Micah commands us to beat our "swords into plowshares" (Micah 4:1-7). Jesus commanded His followers to put their swords away (Matthew 26:52).
Jesus said ("Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). John Calvin recognized that
"The sum of this Commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one. Under the word 'kill' is included by synecdoche all violence, smiting, and aggression."[1]
Jesus also said "Thou shalt not steal," (Matthew 19:18; Exodus 20:13-16; Deuteronomy 5:17-20), meaning, Thou shalt not confiscate someone else's property.
So can we all agree that basic Christian morality includes this:
But Jesus goes further. He says we are not to hurt our enemy. Even if our enemy hurts us first. Consider these commands:
So how does the world get to the “Vine & Fig Tree” world? According to the Bible, just follow basic Christian morality:
Then if someone else decides to hurt you or take your stuff.
That means that if someone hurts you or takes your stuff, and you seek reconciliation, but you're rebuffed, then you cannot hire a Mafia "hit-man" to take vengeance against your unrepentant enemy.
Most Christians will agree with that.
But here's the kicker:
If someone hurts you or takes your stuff, and you seek reconciliation, but you're rebuffed, then you cannot "vote" for a "representative" to tax your neighbor and build a "military-industrial complex" to take vengeance against your unrepentant enemy.
That claim causes many people to do a double-take. Your Sunday School teacher never put it quite like that.
In other words, if you take Jesus seriously, you will not only be a "pacifist," but you'll be an "anarchist" -- that is, an advocate of no "elected representatives." No "civil government." Jesus said, When the enemy government enslaves you for one mile, Go a second mile (Matthew 5:41). If you take this verse seriously, it means "national defense" is a sin. If Jesus commands you to "Render unto Caesar," that is, to pay taxes to your enemy, who invaded your country, slaughtered thousands of your countrymen, and put your country under tribute (an undemocratic military occupation government that enslaves and pillages your people), and subject yourselves to their tyranny, going a second mile of conscripted labor, why would you not beat your swords into plowshares?
But nobody takes Jesus that seriously. That's "taking things to an extreme." Well, it's taking things to 100%. We believe in obeying Jesus with 100% of our heart, 100% of our soul, 100% of our mind, and 100% of our strength (Mark 12:30).
We believe God should be the government over every area of our life. Being pacifists, and letting God govern us, is the path to Utopia.
Imagine that I have supernatural powers of persuasion, and while your back was turned, I persuaded every human being on planet earth to become Christian pacifists and patriarchs, sons of Abraham by adoption.
Abraham is the Christian's model
God never gave Abraham a command to form a "civil government." This is why righteousness and justice prevailed.
PATRIAGORA
πατριά - Patria | Family + Market | Agora - ἀγορά
The Family Creates a Free Market without “Church” or “State”
"Patria" is the Greek word for "Family."
"Agora" is the Greek word for "market."
"Polis" is the Greek word for "State" or "City-State." History, according to the Bible, is the conflict between Patria and Polis.
St. Augustine characterized this conflict as
Rushdoony properly characterized "the City of Man" as "The Society of Satan." Romans 13 speaks of the civil government as "The Powers that Be." "The State" has a demonic origin.
Pacifist patriarchs create a Free Market: Capitalism
Sword-bearing politicians create Socialism.
Imagine a society of fully-functioning obedient patriarchs, living peacefully under their own “Vine & Fig Tree” in a state of "anarcho-capitalism." Think of Abraham, Noah, Job, and other Patriarchs. There is no "state" and no "church" (priesthood).
Imagine that Godly patriarchs hire Free Market Dispute Resolution Organizations using Matthew 18 as an economic and social paradigm, to resolve all disputes, wholly apart from any "civil government" or "ecclesiastical body." Imagine that parents teach the Law of God to their children and to children who are without Godly parents, and crime is almost non-existent.
Imagine that every social function needed by human beings is provided by a market free from regulation and interference by "civil governments."
This is the key battle in human history:
Having used my supernatural powers of persuasion, I'm proud of the results I've achieved:
• Swords into plowshares.
• Families living peacefully under their own “Vine & Fig Tree”
But . . .
Some would say this is all wrong.
Some would say this is sinful.
Some would say those pacifist patriarchs need to beat their plowshares into swords and create "civil governments."
If you wish to overturn the results of my persuasion, how would you do it?
Which verse in the Bible requires the repudiation of Free Markets and the creation of some degree of a socialist sword-based monopoly of violence called "civil government?"
If we are truly sons of Abraham, and follow in his footsteps, obeying all of God's commands, we will have a family-centered free market. But someone from another country says that this is not right. This person says this anarcho-capitalist family-centered society needs to create a "civil government." 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism is not good; there needs to be some socialism, this foreigner says.
And to buttress his claim, he offers two passages of Scripture:
Let's look carefully at those passages. We'll find that these "elders" are a temporary, remedial class created in response to a failed generation of patriarchs.
The State is a Monopoly of Violence
Every Professor of Political Science in every university on the face of the earth will agree that "civil government" has two essential features:
"Civil government" can threaten violence against people ("Pay us taxes or we will hurt you.") and nobody else in society is allowed to do this. If a group of people calling themselves "The State" does not threaten violence, it is not "the State." It's more like the Rotary Club. If Group #2 can prevent the use of violence by Group #1, then Group #1 is not "the State," it's just a criminal gang. The most powerful criminal gang is "the Civil Government." Details.
In the New Testament, "elders" are considered officers of "the Church," not the State. They are "ecclesiastical," not "civil."
In the Old Testament, "elders" are considered officers of the Civil Magistrate, not the Church. They are "civil," not "ecclesiastical."
Why this apparent contradiction?
Because "elders" are neither "civil" nor "ecclesiastical." They are not part of "church" or "state." They are part of the Family. They are patriarchal, not civil, not ecclesiastical.
Exodus 18:13-26 New King James Version (NKJV) |
|
| 13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. 14 So when Moses’ 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 before you from morning until evening?” | In the year 2022, who is the analogue to "Moses" and who represents "Jethro" (Moses' father-in-law). In other words, who has the moral authority to intervene in a free market of patriarchs (patria-agora) and set up a dysfunctional "civil government" over these functional families?
Note: the generation coming out of slavery in Egypt was not "functional," but dysfunctional. They wanted to go back to slavery in Egypt rather than continue their trek to the Promised Land. God destroyed that generation. Subsequent generations were also failures. The entire Old Covenant age was a failure. "Finding fault with them" (Hebrews 8:8), God inaugurated a New Covenant. Further, even Moses at that point did not have the complete revelation of God's Law, God's Blueprint for human society. See Numbers 15:34, and "5. 'Strange Fire'" in Gary North, Authority and Dominion, vol. 5, APPENDIX E–The Economic Implications of The Sabbath. pp. 1405ff., and the article cited in note 33 by James B. Jordan. But we have the complete revelation of God for every area of life. No "lawgiver" like Moses is needed in our day. Greg L. Bahnsen notes the distinction between "standing law" and "positive commands for distinct incidents": We should presume that Old Testament standing laws[note26] continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation. What Jethro recommended to Moses is not "standing law" "applicable over time to classes of individuals." The positive laws given by Moses to a generation that God intended to destroy for their faithlessness is not applicable to Christians patriarchs, "sons of Abraham" in the New Covenant. No human being on planet earth in the 21st century has the moral authority to impose a civil government on a community of fully-functioning Christian families networked in a free market. |
| 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.” | Christians in the city of Corinth had a similar problem, only they didn't have Moses. so they went to Caesar to have their disputes resolved. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for this in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11:
Christians don't need a "civil magistrate." In fact, Paul says "it's better to be cheated" than to have a "civil government" resolve your dispute (verse 7). It is also better to be put under military occupation by a foreign invader than to ask a "civil government" to "defend" you (Matthew 5:41). Some will reply, "But without a civil government, our enemies will invade us and enslave us." The Bible says it is better to be enslaved than to resist "the powers." |
| 17 So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good. 18 Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. 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 difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 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 times. Then it will 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.” |
Does a Christian anarcho-capitalist society need a "civil government" to educate people in God's Law? Most Christian advocates of "civil government" agree that education is not a legitimate function of the "civil government." But this is one of the main functions of the system recommended by Jethro. Notice that "rulers" "judge." Elsewhere in Scripture we'll find that "judges" "rule." Judges are also called "saviors," and "saviors" are said to "judge." In our day there is no Moses to appoint these men, and no Moses to hear the "great matters" that cannot be resolved by the lower rulers/judges. Nor are there Apostles to appoint "elders" in "the church." However, a Godly anarcho-capitalist society can create a Free Market Dispute Resolution Franchise for every ten households. God's required Justice can be done under anarcho-capitalism. |
| 24 So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 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 So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves. | If you want to impose this passage on a Christian anarcho-capitalist society that already teaches God's Law and resolves disputes through Free Market Dispute Resolution Organizations, how would you do it? Would you declare yourself to be The New Moses? If not you, who would be The New Moses? Why would The New Moses "appoint" political arbitrators when arbitration is already carried out under direction of the market? Why should we create "the State" and put all our Dispute Resolution Organization employees out of business? This is the essence of corruption: politics taking priority over the Free Market. |
Deuteronomy 1:9-18 New King James Version (NKJV) |
|
Tribal Leaders Appointed |
|
| 9 “And I spoke to you at that time, saying: ‘I alone am not able to bear you. 10 The LORD your God has multiplied you, and here you are today, as the stars of heaven in multitude. 11 May the LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you! 12 How can I alone bear your problems and your burdens and your complaints? 13 Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.’ 14 And you answered me and said, ‘The thing which you have told us to do is good.’ 15 So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and knowledgeable men, and made them heads over you, leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, leaders of tens, and officers for your tribes. | It's necessary to remember an important characteristic of Israel at this time: they were rebellious, faithless, and they were doomed. They were going to be killed in the wilderness by God.
What if they had all been patriarchs like Abraham? What if they followed Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 6 and resolved their disputes in a Freed Market? If that had been the case, they would not need a "civil government," nor would such a society today be morally required to create a "civil government." |
| 16 “Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. 17 You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it.’ 18 And I commanded you at that time all the things which you should do. |
In our assertion that the State is not a legitimate, God-commanded institution, the question of the Elders in the Old Testament is raised; specifically, don't we have in the Mosaic law, or the "judicial laws," or in the account in Exodus 18/Deuteronomy 1 the ordination of "civil government"? Our answer is No.
Exodus 18:13-26 and Deuteronomy 1:9-18 are accounts of a significant event in the history of Israel, but not one which can be or need be literally applied in our day. Abraham is our model, not the generation coming out of Egypt.
Imagine a Godly man in our day -- like Abraham (Genesis 18:17-19; 26:4-5) -- who is "very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold" (Genesis 13:2) and possesses abundant land (Genesis 13:6,14-15) which is surrounded on all sides by some of the 640 million acres of land owned by the federal government.
He and his household (some 10,000 people, Genesis 14:14) enjoy a greater degree of legal sovereignty than native American "nations."
Suppose one of "his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house" is murdered by one of Abraham's lesser-trained servants in front of Abraham and hundreds of witnesses.
Whether the murderer repents and confesses and is resigned to be executed, or whether he denies guilt and refuses to be executed, this case is a piece of cake to adjudicate. Abraham would be wasting your time if he came to you and asked you to advise him in rendering a judgment in the case. You would say "Why are wasting my time with this case? It's a piece of cake."
Assuming this modern-day Abraham believes Biblical Law requires the murderer's blood to be shed, which verse can you cite to prove that he must not shed the murderer's blood himself, but should go to one of "the kings of the gentiles" (Mark 10:42-45) for adjudication and blood-shedding. (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:1-11).
What Biblical evidence is there that this modern-day Abraham is not an "elder" or a "judge" -- although appointed by no one.
There is no Moses in our day, and Moses pointed to Christ (John 1:45; 3:14; 5:46; Hebrews 3; 10:28-29 Deuteronomy 18:15 + Acts 3:22-23; 7:37; Luke 9:30,35), who rules from the right hand of God. The desire for an earthly Moses is, like the desire for an earthly king (1 Samuel 8), a rejection of God and of Abrahamic responsibility.
Nevertheless, for thousands of years Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1 have been a pattern of government which has informed political and ecclesiastical government in every era of church history. This could be a bridge to a fully-functioning Abrahamic patriarchy, or it could become stagnant and institutionalized, losing sight of the “Vine & Fig Tree” goal. When Christians followed Roman Law rather than Biblical Law, the Exodus 18 path to patriarchy (patria) became a path to politics (polis).
The Jews followed this pattern through the time of Christ, and even today 10 men are the basis for the formation of a synagogue. Rushdoony notes,
The origins of the synagogue were perhaps in the Babylonian exile. The synagogue was not only a place of worship but also an elementary school. The synagogue was also regarded as a kind of adult school; it was a place for lectures, and also the scene of legal decisions.[1]As Rushdoony also suggests, the Biblical mandate for the synagogue was found in Exodus 18:20.
Even Christians in our day have attempted to follow this pattern: John Eliot began to implement decimal elders over the Indians to whom he was a missionary. The implications of this localized system of social organization were too much for the civil magistrates of the day; after the Restoration, the Massachusetts General Court found it necessary to suppress Eliot's book. The New England Puritans were corrupted by Roman Law and "classical" Greco-Roman philosophy.
The most valuable studies of Eldership are to be found in Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law (I:739-751; II:367-370, 656-661). Our purpose here is to expand on those studies and show how government by elders (heads of patria) renders the civil State (polis) utterly unnecessary.
There are two explanations for who these elders were.
They could have been "the chief of the fathers of Israel" (2 Chronicles 19:8). In other words, "elders" were, as the name implies, "older" or "mature" patriarchs. Rushdoony writes,
[T]his pattern [in Exodus 18] utilized an already existing family office, the eldership. What it did was to tie in rule with the pattern of family life on the one hand, and the very local community on the other. It was a plan of grass-roots government under God. It placed responsibilities for the major part of government on the family and the local community. [T]he basic institution in Scripture is the family, and the pattern of civil government requires the utilization of the family. Elders were normally heads of clans, and they were the source of leadership in every area of life. They were also known as fathers, and were thus the Fathers of Israel. The office of elder in Israel is thus basic to family, church, and state. It is a central part of Scripture's plan of government in several spheres of life. [Name one sphere in which it is not!] (II:368-369)Elders were thus patriarchs. If this is the case, then the case for "patriarchy" (non-political government) is virtually proven. Moses' goal was to get elders (family heads) to accept their responsibilities under Biblical Law. Every family head has a moral obligation to become mature and to lead the less-mature to Godliness. Rushdoony has given many arguments which support our claim that this system of elders constitutes the only necessary form of government in a Christian society.
If the Elders were not Patriarchs, then there is only one other possible explanation for who the "elders" were.
During this time in Egypt, the People grew increasingly irresponsible. The State grew increasingly oppressive. That God opposed the oppressive State is seen in His deliverance of the People from Egypt. That God had no use for the statists whom He had delivered is seen in His destruction of them in the wilderness (Psalm 106:24-26). They preferred slavery to the Egyptian State over rest in the Promised Land (Acts 7:39).
It was in Egypt that the People were given "officers" to regulate their slavish lives. Patriarchy had failed because their faith had failed. The fathers of the land were impotent. They complained about working for the Pharaoh's military-industrial complex (Exodus 1:10-11), and undoubtedly about their declining standard of living in a socialist economy (cf. Exodus 2:23). But when faced with the stark alternative -- State-slavery or patriarchal responsibility and obedience to God's Law -- they consistently chose the easy life of enslavement to the State. Just as there are many "arm-chair theonomists" in our movement, there were many "arm-chair patriarchs" in Israel. They knew that enslavement did not bring the blessings that Patriarchal obedience would bring, but the responsibilities of unquestioning obedience to Christ drove them to paint a picture of slavery as the best of all possible worlds: Didn't they have the modern conveniences of the State's "supermarkets" (Exodus 16:3), public utilities (Exodus 17:3), and progressive system of justice, swift and sure (Exodus 5:15; Deuteronomy 1:12)? They were slaves, and Pharaoh had given them masters (Exodus 5:14). They were "elders" in name only.
It must be admitted, however, that Pharaoh probably chose these "officers" from among the ranks of the crippled patriarchs, for they were also known as "elders" (Numbers 11:16).
Did God command the people to leave Patriarchal society and form a bureaucratic slave nation under Pharaoh?
It is a preposterous thought, surely.
Clearly, a Patriarchal society was still the ideal, obedience to God's Law the norm, and Abraham the example of Godly government.
If there is one thing that is clear in the Exodus narrative, and indeed throughout the Old Testament, it is that a Spiritless people is unable to conform their lives consistently and increasingly to Biblical Law.
In the Old Testament God deals with His People on a remedial basis.
The Patriarch Abraham, model for our obedience as well as Israel's, was characterized by obedience to the Law (Genesis 18:19; 26:5). Even elements of what we have traditionally called "the ceremonial law" were not unknown to Abraham (John 7:22).
But the People of God did not follow the Lord (John 7:19). Instead of forgiving and reconciling, they were fighting and accusing (Deuteronomy 1:12). Instead of exercising dominion, they were covetously bowing before the gods of the States around them (Acts 7:43). If any change is observable between Patriarchal society at the time of Abraham and society at the time of Moses, it is a marked backsliding. Instead of responsible and self-governing, Israel was a nation of slaves. Egypt enslaved them and destroyed Patriarchy without firing a shot.
Into this feeble and fragmented society God gives a mediator, Moses (Exodus 18:19-20; John 1:17; Hebrews 3:1-6). Just as God had divided the nations and set angelic powers over them (Deuteronomy 32:8,43 LXX (RSV); Daniel 10:13,20), God's People were given a pedagogical legal structure by God's angels (Deuteronomy 33:2; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2).
This structure was remedial. It was still God's desire for them to exercise patriarchal responsibility; Abraham was still the man to emulate. Thus God spoke through Moses (Deuteronomy 1:9; cp. Exodus 18:18) to get the elder/patriarchs functioning again. Teach them the Law (Exodus 18:20) so that they may teach their children (Deuteronomy 4:5,9-10,14) and live in maturity and peace (Exodus 18:23). These patriarchs were being trained to be "rulers" (Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:13) or "judges" (Deuteronomy 1:16).
This stands in contrast to modern government, which is allegedly a "government of laws, not of men." It is thus a government of man's laws, not God's, for God's Law commands patriarchy, not political paternalism. The State is a government of inflexible bureaucracy, not a Godly government of personal wisdom. As a result, the movement is always toward pseudo-personal approaches to law which result in further injustice. Psychological manipulation ("rehabilitation") replaces impersonal restitution, which itself is a far cry from the personal reconciliation and mutual burden-bearing required by Biblical Law.
The word "judge" (Exodus 18:13,16, 21,26) is a broader, more personal word than we Americans would first expect. Culver thus notes some of the advantages of the Biblical system:
The meaning of shapat is further complicated by the fact that although the ancients knew full well what law -- whether civil, religious, domestic, or otherwise -- was, they did not think of themselves as ruled by laws rather than by men as modern people like to suppose themselves to be. [!] The centering of law, rulership, [and] government in a man was deeply ingrained. "The administration of justice in all early eastern nations, as among the Arabs of the desert to this day, rests with the patriarchal seniors. . . . Such . . . would have the requisite leisure, would be able to make their decisions respected, and through the wider intercourse of superior station would decide with fuller experience and riper reflection."Patriarchs thus bring to bear their personal wisdom and competence, a personal administration, which is based on personal example and leadership, and is designed to be more than just institutional regulation, but education which reproduces patriarchal character in the parties which come before the ruler-judge for wisdom from God's Law.
When we say that the elder/patriarchs were to "judge" the people (Exodus 18:22), we must not limit their activity to arbitration or see their government as merely "judicial" activity as in a small-claims court (or even the Supreme Court). These "judges" were "rulers" or "captains" of tens, hundreds, and thousands. The "Judges" of the Old Testament (described in the book of the same name) were not mere "justices." As we read in Ruth 1:1 (KJV) "it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled . . ." (same word as in Exodus 18:21). When Israel rejected God and asked for a State (1 Samuel 8), they wanted "a king to judge us like all the nations" (v. 5). This king would, of course, do more than sit in a courtroom.
Culver points out that the patriarchal character of Biblical government consisted in exercising dominion in every area of life:
The primary sense of shapat [judge, govern, rule] is to exercise the processes of government. Since, however, the ancients did not always divide the functions of government, as most modern governments do, between legislative, executive, and judicial functions [and departments] the common translation, "to judge," misleads us. For, the word, judge, as shapat is usually translated, in modern English, means to exercise only the judicial functions of government. Unless one wishes in a context of government -- civil, religious, or otherwise -- consistently to translate as "to govern or rule," the interpreter must seek more specialized words to translate a word of such broad meaning in the modern world scene. For the participle NIV uses "leader."
It is the patriarchal character of life that produced this situation. In Exodus 18 the elders, fathers of the families, were simply being moved into position to exercise patriarchal dominion as Abraham did. As we have seen in other papers, Abraham exercised all the functions of a State (except theft, kidnapping, murder, invasion of privacy, etc., etc.). In another paper we also argue that the New Testament takes this system (for similar reasons, e.g., the New Exodus) and begins extending the reign of Christ throughout the world (the true Promised Land). Because God's Law governs every area of life, elder/patriarchs seek to shepherd younger families into Godly dominion in every area of life. The Kingdom of God is a competitive rival to the kingdom of man. The City of God does not share jurisdiction with the city of man. Thus Rushdoony leads us to consider the New Testament elder/patriarch:
It is our purpose to encourage modern "elders" to become competent in the family, in hospitality, in education, replacing "the church," and the "civil magistrate." The manual is the Bible. It is then our purpose to encourage every believer to become mature, competent, and a leader in every area of life; in short, a Patriarch.
- The elder as teacher thus functioned in the early church in one sphere after another, in the church, in the family, in the area of welfare by delegation and supervision, in education, and, by their avoidance of civil courts, as a civil government. (I:741)
From the beginning it was Moses' (because the Lord's) desire to see the people exercising patriarchal responsibility, to have the peace-making capacity to make lawful judgments (Numbers 11:29; 35:24; cf. Acts 2:17f.; Deuteronomy 5:29-31; Proverbs 6:9-11; 30: 24,27). While an immediate purpose was to resolve the existing disputes, his ultimate purpose was to teach the people the principles of God's Law and make them competent therein (Exodus 18:16,20; Deuteronomy. 1:18). Moses' task was "burden-bearing." His task was not simply to keep getting the People of God out of the ditch, and make them dependent upon him, but rather to help them avoid the ditch on their own.
