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 3:1

3:1 Now Moses ⁶  was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert ⁷  and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. ⁸ 

Keluaran 4:18

The Return of Moses

4:18 ⁹ So Moses went back ¹⁰  to his father-in-law Jethro and said to him, “Let me go, so that I may return ¹¹  to my relatives ¹²  in Egypt and see ¹³  if they are still alive.” Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”

Bilangan 10:29

The Appeal to Hobab

10:29 ¹⁴ Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ¹⁵  “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, ¹⁶  for the Lord has promised good things ¹⁷  for Israel.”

Yudas 1:11

1:11 Woe to them! For they have traveled down Cain’s path, ¹⁸  and because of greed ¹⁹  have abandoned themselves ²⁰  to ²¹  Balaam’s error; hence, ²²  they will certainly perish ²³  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.

[3:1]  ⁶ sn The vav (ו) disjunctive with the name “Moses” introduces a new and important starting point. The Lord’s dealing with Moses will fill the next two chapters.

[3:1]  ⁷ tn Or “west of the desert,” taking אַחַר (’akhar, “behind”) as the opposite of עַל־פְּנֵי (’al-pÿne, “on the face of, east of”; cf. Gen 16:12; 25:18).

[3:1]  ⁸ sn “Horeb” is another name for Mount Sinai. There is a good deal of foreshadowing in this verse, for later Moses would shepherd the people of Israel and lead them to Mount Sinai to receive the Law. See D. Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America Theological Journal 1 (1977): 31-42.

[4:18]  ⁹ sn This last section of the chapter reports Moses’ compliance with the commission. It has four parts: the decision to return (18-20), the instruction (21-23), the confrontation with Yahweh (24-26), and the presentation with Aaron (27-31).

[4:18]  ¹⁰ tn The two verbs form a verbal hendiadys, the second verb becoming adverbial in the translation: “and he went and he returned” becomes “and he went back.”

[4:18]  ¹¹ tn There is a sequence here with the two cohortative forms: אֵלְכָה נָּא וְאָשׁוּבָה (’elÿkhah nna’ vÿ’ashuva) – “let me go in order that I may return.”

[4:18]  ¹² tn Heb “brothers.”

[4:18]  ¹³ tn This verb is parallel to the preceding cohortative and so also expresses purpose: “let me go that I may return…and that I may see.”

[10:29]  ¹⁴ 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]  ¹⁵ 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]  ¹⁶ 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]  ¹⁷ tn The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.

[1:11]  ¹⁸ tn Or “they have gone the way of Cain.”

[1:11]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “for wages.”

[1:11]  ²⁰ 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]  ²¹ tn Or “in.”

[1:11]  ²² tn Grk “and.” See note on “perish” later in this verse.

[1:11]  ²³ 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).