Keluaran 2:16

2:16 Now a priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and began to draw ¹  water ²  and fill ³  the troughs in order to water their father’s flock.

Keluaran 2:21

2:21 Moses agreed ⁴  to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage. ⁵ 

Keluaran 18:1-6

The Advice of Jethro

18:1 ⁶ Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard about all that God had done for Moses and for his people Israel, that ⁷  the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. ⁸ 

18:2 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Moses’ wife Zipporah after he had sent her back, 18:3 and her two sons, one of whom was named Gershom (for Moses ⁹  had said, “I have been a foreigner in a foreign land”), 18:4 and the other Eliezer (for Moses had said, ¹⁰  “The God of my father has been my help ¹¹  and delivered ¹²  me from the sword of Pharaoh”).

18:5 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, together with Moses’ ¹³  sons and his wife, came to Moses in the desert where he was camping by ¹⁴  the mountain of God. ¹⁵  18:6 He said ¹⁶  to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you, along with your wife and her two sons with her.”

Bilangan 10:29

The Appeal to Hobab

10:29 ¹⁷ Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ¹⁸  “We are journeying to the place about which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, ¹⁹  for the Lord has promised good things ²⁰  for Israel.”

Yudas 1:11

1:11 Woe to them! For they have traveled down Cain’s path, ²¹  and because of greed ²²  have abandoned themselves ²³  to ²⁴  Balaam’s error; hence, ²⁵  they will certainly perish ²⁶  in Korah’s rebellion.

[2:16]  ¹ tn The preterites describing their actions must be taken in an ingressive sense, since they did not actually complete the job. Shepherds drove them away, and Moses watered the flocks.

[2:16]  ² tn The object “water” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.

[2:16]  ³ tn This also has the ingressive sense, “began to fill,” but for stylistic reasons is translated simply “fill” here.

[2:21]  ⁴ tn Or “and Moses was willing” to stay with Reuel. The Talmud understood this to mean that he swore, and so when it came time to leave he had to have a word from God and permission from his father-in-law (Exod 4:18-19).

[2:21]  ⁵ tn The words “in marriage” are implied, and have been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[18:1]  ⁶ sn This chapter forms the transition to the Law. There has been the deliverance, the testing passages, the provision in the wilderness, and the warfare. Any God who can do all this for his people deserves their allegiance. In chap. 18 the Lawgiver is giving advice, using laws and rulings, but then he is given advice to organize the elders to assist. Thus, when the Law is fully revealed, a system will be in place to administer it. The point of the passage is that a great leader humbly accepts advice from other godly believers to delegate responsibility. He does not try to do it all himself; God does not want one individual to do it all. The chapter has three parts: vv. 1-12 tell how Jethro heard and came and worshiped and blessed; vv. 13-23 have the advice of Jethro, and then vv. 24-27 tell how Moses implemented the plan and Jethro went home. See further E. J. Runions, “Exodus Motifs in 1 Samuel 7 and 8,” EvQ 52 (1980): 130-31; and also see for another idea T. C. Butler, “An Anti-Moses Tradition,” JSOT 12 (1979): 9-15.

[18:1]  ⁷ tn This clause beginning with כִּי (ki) answers the question of what Jethro had heard; it provides a second, explanatory noun clause that is the object of the verb – “he heard (1) all that God had done… (2) that he had brought….” See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 81, §490.

[18:1]  ⁸ sn This is an important report that Jethro has heard, for the claim of God that he brought Israel out of bondage in Egypt will be the foundation of the covenant stipulations (Exod 20).

[18:3]  ⁹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity (also in the following verse).

[18:4]  ¹⁰ tn The referent (Moses) and the verb have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:4]  ¹¹ tn Now is given the etymological explanation of the name of Moses’ other son, Eliezer (אֱלִיעֶזֶר, ’eli’ezer), which means “my God is a help.” The sentiment that explains this name is אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי (’elohe ’avi bÿ’ezri, “the God of my father is my help”). The preposition in the sentiment is the bet (ב) essentiae (giving the essence – see GKC 379 §119.i). Not mentioned earlier, the name has become even more appropriate now that God has delivered Moses from Pharaoh again. The word for “help” is a common word in the Bible, first introduced as a description of the woman in the Garden. It means to do for someone what he or she cannot do for himself or herself. Samuel raised the “stone of help” (Ebenezer) when Yahweh helped Israel win the battle (1 Sam 7:12).

[18:4]  ¹² sn The verb “delivered” is an important motif in this chapter (see its use in vv. 8, 9, and 10 with reference to Pharaoh).

[18:5]  ¹³ tn Heb “his”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:5]  ¹⁴ tn This is an adverbial accusative that defines the place (see GKC 373-74 §118.g).

[18:5]  ¹⁵ sn The mountain of God is Horeb, and so the desert here must be the Sinai desert by it. But chap. 19 suggests that they left Rephidim to go the 24 miles to Sinai. It may be that this chapter fits in chronologically after the move to Sinai, but was placed here thematically. W. C. Kaiser defends the present location of the story by responding to other reasons for the change given by Lightfoot, but does not deal with the travel locations (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:411).

[18:6]  ¹⁶ sn This verse may seem out of place, since the report has already been given that they came to the desert. It begins to provide details of the event that the previous verse summarizes. The announcement in verse 6 may have come in advance by means of a messenger or at the time of arrival, either of which would fit with the attention to formal greetings in verse 7. This would suit a meeting between two important men; the status of Moses has changed. The LXX solves the problem by taking the pronoun “I” as the particle “behold” and reads it this way: “one said to Moses, ‘Behold, your father-in-law has come….’”

[10:29]  ¹⁷ sn For additional bibliography for this short section, see W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1-11; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; B. Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297-303; and T. C. Mitchell, “The Meaning of the Noun h£tn in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 93-112.

[10:29]  ¹⁸ sn There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1, and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן (khoten), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.

[10:29]  ¹⁹ tn The verb is the Hiphil of the root “to be good” (יָטַב, yatav); it may be translated “treat well, deal favorably, generously with.” Here it is a perfect tense with vav (ו) following the imperative, showing a sequence in the verbal ideas.

[10:29]  ²⁰ tn The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.

[1:11]  ²¹ tn Or “they have gone the way of Cain.”

[1:11]  ²² tn Grk “for wages.”

[1:11]  ²³ tn The verb ἐκχέω (ekcew) normally means “pour out.” Here, in the passive, it occasionally has a reflexive idea, as BDAG 312 s.v. 3. suggests (with extra-biblical examples).

[1:11]  ²⁴ tn Or “in.”

[1:11]  ²⁵ tn Grk “and.” See note on “perish” later in this verse.

[1:11]  ²⁶ tn The three verbs in this verse are all aorist indicative (“have gone down,” “have abandoned,” “have perished”). Although the first and second could be considered constative or ingressive, the last is almost surely proleptic (referring to the certainty of their future judgment). Although it may seem odd that a proleptic aorist is so casually connected to other aorists with a different syntactical force, it is not unparalleled (cf. Rom 8:30).