Sailhamer on Jethro and Melchizedek

Jethro, Moses' Father-in-law (18:1-27)

The father-in-law of Moses goes by several names: Reuel in 2:16-22; Jether in 4:18; Jethro in 3:1; and Hobab in Nu 10:29. Moses had lived with his father-in-law as a shepherd (3:1). In Ex 3 he is called by God to return to Egypt. Although 4:19-20 makes it appear that Moses took his wife and two sons with him when he returned to Egypt, we learn from this passage that Moses had returned them to his father-in-law before going back to Egypt. Perhaps the purpose of the mysterious narrative in 4:24-26 is intended to give some motivation for the return of Moses' wife and family to Jethro.

The present narrative has many parallels with the account of Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek in Ge 14. Just as Melchizedek, the priest of Salem, met Abraham bearing gifts as he returned from battle (Ge 14:18ff.), so Jethro, the Midianite priest, came out with Moses's wife and sons to offer peace as Moses returned from the battle with the Amalekites. Melchizedek praised God for his rescue of Abraham from his enemies saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High . . . who delivered your enemies into your hand” (Ge 14:19), just as Jethro praised God saying “Blessed be the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians. . . . The LORD is greater than all other gods” (Ex 18:10). Melchizedek brought out bread and wine as a priest of God Most High and Abraham tithed to him (Ge 14:18ff.), and Jethro brought out a burnt offering and other sacrifices and ate bread with Moses and Aaron.

The purpose of such parallels appears to be to cast Jethro as another Melchizedek, the paradigm of the righteous Gentile. It is important that Jethro have such credentials because he plays a major role in this chapter, instructing Moses, the lawgiver himself, how to carry out the administration of God's law with Israel. Thus, just as Abraham was met by Melchizedek the priest (Ge 14), before God made a covenant with him in Ge 15, so Moses was met by Jethro, the priest (Ex 18), before God made a covenant with him at Sinai (Ex 19ff.).

Sailhamer, John (1994) NIV Compact Commentary (pp. 85-86) Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Comments

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ. On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion. The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin. The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know. So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he kne...

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here. I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions. This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration. I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him. I assume he is a brother in the LORD. Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern: Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a good and healthy example? Let's think about it some together. (Watch this clip below here first.) Context: The clip was posted to stand on its own a...

Search This Blog