up to the mountain.”

Moses was to set up a boundary for the people and and to tell them that they be careful not to go up on the mountain or even touch its border, under penalty of death.  My first thought was that whoever touched the mountain would not necessarily be "put to death", but would instantly die, because God was a consuming fire Who could not be approached.  However, the scripture seems clear that anyone touching it was to be put to death by stoning or shot with an arrow.  All the early commentaries agree that the "it" in the first part of verse 13 refers to the one who dared to disobey and touch (or the animal that wandered up and touched) the mountain, rather than the mountain itself.  No one was to touch or try to pull back the one that touched the mountain, as he or it would be an unclean and accursed thing and should rather be immediately stoned or shot.  When the trumpet sounded long, that was the people's signal to come to the mountain, but obviously not up it.

(14) And Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. (15) And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not come at your wives.”

Moses went down from the mountain that apparently he alone was allowed to climb, to go back to ready and purify the people.  They washed their clothes, and Moses told them to even abstain from sexual relations with their wives in order to be purified and sanctified before the Lord.

(16) And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled. (17) And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the lowest part of the mountain.

On the third day, when the Lord had said He would come down the mountain to the people, in that morning there was thunder and lightning, and a thick cloud on the mountain.  A trumpet sounded so loudly that the people in the camp trembled.  We can only imagine the awesome power and terror with which the Lord began His descent to the people.  There was thunder and lightning and a long sound of a trumpet so loud it must have come from a band of angels, and it terrified the people and made them tremble.  Moses brought the people out of the camp to the foot of the mountain to meet with God.

(18) And Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly.

Not only had there been thunder and lightning, and a tremendous sound of trumpeting, but now there was fire and smoke and the whole mountain quaked.  What an awesome and terrifying sight this must have been to the people, realizing the power of so great their God so near their presence!

(19) And when the blast of the trumpet sounded long and became louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice. (20) And the LORD came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain; and the LORD called Moses up to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.

The blast of the trumpet sounded long and became even louder.  It would seem by the scripture that Moses, knowing this was the sign of the Lord coming down the mountain to meet the people, spoke to the Lord, and the Lord answered him by an audible voice.  However, this event was recorded in the New Testament in Hebrews, chapter 12, and it appears that what Moses actually spoke was, "I exceedingly fear and quake" (Hebrews 12:21), to which the Lord answered in an audible voice, probably one designed to comfort and encourage Moses, as well as to be heard and understood by the people.  The Lord came down upon Mount Sinai and called Moses up to the top of the mountain, and Moses indeed went up.

(21) And the LORD said to Moses, “Go down and warn the people, lest they break through to gaze at the LORD, and many of them perish. (22) And let the priests also, who come near the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.”

It appears that just as Moses went up the mountain to the Lord, he was sent back down with a message to the people.  The Lord did not want their curiosity to get the better of them and cause their deaths, so He sent Moses to warn them not to break through to sneak a peek at the Lord.  The Lord had a warning for the priests, as well.  Perhaps because of their positions as priests, they might have felt they had no need of extra purification, but it seems the Lord was warning them to make sure and sanctify themselves lest the Lord break forth and smite them.  Up until the time that the Lord instituted the Aaronic priesthood, priestly duties and sacrifices were performed by the firstborn or heads of families.  Even these priests, who officiated for their respective families, and were therefore said to come near to the Lord at other times, must now keep their distance, and conduct themselves with a great deal of caution.

(23) And Moses said to the LORD, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for You warned us, saying, ‘Set bounds around the mountain and sanctify it.’”

Then Moses answered the Lord in a manner which suggested there was no need for him to do what the Lord had just told him to do, which I find interesting.  He told the Lord that because He had already warned them, they had already taken precautions, set boundaries, and warned the people against crossing the set boundaries.

(24) And the LORD said to him, “Away, get down, and you shall come up, you, and Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the LORD, lest He break forth upon them.” (25) So Moses went down to the people and spoke to them.

Moses should have realized that the Lord knew better than he did that the people needed yet another reminder and warning.  Dismissing Moses's reply that he need not go back down to the people to give them further warning, the Lord sent him back down to warn the people and the priests not to attempt to break through to come up to the Lord.  However, the Lord did tell Moses that Aaron might come back up with him, but no one else.  So Moses went back down to speak to the people as the Lord commanded him.

Jethro's Wise Counsel and the Appointment of Judges

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 18:1) When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses's father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people, and that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt; (2) Then Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses's wife, after he had sent her back,

Moses's father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, heard all that the Lord had done for Moses and the children of Israel, bringing them out of Egypt.  He then took his daughter, Moses's wife, Zipporah, and went to meet him.  It is not clear when Zipporah and Moses's sons returned to Midian to her father, but it may have been when they were on the way to Egypt from Midian, at the inn, when Zipporah took the sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses's feet (Exodus 4:25).  That was the last we read of her until now.  Perhaps she had been alarmed at the danger to which one of her sons had been exposed, and afraid of even worse, left Moses and returned to her father.  Or perhaps Moses, foreseeing the troubles to which his wife and children were likely to be exposed had he taken them to Egypt, sent them back to his father-in-law until such time when God would deliver His people.  Jethro, now finding that God had delivered them and destroyed their enemies, went to visit Moses and to bring his wife and sons back to him.

(3) And her two sons, of whom the name of one was Gershom, for he said, “I have been a stranger in a foreign land”; (4) And the name of the other was Eliezer, for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”. (5) And Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness, where he was encamped at the mountain of God.

Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, took Moses's wife, Zipporah, and his two sons with him.  Gershom was Moses's firstborn son, as we read in Exodus 2:22, and his name literally meant "refugee"; he was born when Moses had fled to Midian to escape Pharaoh and was a stranger in that foreign land.  Moses's second son was Eliezer, which literally meant "God of help" or "God is help"; he so named him because God was his help and delivered him from Pharaoh.  Jethro came with Zipporah and her sons Gershom and Eliezer, to Moses in the wilderness where he camped at Mount Horeb.

(6) And he said to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her.” (7) And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, bowed down, and kissed him; and they asked each other about their welfare, and they went into the tent.

Jethro obviously sent word to Moses when he was a way off that he was coming with Moses's wife and children.  Moses went out to meet him, bowed out of respect to him, kissed him, and they each asked about how the other was doing, and then went inside the tent.

(8) And Moses told his father-in-law all that the LORD had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had come upon them on the way, and how the LORD had delivered them. (9) And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the LORD had done for Israel, whom He had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians.

Moses told Jethro about all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and the Egyptians in order to deliver Israel from their hands.  He told him about all the hardships they had encountered in the wilderness, and how the Lord had delivered them out of each and every one.  Jethro was very happy to hear of all the good things the Lord had done for Israel.

(10) And Jethro said, “Blessed be the LORD, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh, and who has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. (11) Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods, for in the thing in which they dealt proudly, He was above them.”

Jethro gave the glory to God for what He had done.  Now Jethro knew that the Lord was greater than all the other gods.  In all the ways they acted proudly, whether it was the way they enslaved the children of Israel, or the magicians who tried to mimic the Lord, or Pharaoh himself laying down the law, in all the ways they dealt proudly, the Lord was greater than the Egyptians and all their gods.  It was Matthew Henry who pointed out in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "While the Israelites were themselves murmuring, notwithstanding all God's goodness to them, here was a Midianite rejoicing."  Jethro was a priest, a Midianite priest.  What exactly did that mean with regard to his belief in the one true God?  He was a godly man; that part seems obvious by his words and behavior.  I don't believe Moses would have married the daughter of a pagan priest.  Some say he was always a believer in the one true God, and this was just confirmation to him.  Others believe he was at this time converted to the one true God.  I believe it might be a little of both.  Midian was a son of Abraham from his wife Keturah (Gen. 25:1-2).  I have read that the Midianites worshiped a variety of gods, but as Abrahamic descendants, they would have had knowledge of the one true God.  From scripture, we have to assume they had indeed turned away from the one true God as they were not included with God's children of Israel.  Jethro, having knowledge of the one true God, and having now heard of His miraculous rescue and provision for His people, was convinced that this was the one true God, greater than all other gods he may have worshiped previously.

(12) And Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses's father-in-law before God.

I believe it may have been to confirm with a sign of his belief in the one true God, and his desire to worship and give glory to the Lord, that Jethro then gave a burnt offering and offered sacrifices to the Lord.  Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to share and eat in the place of the offered sacrifices to the Lord.

(13) And it came to pass on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. (14) And when Moses's father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand by you from morning until evening?” (15) And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. (16) When they have a matter, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.”

Even though his father-in-law had come for a visit, it appears that on the next day, Moses was back to work, apparently counseling the people, answering inquiries, and judging controversies between people.  It appears to have been an unending task, as people were lined up before him from morning until evening.  Jethro asked Moses about it, I think his point being why Moses "alone" sat and judged the people from morning until evening.  Moses answered matter-of-factly that he did it because the people came to him.  He realized that they saw that God worked through Moses and spoke to him, so they came to him to know the will of God; and I am sure Moses was happy to be a mediator between God and the people, happy that they trusted him to be led by God, and happy they sought their Lord's will.  Additionally, when the people had a matter they could not solve, they came to Moses to judge between the parties, making known God's laws in each situation. 

(17) And Moses's father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good. (18) You will surely wear away, both you, and this people that is with you; for this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself."

How many times do good people of integrity pile too much on themselves thinking it is their responsibility?  Jethro, as the wise father-in-law, was teaching Moses to delegate!  Sometimes it takes an outsider to see more clearly what is going on and what is needed.  Jethro could see it was no good the way it was being done at present.  Not that anything was morally wrong, but he could see how time consuming it was, and that Moses would wear himself out at that rate, and then wouldn't be any good to any of the people.  The people's patience would probably wear thin having to wait in lines all day to hear what Moses had to say.

(19) “Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the causes to God. (20) And you shall teach them ordinances and laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do."

Jethro was a wise man and may have been given understanding and a solution to Moses's problem by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  He had just confessed that the Lord was greatest of all, and had sacrificed to the Lord, and might well have received insights from the Holy Spirit, as he made it a point to tell Moses to listen to him, he would give him counsel, and God would be with him.  Moses was to stand before God between God and the people as their mediator, which sounds like what he had been doing, but it would come to mean just the difficult cases would come before Moses.  Moses would teach the people about God's ordinances and laws; then they would not have to bring every little thing to him.  He would not just teach them legalism, but he would show them the way in which they should walk before the Lord, and the works they should do.  He would teach them about their way of life as children of the Lord.

(21) “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. (22) And let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. (23) If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”

Additionally, Moses was to select men from all the people to be "rulers", as the scripture says, but their jobs appear to be judges; perhaps "wardens" or "overseers" or "managers" might be the preferred definitions of the word "sar".  Although scripture doesn't say exactly how this was to work, I found this rather concise and sensible description of how it worked from the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others:  "Whatever matter the decarch, or ruler over ten, could not decide, went to the pentecontarch, or ruler of fifty, and thence by degrees to the hecatontarch, or ruler over a hundred, to the chiliarch, or ruler over a thousand, to Moses, and at length to God himself. Each magistrate had the care or inspection of only ten men; the decarch superintended ten private characters; the hecatontarch ten decarchs; and the chiliarch, ten hecatontarchs."

I love this description of how Moses was to select judges!  They were to be men who feared God, men of truth, and unselfish men who hated covetousness, the idea being that they would do their work for God, and would never pervert justice for personal gain.  Imagine if we selected judges by that criteria now!  Our land wouldn't be filled with the blood of tens of millions of unborn babies, for one thing!  The men Moses selected were to judge at all times, taking care of all the small matters, bringing to Moses only what was too difficult for them to judge.  In this way, it would be easier on Moses, as he would have "lower court judges", so to speak, bearing some of the burden of judging the people with him.  Jethro offered this good advice and plan, but was modest enough to leave the decision of whether or not to invoke it, to Moses under the direction of God.  However, if he did follow this plan, Jethro added that Moses would be able to endure and continue helping the people, and the people would be able to go to their places in peace, having had their disputes handled in a much more timely manner.

(24) So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said.

Knowing the nature of Moses, I am quite sure he did pray about the matter and receive confirmation from God, and did follow the advice of his father-in-law.  Moses was not afraid to take the advice of an outsider or "inferior".  John Wesley said it well, "Those are not so wise as they would be thought to be, who think themselves too wise to be counselled; for a wise man will hear, and will increase learning, and not slight good counsel, though given by an inferior."

(25) And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. (26) And they judged the people at all seasons; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

Moses indeed chose judges from among the people and made them heads of groups of people, and they judged the people's smaller matters at all times.  Only the more difficult cases were brought to Moses.

(27) And Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way to his own land.

After that, Moses "let" his father-in-law leave.  Perhaps he had been encouraging him to stay, as many of the commentaries I read point to a passage in Numbers believing it to be the same time as this, when Moses was doing just that.  Perhaps he reluctantly allowed this wise counselor and aid to him to depart back to his own country.  It does seem that Jethro now had, if not a new, definitely a renewed and enhanced knowledge of the Lord that he would now take back to his people in Midian.  I am struck by this awesome example of how God often uses people to enact His will.  God could have easily told Moses Himself how to set up this "judicial system".  By using Jethro, someone who could have been considered Moses's inferior, Moses was helped by remaining humble and teachable.  A "lesser" man could have certainly become terribly prideful by this time.  God, in His mercy, was constantly teaching and refining Moses.  In addition, think of all the good that could come from Jethro going back to his people to tell them of all that the Lord had done, and how he was convinced that He was the greatest of all gods.  I always love watching a Godly plan come together!