Not only does God provide the best government possible for a fallen world, but he also provides the best government for a redeemed world. The rule of Christ, a Christocracy, is the best and future government.

Exodus 18:1-26; Hebrews 3:1-6

A seventeenth century political theorist, Johannes Althusius, extolled: “I consider that no polity from the beginning of the world has been more wisely and perfectly constructed than the polity of the Jews. We err, I believe, whenever in similar circumstances we depart from it.” Part of what he had in mind as unimprovable was an early form of republican-federal government. American Christians would do well to review the origins of our own form of government to realize its biblical moorings. I wish to persuade you of the following:

Proposition:

The government laid down in the Scriptures is the best source for human government.

Corollary:

The best form of government comes from the mind of God, not the management of man.

Many Christians do not imagine that the Bible has very much to tell our government, our governors, and the governed. Many Christians also believe that the Bible is more piously-minded than to bother itself with mundane matters like politics. Admittedly, biblical statements on matters of government rarely produce goose bumps or laughing revivals.

However, the Bible’s information and instructions on matters of civil government are equally matters of revelation, as are its statements pertaining to salvation, social responsibility, prayer, or providence. Hence, the sincere disciple will want to know God’s mind on this matter (2 Tim. 3:16). James H. Thornwell helpfully pointed out:

While we admit that questions of government are subordinate in importance to questions of faith, mere trifles compared with the great truths of the Gospel…it does not follow that they are of no value….Because…government is not the great thing, it does not follow that it is nothing. . . We wish to study the whole will of God, and we wish to give everything precisely that prominence which he designs that it should occupy in his own Divine economy.

To the extent that one is committed to know that “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:28), civil government will be a part of the Christian mind. Thankfully, in our generation Christians are maturing in this area. Thorough commitment to be submissive to the whole counsel of God, even in the spheres of government, is one of the distinguishing marks of biblical Christianity—even though in some eras, Christians may have ignored this topic. The Christian will cling to all that God has revealed about government or any other subject, as long as the revelation is properly interpreted. Believers will stubbornly refuse to act as editors or evaluators who seek to prioritize canons within canons of Holy Writ. All Scripture is inspired and profitable—even the verses that inform about civil structure or government. Evidently, God did not think these subjects were beneath the dignity of revelation. He gave quite a large body of information on the subject. Hence, one wishes to benefit from the Bible’s revealed organizational corpus, as well as from its revealed soteriological corpus. Both have the same divine origin.

The heart of biblical order is the belief that sinful minds, apart from the special revelation of God, will not automatically conceive correct structures. Hence, as an act of his mercy much like his revelation in the law, God gives to his people that which they would not concoct on their own. In his mercy, he spares not only eternal lostness, but also some measure of temporal lostness by obviating the need to search for sound organizational principles and structures. Instead of abandoning his creation to the futility of Sisyphus, God reveals the basic pattern of government for his people. He did not leave Christians in the dark. The regular life and ordering of the state is far too important, at least to God, to leave to caprice, to the shifting sands of corporate culture, or to human ingenuity. Such revelation from God on political matters is a token of God’s grace, wisdom, and providence. The founders of America appropriated these teachings better than many of our contemporaries.

For those who value organizational efficiency, it is not necessary to “re-invent the wheel.” The biblical aspects of government need not be ignored by each successive generation, nor rediscovered by alternating generations. One could profit much by studying the “old paths” (Jer. 6:16, 18:15), and by attempting to mold governments after the patterns of spiritual ancestors. That, far from being a pharisaic expression of traditionalism, is the better part of wisdom in the search to rule out inefficient modes of governing. History has heuristic value in helping to eliminate erroneous dead-end paths and ineffective nostrums.

For example, the opening chapters of Genesis raise the major themes that are still subject to discussion today. The first chapter of Scripture even provides a basic pattern for matters of government, albeit indirectly. Genesis 1:16 states that God created the two major lights (the sun and the moon) that are evident from earth. Those created luminaries were designed to “rule” over the day or the night; and importantly, not vice-versa. Each “light” was designed to rule over a limited jurisdiction; neither was totalitarian. Thus, early on in creation one may observe that God creates but then delegates certain prerogatives to his creation. That is true for government—familial, civil, or ecclesiastical. The state as a human agency for organization is created by God, and is to be maintained in keeping with his design. A state may lawfully acknowledge that it is not de novo, and still maintain its prerogatives to govern. Governance, by nature, is delegated from the Creator. The roles within governments, therefore, are not purely human, nor created by the will of man. Most perfectly, any system which rules will do so sensitive to its status as created, and not confuse itself with, nor usurp, the prerogatives of its Creator. On the other extreme, states that do not acknowledge their status as created may be prone to call on their subjects to treat the state (or some other created object – Rom. 1:21-26) as divine.

Later in Genesis 1, the idea of “dominion” validates human government as a legitimate activity as long as it is confined to its proper creaturely role. Genesis 1:26 and 28 contain divine commands for humans to “rule” over certain areas. The specified areas in this case are over animal life and “over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Psalm 8:6 also affirms that God established humans to be “ruler[s] over the works of [God’s] hands.” Often referred to as the “cultural mandate,” these commands certainly include governmental and political activity. Political activity is a calling, a mandate, and an activity which may honor the Creator. Hence, we do not begin by viewing government as inherently evil or malicious. It is not merely a “necessary evil.” Ruling or dominion is an activity assigned to humans before the Fall, not as a necessary evil resulting from the entrance of sin into the world. Although no specific form of government is indicated at this early stage, the first week of creation does validate orderly government as a divine commission.

Specifically, Exodus 18 (Jethro and Moses) provides an early example of federal-republican structure, which became the basis for our American republic. That is to assert that our government structure is inherently and originally religious in nature and root.

The best government in the world models and follows the best government in the Bible.

1. Narrative

a. Background to Exodus Passage

During a severe famine in the 19th century BC, the Israelites went down to Egypt under Joseph’s nurture. At first, Israel’s sons were part of the ruling class, but when a new Egyptian dynasty arose (Ex. 1:8), the Israelites were subjected to slavery (Ex. 1:12-14). The oppression of the Jews grew under this repressive monarchy until God raised up a deliverer: Moses.

A reluctant revolutionary, Moses demonstrated the superiority of God over Pharaoh by ten plagues, the last of which cost Pharaoh his first-born son. Finally, the Israelites were allowed to leave Egypt and return to form their own nation-state. Although Pharaoh pursued, God protected these people, but they continued to rebel. Their rebellion resulted in a generation-long wandering in the Sinai wilderness. The spirit of rebelliousness against God’s authority necessarily had to be extinguished before Israel could begin to possess their land. Still, even in this wilderness, God was preparing Moses and the people for the Republic of Israel.

b. Political Background: Monarchies Everywhere

During the time of Moses and Pharaoh, there was a consistent tradition of governmental structure. In the earliest of times, small units were governed by patriarchs or elders. As time and culture progressed, and as human leaders began to aspire to higher levels of power, the earliest nations came into existence (e. g., Gen. 10). These early nations adopted a convention that both has value and also has great potential for abuse: monarchy. Algernon Sydney suggested that Nimrod was the first monarch, beginning a tradition in violence and arrogance. What may have been a deviation from God’s original plan, persisted until the time of Moses. In between Nimrod and Moses, the notion of a republic vanished or seemed unknown. The donation of a republican structure to the world would await the divine revelation through a non-Israeli.

A century before Moses, still most governments were either small tribal units, or if large, monarchies. The pinnacle of Egyptian culture saw monarch after monarch follow one another in dynastic succession. The great Pharaohs – Rameses, Thutmoses, and Tutankhamon – were authoritarian monarchs, pure and simple. In the half century preceding Moses, there were no institutions like the senate, a council, no other checking branches of government. Unilateral power was located in the monarch, both in the Middle East and the Far East.

Moreover, all that the people of Israel knew—four centuries after the time of Jacob—was the monarchical pattern of government. They had no other ideas or notions about government, other than the hierarchical form. Other schemes were forgotten, unknown, or at least not practiced anywhere around them. Thus, the republican-type plan suggested by Jethro comes as such an innovation and did not have its origin in the mind of man or the will of the flesh.

2. Jethro’s Republic

a. Who Was Jethro?

In Exodus 18, Jethro is introduced as “the priest of Midian and father-in-law of Moses.” Earlier (Ex. 2:18), Moses’ father-in-law had been called “Reuel.” Rather than viewing this as in inherent contradiction within the pages of Scripture, one of two solutions provides a harmony. When Exodus 2:21 speaks of Reuel as giving his daughter (Zipporah) in marriage to Moses, linguistically it is possible that Zipporah was the niece or granddaughter of Reuel, the term “father” used of him in the sense of patriarch or head of the extended family. Under that construction, Reuel would be the grandfather or great uncle of Zipporah, with Jethro being her father and Moses’ father-in-law. That is one linguistic possibility.

A more likely explanation is that Reuel was the family name, surname, or nick-name of Jethro. Frequently, biblical characters were known by several names (Jacob-Israel, Peter-Cephas, Daniel-Belteshazzar). That being the case, it is difficult to believe that the Bible would be so mindless as to contradict itself within the span of a few short verses, when this character is called “Reuel” in Exodus 2:18, and only eight verses later (Ex. 3:1) is called “Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.” Thus, most commentators sympathetic to the authenticity of Scripture, understand these two names to refer to the same person.

As early as Exodus 3:1, therefore, we see a priest who is of non-Israeli origin—one of the many cases of God using and dwelling in others than Israelites in the OT. Jethro was either a member/priest of a false cult, deserving, according to the Mosaic legislation, death as a false prophet and idolater; or he was a pre-Israeli believer. He certainly was not a Muslim, a Hindu, a pantheist, or a polytheist. He seemed to worship and serve the true God. Contrary to some ideas, God did not work exclusively with or through Jews in the OT. Jethro, as we shall see, was quite mature and spiritually minded; so much so that in Exodus 18 he served as a spiritual mentor to Moses.

Following the exodus from Egypt, Jethro hears the good news. As any parent, he is anxious to reunite his daughter’s family. During the critical period leading up to the Exodus, evidently Moses sent Zipporah and his two sons (Gershom and Eliezer) to remain in Jethro’s safe-keeping (Ex. 18:2-4)—another indication that Jethro was not a priest in a false cult. Moses would hardly resort to idolatrous supervision of his wife and sons, if Jethro had been so evil. The presumption of the narrative, therefore, is that Jethro is on the side of God. His subsequent insight and advice seem to confirm that.

Jethro heard what “God had done for Moses and for his people Israel, and how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt.” (Ex. 18:1) Accordingly, as soon as possible, Jethro, Zipporah, and Moses’ sons travel to meet him in the desert (Ex. 18:5). To observe something of the respect Moses had for Jethro, one may note that it was Moses who went out to greet his father-in-law (18:7), not vice-versa. Moreover, Moses “bowed down and kissed him,” certainly a sign of respect and admiration unexpected for an idolater. After these initial greetings, they conversed and counseled one another about “everything the Lord had done to Pharaoh…and how the Lord had saved them.” (Ex. 18:8) Such spiritual conversation was fitting for fellow-believers. Indeed, Jethro’s reaction to these reports further evidences his since faith: “Jethro was delighted to hear about all the good things the Lord had done for Israel in rescuing them from the hand of the Egyptians.” (18:9) He praised the Lord and acknowledged God as the true rescuer of Israel (18:10). He confessed emphatically (“Now I know”) that “the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.” (18:11). These sincere affirmations and expressions of praise are climaxed with a sacrificial feast – never condemned in the slightest by Moses nor by God himself. Jethro, not Moses, offers a burnt offering and sacrifice to God, and Aaron and the elders join in the feast “with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God.” (18:12) This was no pagan feast; it was one celebrated by those who knew God best. And in this case, Jethro was perhaps more spiritually advanced than even Moses.

3. The Plan

Jethro observed and proceeded to make other recommendations. The following day, Jethro observed Moses acting as judge for the people. He listened to their cases from morning till evening. No one else shared in the government with him. Even though gifted and well-meaning, Jethro had the spiritual insight to suggest a better method of governance—an early republican model. He told Moses (v. 14) that what he was doing was not right: “Why do you alone sit as judge?” Moses gave an answer, but Jethro replied: “What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people, men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain, and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. . . . If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.” (Ex. 18:17-25)

A form of governing is introduced during Moses’ leadership. The presence of elders as community leaders is apparent from early times (Ex. 3:16; 4:29). Rather than instituting either a democracy or a monarchy, God raises up a plurality of mature, prudent representative leaders. They are to have wisdom, the fear of the Lord, trustworthiness, and hatred of graft (Ex. 18:21). This early form of a representative government indicates that layers of accountability (Ex. 18:21) are warranted, with differing levels of leadership hearing appeals and acting on matters as they arise (Dt. 1:15-18). In contrast to the predominance of monarchs at the time, Jethro did not advocate a monarchy. Instead, he advised Moses to institute a graduated series of administrations. This early pattern permits problems to be handled first by those closest to the issues. Then, if not satisfactory, they may proceed to the next level of administration (appeal). Both church and state share this feature in their best governmental manifestations. This federal structure preserves a blend of grass-rootedness with a modicum of unity. The earliest American constitutional documents sought to preserve and perpetuate this delicate balance between unity and independence. It seems that the earliest republican form of government came from the mind of God, through Jethro, a non-Israeli priest, long before either the Golden Age of Greco-Roman governance or the Enlightenment or modern revolutions.

Read More