Yitro: wise... noble... Midianite

Although this week’s parashah may be most readily remembered for containing the Ten Commandments, it takes its name from Yitro (Jethro), a Midianite priest who is the father-in-law of Moses.

It contains two episodes. In the first, Moses relates the story of the exodus from Egypt, to which Jethro responds by rejoicing and praising God.

Jethro also brings sacrifices and seems to take the lead in them: the text states that Aaron came to join in the meal, not that he came to conduct the sacrifice for Jethro. It is remarkable that a foreign priest would officiate at such a sacrifice, and medieval commentators took this to indicate that Jethro had converted to the Hebrew religion.

There is, however, a precedent for it in Genesis 14, where Melchizedek, king of Salem, brings bread and wine and praises God after a victory on the part of Abraham.
But Melchizedek is described as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18), and it can also be argued that the reason that Jethro can praise and sacrifice to God here is not because he becomes a proselyte, but because Israel and Midian share a belief in the same God. In fact, where medieval commentators attempted to read this episode as the story of Jethro’s conversion, later critics attempted to read it as the conclusion of Israel’s conversion to a Midianite YHWH cult.

In its context, the episode serves to glorify God by demonstrating how quickly the news of Israel’s liberation had spread. Jethro’s visit serves to confirm that this was not just a minor, local event, but the work of a “world-class” god: Jethro is the out-of-town expert whose observation provides the confirmation.

In the second episode, Jethro serves as a management consultant. It is tempting to read his advice to Moses as the meddling of a father-in-law who has already overstayed his welcome. The fact that Moses adopts the suggestion without hesitation, however, militates against such a reading.

Jethro’s plan for the organization of a civil judiciary seems alien to the culture of Israel. It has no apparent basis in the tribal structure, and it is strange that, after placing so much emphasis on the organization of tribes and families, the story should suddenly turn to a form of organization that supersedes tribal and family structure. Deuteronomy 16:18, on the other hand, envisions the appointment of magistrates and officials “for your tribes.”

Whether Jethro’s plan has any historicity is open to debate. Nahum Sarna concludes that the very attribution of it to a Midianite priest is evidence of its antiquity and authority, but also cites a parallel from II Chronicles 19, in which King Jehoshaphat appointed judges in Judah. This parallel suggests the possibility of a different source for the plan: not in antiquity, but in judicial reforms carried out during the monarchical period.

If this plan represents a program for the reform of the judiciary, it might provide a history for a plan that had actually been implemented by the time of the composition. Such a judicial reorganization has many parallels in feudal societies, and the plan attributed to Jehoshaphat in II Chronicles supports it. On the other hand, it is hard to see any reason for attributing it to a Midianite.

The second possibility is that this plan reflects not an actual reform of the judiciary, but a proposal for such a reform. The same objection could be raised to this possibility, but the case of a proposed rather than actual reform suggests a reason for it.

That reason lies in the character of Jethro. He is one of surprisingly few characters of whom the Bible expresses unqualified approval; in fact, the nobility of his character is striking.

Thus, the purpose of attributing a reform plan to Jethro would be to give it a special kind of sanction: the cachet of originating with a character whose every word and action represent wisdom of the highest order.

Sarna observes that Jethro “fills for Moses the role that Joseph had filled for Pharaoh.” But Jethro serves as a successor to Joseph in a much more important way. His quick recognition and praise of God are reminiscent of Joseph’s haste to attribute his own abilities to God and, in his maturity, to reflect that God brought good out of evil not only for him, but for all the people. In his advice to Moses, Jethro invokes God’s sanction for his plan not as a rhetorical device, but because he has come to possess this higher wisdom.

In such a reading, the parallel account of the judicial reform in Deuteronomy might represent an idealization of Israel’s history, but the attribution of it to Jethro in Exodus 18 would represent an effort to place it in a context neither of divine revelation, which does not seem to apply to it at all, nor of mere expediency, as the Deuteronomy account might suggest, but rather in the context of a wisdom tradition of which primarily Joseph and secondarily Jethro are the Biblical exemplars.