God had been with him already, how he was with him all through his life. Especially we may notice-I. /-Jis relation to Pharaoh. The shepherd facing the king. Whence his boldness? He bad shrunk beforehand at the mere prospect; when the hour came Pharaoh quailed before him. It was not Moses, it was the power which manifested itself through Moses, that humbled Pharaoh. Moses was but the visible rod in the ulllstretcbed hand of the invisible Jehovah. 2. His relation to the people. Harder to face a I ckle multitude than to face an obstinate and powerful monarch. Here too the Pi vine power was manifested; the glory of Jehovah was, as it were, reflected from the face of his servant. It was theradiancy of the reflected glory which again and again cowed the rebels to submission. As with Jeremiah (Jer. i. 4-8), Zerubbabel (Zed. iv. 6), St. Paul (2 Cor. xii. 9, 10), so also with Moses; human weakness the more evidently testified to Divine power. 11. THE HUMAN COUNSEL. Notice :-1 The need of it. Men are so weak that they are soon unhinged by a great trust reposed in them. 'lbeir attention is so fixed upun the one thing, that other things are seen out of perspective. Moses was so filled with the consciousness of a Divine power working through him, that he failed at first to realise the fact that he was unequal to the friction necessitated by such a power. He realised the effect of the power in prospect more accurately than he could do after it possessed him (cf. eh. iv.). As the mediator between God and Israel, had it not been for Jetbro's counsel, he must soon have been worn out through forgetting the necessities of his own nature. Lives are still wasted and shortened through a like oversight. The ruan who feels that he is the channel of Divine power is, for the time, so God-intoxi- cated, that it does not occur to him to share his responsibilities. He must be both head and hands in everything, and the head. in consequence soon grows heavy, and the hands hang down. Under the force of inspiration, common-sense is in abey- ance; all the more need for wise counsel from those who occupy a neutral stand-point. 2. The wisdom of it. Jethro saw that the great thing was not that Moses should do all the work, but that all the work should be done. The power to do it, was no doubt lodged with Moses (cf. water-power lodged with keeper of sluice gates). The work, however, might be best done by a distribution of the power through selected agents. Moses need not to be head and hands ; he might choose other hands, making them responsible to himself as heacl. Moses showed his wisdom by accepting the wise counsels of Jethro; many men would have shown their folly by setting them aside as the suggestions of ignorance. Concluding considerations. Inspiration is a grand thing; but it may be best utilised by common-sense. God's power enables for action; but that power is best applied when the counsels of Jethro are attended to. .All men have not the same gifts; and those who have what seem to be the higher gifts, are apt to set too small a value upon advice given by those less gifted. Even the gift of faith, however, needs the gift of wisdom to direct it. Moses was able to do more than he otherwise could have done because he was wise enough to hearken to the voice of Jethro, his father-in-law. G.
EXPOSITION. Ver. 27.-DEPARTUREOFJETHRO. Tbetime with Jethro find in Nam. x. 29-32 a proof of J ethro's departure, and indeed of his entire tha.t at any rate Jethro prolonged his visit visit, bas been matter of controversy. Kurtz until after the law was given, and did not is of opinion that Jethro waited till the news " depart to his own land " before t.he removal of Isrnel's victory over .A.malek reached him, of the people from the wilderness of Sina.i to before setting out from his own country. that of Pa.ran, "in the 20th day of the second Hence he concludes, that " a whole month or month of the second year" (ib. ver. 11). The more may easily have intervened between the position, however, of eh. xviii., together victory over Ama.lek and the arrival of Jethro," with its contents-both what it sa.ys and what whose arrival in tha.t case " would not even it omits-are conclusive against this view. fall into the very earliest period of the sojourn ' Jethro started on his journey when he heo.rd o.t Sinai, but after the promulgation of the first "that the Lord had brought Israel out of Sinaitic la.w,'' Those who identify Hobab : Egypt" (ver. l), not when he hea.l'd that Isnul 102 'l'HE BOOK OF EXODUS. [en. XVIII. 27.
~ad been victorious o,•er Amalek. His con- The argument from Num. x 29-32 foils versation with Moses (vers. 7-11) ranged e.ltogether,sosoon as it is seen that Jethro e.nd over the entire series of deliverances from the Hobe.b a.re distinct persons, probably brothers, night of the departure oar of Egypt to the sons of Reuel ( or Raguel), e.nd brothers- in-law Amalekite defeat, but contained no allusion to of Moses. the giving of the le.w. The occupation of Ver. 27.-1110881 let his fe.ther-in-le.w Moses on the de.y e.~er his arrival (ver. 13) depart. Literally, "dismissed him," ",,ent is swtable to the quiet period which followed him away." This single expression is quite enough to prove that the Hobab, whom Moses the Amalekite defeat, but not to the exciting me.de strenuous efforts to keep with him afte1 time of the Sine.itic manifestations. It me.y Sinai we.s left, is not the Jethro whom he we.s be added that the practice of inculcating qwte content to let go. He went his way into general principles on occasion of his particular his own land. He returned to Midie.n, probably Judgments, of which Moses speaks (ver. 16), crossing the Ele.nitic gulf, which divided Midie.n from the Sine.itic region. The exe.ct time of is suitable to the period anterior to the promul- the departure is uncertain ; but it we.s probably gation of the le.w, but not to that following it. before the lll8.i.n events related in eh x.ix.