Jethro and Balaam

The Rite of Circumcision

“In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.” (Gene 17:26.)

The Scripture is at pains – great pains – for it is mentioned three times in four verses, to stress that Ishmael was circumcised at the same time as Abraham. Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised, old enough to realise its significance, and to take part in assenting to this act, which was the token of the covenant between Abraham (and his seed) and God. Of this covenant it was said it “shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant” (v 13). It seems plain enough that the covenant God made with Abraham at this time was also made with Ishmael, provided that he and his seed also kept the covenant.

What was the covenant made at this time with Abraham, which was also kept by Ishmael? First that Abraham should be father of many nations (v 5-6) Then that he should have the land of-Canaan (v 8); and, last of all, the promise that God would be a God to Abraham and his seed (v 8). Yet the covenant, kept by Ishmael by his circumcision, was “established with Isaac” (v 21), Abraham’s son yet to be born at this time.

What does all this mean? Surely that this promise which was made to Abraham and Ishmael (Abraham’s only seed at this time), and kept by both “in their flesh”, could only be established, or ratified, through a child of promise yet to be born, Isaac. Without Isaac, the promise could never be fulfilled. In fact, Isaac himself was only a sign and a forebear of the Child of Promise who would be true ratifier of the covenant – the Lord Jesus but nevertheless, without Isaac the promise, or covenant, meant nothing either to Abraham or Ishmael.

Thus in accepting the sign of circumcision, Ishmael accepted the truth that he, and his descendants, could never inherit God’s promises on their own; anything promised to Ishmael could only be ratified if he and his seed accepted a Redeemer of the line of his brother Isaac.

Circumcision and Faith

Yet herein lies a curious truth. Abraham and Ishmael were given the covenant before circumcision – circumcision was only a sign given afterwards as a token. Therefore Abraham – and his only seed Ishmael – received the covenant in faith. This is the argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans 4 – and though Paul does not specifically mention Ishmael, the type demands that Abraham’s uncircumcised son is the pattern of “all them that believe, though they be not circumcised” (Romans 4:11) of whom Abraham is the father.

Now there is nothing in the Scripture record which shows whether Ishmael continued in faith, and will with his father inherit the promises. What the Scripture does show very definitely is that there was a way open to Ishmael which he could take if he had faith, and that the promise of God that Ishmael could live before Him (Gen. 17:18-20) would be ratified through Isaac, as much as the promises which went through Isaac were to be. Because he was Abraham’s seed, circumcised with him, he could find a way to salvation, if he had faith.

Thus we can say that any of Ishmael’s descendants could live before God, if they were humble enough to accept that they could only be saved through a redeemer born of the line of Isaac. It was on this basis, we believe, that the patriarch Job lived before God. What was true of Ishmael was also true of Abraham’s later “seed”, born to Keturah. If circumcised, and if faithful, they too could partake of the promises_,.

Isaac was circumcised as an eight day old baby. This covenant of circumcision would then have to be kept by his descendants, if they too wished to inherit the promises. Yet we know that at the time of the Exodus Israel as a whole had not kept the covenant. Moses had to reintroduce the covenant-token; but even so Israel failed to continue to keep it individually, so that Joshua had once again to impose it on the nation (Lev. 12:3; John 7:22; Josh.5:2-9). Even Moses himself failed to circumcise his own children on the eighth day, as Isaac had been circumcised.

The strange account of the circumcision of Moses’ children shows a remarkable fact. Moses’ children had not been circumcised according to the covenant which God had made with Abraham. Similarly, the Israelite nation in Egypt had not been circumcised – a condition called later “the reproach of Egypt” (Josh.5:9). Yet God intended to redeem them, because they were His “firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22). Because of the covenant already made with Abraham, God had limited Himself to deal with those who had kept the covenant-token, so that if He came to redeem Israel in their present uncircumcised condition, then His approach to them would bring death and not life. Israel had to be taught to accept the means by which God would approach to them – and to begin with, God taught Moses himself by means of a dramatic visitation.

First, He spoke to Moses and told him to return to Egypt with the message that Israel was God’s firstborn, and if Pharaoh would not let Israel go, his firstborn would be slain. Then, as Moses went towards Egypt with this message, Yahweh met him and sought to kill him. What a strange, and remarkable act in these circumstances: But there was one with Moses who understood the meaning, because she knew of the old covenants, and the ways of God. That woman was Zipporah, daughter of a descendant of Keturah, a later son of Abraham.

We have to understand here that Moses could not have understood the absolute necessity for all Abraham’s sons to be circumcised, before God would deal with them. If he had properly realised this, then he would have circumcised his sons earlier, or have at least performed the act himself when God met with him in anger. Instead, it was Zipporah who knew that God’s approach to Moses – and to Israel by implication – necessitated the understanding of the Abrahamic covenants, and the keeping of them. And so it was she who seized a sharp stone and circumcised their son.

Though there is no record of the first circumcision of Israel, this story teaches us that Moses came to understand by this incident that Israel would have to be circumcised before they could be truly called God’s firstborn son, so that they could inherit all the things once promised to Abraham. One would expect the first circumcision of Israel to follow the events recorded at the end of this chapter, when Moses went to Israel, told them of God’s message, and “the people believed”.

Jethro the Priest

This incident underlines the truth that there was at this time among some of the descendants of Abraham through other sons than Isaac, a full understanding of the Abrahamic covenants, and their relation to circumcision. Israel in Egypt had forgotten them; but the Midianite priest Jethro, seed of Ishmael, and his daughter were able to help Israel through Moses to a reappraisal of them.

It therefore follows that at this time there was a way of worship of the true God, apart from that offered by any of the faithful sons of Isaac. It will be realised that this was before Moses gave the Sinaitic covenant to Israel, and before Israel as a nation were formally taken by God as His people.

The people in whom this “way” existed are called Midianites in the Pentateuch. Midian, the founder of the race, was a son of Keturah. Yet by the time of Moses the name ‘Midianite’ seems to have been given to descendants of Ishmael also – see Gen.37:28, Judg. 8:24. The reason for this must be that when the sons of Keturah went into the east country, they found Ishmael and his sons already in the area, and in time the two closely connected races became indistinguishable.

Jethro, then, was a Midianite, but we do not know whether he was a descendant of Ishmael or of Keturah. All we know is that at the time of the Exodus he was a priest who understood the ways of God. This presumes that there was a group of people for which he was the priest who also worshipped the true God. We know that some years later there were Midianites who were idolaters, and who seduced Israel (Num.25). We presume that the greater part of the Midianites were idolaters by this time. But nevertheless there would be some who still circumcised their children and kept faith with the covenant made by their father Abraham.

The priesthood of Jethro was accepted by Moses and Aaron, who came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread before God with Jethro. Jethro himself offered a burnt offering and sacrifices (Exod.18:12). Descendants of both lines of Abraham sacrificed together in fellowship. Nothing could point more clearly to the position of the sons of Abraham by Ishmael and Keturah than this act of Jethro’s.

Balaam the Unfaithful Prophet

We come now to the time of the end of the wilderness journey, and to another servant of God among the Midianites. We call him ‘servant of God’ because at the outset he seems to have been a true prophet of the true God. Our proof for this is, first, that in the New Testament he is given as an example of an apostate believer rather than of a wicked idolater (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev.2:14). Secondly, the words of Balak to Balaam are an echo of things said in the Abrahamic promises –

“I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed”.

Even Balak recognized Balaam as a servant of the God of Abraham, whose prophecies always came true – because, clearly, they were given to him by God. Balaam’s words to the elders of Moab before God had appeared to him point to the fact  that he believed himself to be God’s prophet.

“I will bring you word again, as Yahweh shall speak unto me”.

Why then did Balaam, if indeed up to that point he had been a faithful prophet, fall so rapidly? Perhaps, up to that time, Salaam had been a member of a few, despised, worshippers of Yahweh in Midian. As such, he would be left alone by the great men of his race and those around. But his reputation as one whose prophecies came true were remembered when Moab faced the crisis of Israel’s sudden appearance on her borders. The first reaction of the Moabite elders was to send for the neighbouring Midianite elders. No doubt it was from them that the idea to send for Balaam came. And so a deputation of finely dressed nobles arrived at Balaam’s house (or maybe hut), carrying expensive gifts in their hands.

Balaam had probably never faced so great a temptation to receive both honour and wealth. Salaam’s reluctance to let the second, more noble group go, although God had already told him that Israel were not to be cursed, comes out in Numbers 22:19, and Deut.23:5. Balaam eventually went with the Moabites, expecting to curse Israel – wanting to curse God’s people, and even asking God to do so, but God would not hear him. The only reason for this evil desire was the loving of the wages of unrighteousness – the pull of worldly honour and wealth. And, in the end, he gained what he wanted, because he showed Moab how Israel could indeed be cursed, even when God had blessed them. They could be tempted away from their calling by worldly pleasure, even when God allowed no enemy to destroy them. For a few weeks, he enjoyed his wages; but died in battle, fighting against God’s people.

And so he stands for all time as an example of those who have

“forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness”.

He received the reward of unrighteousness; and truly of him it could be said,

“it had been better for him not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after he had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto him” (2 Pet. 2:21).