In Exodus 2-4 who was Moses' father-in-law?

Question

In re-reading through Exodus I came across 2 people that are called Moses' father-in-law Exodus 2:18-21 states it is Reuel:

2:18 So when they came home to their father Reuel... 2:21 Moses agreed to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage.

But a little later in chapter 3 it says his father-in-law is Jethro

3:1 Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian...

So which one? In the second scripture the word חתנו (khaw-than') is used and when I did a Strong's search it said

1) to become a son-in-law, make oneself a daughter's husband 1a) (Qal) wife's father, wife's mother, father-in-law, mother-in- law (participle) 1b) (Hithpael) to make oneself a daughter's husband

But in chapter 2, Reuel gave Zipporah to Moses in marriage. Is it possible Mosses had an additional wife that is not named? If he had an additional wife and father-in-law, why did he only ask Jethro permission to return to Egypt, and not Reuel?

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

Answer 1

It was not uncommon for people in the Bible to go under multiple monikers. Abram was also known as Abrham (Gen 17:5), Sarah was also known as Sarai (Genesis 17:15), Jacob was also known as Israel (Genesis 35:10) and so forth. This simply appears to be another one of those instances.

Names in Hebrew culture often had significance and names were often changed as a result of that significance and most linguistic reference indicate that Reuel meant "Friend of God". This name would clearly be consistent with his role as the priest of Midian. Being a priest would imply that he was close to or a friend with God.

It is also possible that רַעַ was not meant to be attached to וּ and that this was actually a transliteration of Jethro's Egyptian name. This would make רַעַ a transliteration name of "Ra" (the egyptian word for sun and the sun god of Egypt) and וּאֵל. Unfortunately, I am not adept in Egyptian Heirogliphics and the Coptic lanugage to be able to determine if רַעַ (uel) has meaning in Egyptian or would be non-sensical. In the latter case, we should also consider that the name is syncretic and the name refers to both Ra and אֵל (El), the Hebrew god.

Likewise, Jethro means abundance and this would be consistent with Jethro's ownership of flocks (in addition to his day-job as priest) and ability to employ others to watch over his flock (Exodus 3:1) which tends to indicate his wealth, though we are not given the size of his flock.

Simply put, like so many others in scripture, Jethro and Reuel were the same person who was known by two different names.

Answer 2

There is no need to attribute this to multiple authors, in fact the discrepancy can be easily explained by better understanding the term חׂׂתֵן that is used in all the above verses. Although most translators choose to interpret this term to refer to Moses's father-in-law exclusively, some scholars believe that this term is non-specific and refers to all the woman's male relatives. Thus all Tziporrah's blood relatives would all be referred to, in the Bible, as חׂׂתֵן.

Name differences: Reuel (2:18); Jethro (3:1). In the previous chapter Moses’ father-inlaw was called Reuel, while here he is referred to as Jethro and in Numbers 10:29 as Hobab (see Judg 4:11). The difficulty can be resolved once the ambiguity of the terminology is recognized. The term designating male in-laws is nonspecific. The term referred to a woman’s male relatives and could be used for her father, brother or even grandfather. Most solutions take account of this. Perhaps Reuel is the grandfather head of the clan, Jethro is the father of Zipporah and technically the father-inlaw of Moses, and Hobab is the brother-in-law of Moses, Jethro’s son. Alternatively, Jethro and Hobab could both be brothers-in-law, and Reuel the father.

IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testemant: Exodus

The Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Numbers (10:29) keenly noticed the non-specificity of this term and correctly postulates (to resolve the contradiction) that it sometimes refers to a brother-in-law as well!

Answer 3

It is difficult to explain the different names given for Moses' father-in-law if we assume, according to tradition, that Moses was the author of the Book of Exodus. This is resolved within the Documentary Hypothesis, which attributes Exodus to multiple authors. As originally proposed by Wellhausen, the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer accepted by the majority of biblical scholars as definitive but, with the identification and correction of the methodological problems that plagued earlier scholarship, it is regaining its place as a viable, productive and current approach to the Pentateuch.

According to this hypothesis, the J (Yahwist) source referred to Moses' father-in-law as Reuel or Hobab, whereas the E (Elohist) source referred to Moses' father-in-law as Jethro.

The Documentary Hypothesis does much to explain the existence of two or more different names for Moses' father-in-law, but which is historically correct? The answer to this question ultimately depends on whether Moses was a real, historical person. In turn, the answer to this can be based on whether the stories written about him can be regarded as historically true, and the strong consensus of scholars is that there was no Exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible. Carol A. Redmount says, in 'Bitter lives',published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, page 63, the biblical Exodus account was never intended to function or to be understood as history in the present-day sense of the word. If the Exodus never really occurred as described in the Bible, then there was no biblical Moses and therefore no father-in-law. The question of what the father-in-law's name was becomes unanswerable.

Answer 4

-- Reuel [Ex. 2:18] means "friend of El" and is the true name of Moses father-in-law. -- Jethro [Jeter] means "Excellencey" and is Reuel's title. -- Hobab is the first-born of Reuel [Nu 10:29]. -- After Reuel went back to Midian [Ex. 18:27] he died. Hobab remained with Moses. -- After Reuel died, Hobab [the first born] became the role of family patriarch, which included becoming Moses father-n-law [Judges 4:11].

Answer 5

In Numbers 10:29 and Judges 4:11 Moses's father in law is named Hobab, and Hobab is the son of Reuel.

Numbers 10:29

And Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law, "We are setting out for the place of which the LORD said, 'I will give it to you.' Come with us, and we will do good to you, for the LORD has promised good to Israel." (ESV translation)

Judges 4:11

Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh. (ESV translation)

Thus, Reuel is not the father in law of Moses, but the grandfather in law of Moses. Why then does Exodus 2:18 refer to the father of the girls Moses met (which included his future wife, Zipporah) as Reuel, if he was actually their grandfather?

One suggestion offered by the ancient rabbis in their midrashic commentary Sifrei to Numbers 10:29 is that (in accordance with Numbers and Judges) Reuel was the grandfather, but is referred to as the father because it is common for children to refer to their grandfather as father.

A clear example of a grandfather being referred to as father is Genesis 32:9

And Jacob said, "O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O LORD who said to me, 'Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good,' (ESV translation)

While this resolves the contradiction of Reuel vs Jethro, it leaves us with the same question of Hobab vs Jethro. Though the question here did not ask about this, the same rabbinic commentary suggests that Hobab and Jethro were two names for the same person (in fact, according to one rabbi there, Reuel too is just another name for the same person).

Answer 6

They are the same person. Reuel may have been his personal name whereas Jethro could have been his title.

Exodus 2:16-18 Now the priest of Midʹi·an had seven daughters, and these came to draw water and to fill the troughs to water their father’s flock. 17 But as usual, the shepherds came and drove them away. At this Moses got up and helped the women and watered their flock. 18 When they came home to their father Reuʹel, he exclaimed: “How is it that you have come home so quickly today?”

Numbers 10:29 Then Moses said to Hoʹbab the son of Reuʹel the Midʹi·an·ite, the father-in-law of Moses: . . .

ethos

Answer 7

I believe The Lord has made clear His word from the start. When we try to attribute human reason with diety we will always fall short, as well as applying our current cultural systems with that of historical systems and cultures. I don't know how old or where you all are from, but in my 40 years on the Earth in the USA, I have watched American History books be rewritten. My daughter has learned that there are fewer planets than I did, the accounts of American slavery have been altered, presidential monuments are being removed, what was a symbol of promise by God upon the Earth has now been reassigned to represent that which He deems an abomination. So in my 40 years, I've witnessed, in my own country a rearranging of the past 400 years of "his-tory". That does not include the difference of history of these 400 yrs in America taken from the vantage of European, Indian, Chinese, etc cultures. The typical person does not truly care about the cultural history beyond their own bubble. I digress.

My opinion and belief are to use what He defined as His word that would never fade. All of the aforementioned statements, I'd add: the Pharisees told Jesus directly, "Abraham (not Abram, his name before God changed his name) is our father" well, I believe you know where I'm going with this, but I'll continue. Did they live how many years after the death of Abraham? They did not even default to Jacob, the one closest to them. Abraham was great^100th grandfather of them. I am confident the only reason for the mentions of Horeb, Jethro, Reuel is the relation of the bloodline for the sake of proving fulfillment of the prophecies. The name is not of significance beyond the blood attached to it.

As a living example, I have 1 biological child, but I have several that call me momma (I'm actually their athletic coach), though their mothers are in their lives and active. When strangers or associates hear these kids say momma, even the one's whose pigmentation is undeniably different from mine, I can see the questions that loom in their minds, that they are too afraid to ask directly, and as a result, they begin talking among themselves and writing their own conclusions and stories. I've one kid that is genuinely too old to possibly be my biological child, and yet "I gave birth to him while I was in college" I must've been an amazing child prodigy at Stanford at the age of 11! Why not correct them? Truth needs no defense! It rises and withstands time on its own.

I'm no scholar, but personally, as I study, I ask the Holy Spirit to open my eyes to that which I can not see and make clear any questions that may be in me, and though it is not always made clear to me in a single sitting, He always opens my eyes to what is True by definition of His word whether it be in the same day or a year later. I found this site because of the same question that began this feed, and He answered me before I opened this thread, but I wanted to see what others found the solution to be. This is the 3rd site a read through and thought it interesting how much attention is given to the scribes, languages, and textual portion. I've found many answers in the Old testament to be in the new testament. As Jesus is represented as our gateway to God, I see that extends beyond salvation. The New Testament teaches if you seek with a pure heart He will reveal the truth to you. Why did Jesus speak in parables? There are more who seek problems to attempt to discredit His word than those seeking true understanding for the sake of their own daily growth.