But the

16. Now the priest (Cohen) of Midian. Onkelos: The chief of the Midianites, so Rashi; Jonathan: tyrant. sons of David are also called Cohanim (2 Sam. viii. 18), which, it is asserted, cannot mean priests, as these were only the descendants of Aaron (Numb. iii. 10), but civil officers; in which opinion they are the more strengthened by the parallel passage in 1 Chron. xviii. 17, where the sons of David are called "the first about the person of the king." But as David himself certainly offered sacrifices, and blessed the people (2 Sam. vi. 17, 18; xxiv. 25), which are, undoubtedly, sacerdotal functions, he could as well confer upon his sons some of these ministrations. We, therefore, rather accede to Ebn Ezra's opinion, that every minister, even one of an idolatrous religion, is called priest (Cohen). In Exod. xviii. 12, pontifical functions are ascribed to Jethro. Cohen means, in a more extended sense, public servant or officer, and might signify either a civil or clerical dignitary, or both at the same time; for it is well known that the functions of sovereign and priest were, in ancient polities, united in the same person. The Septuagint adds, after " seven daughters," the words, "feeding the flock of his father Jethro" (see note to ver. 18).

17. And drove them away. The reason of the strife is thus described by Josephus (Antiq. II. xi. 2): "There being a scarcity of water in those regions, the shepherds exerted themselves to be the first in occupying the wells, lest others use up the water and their own cattle be unprovided for.". ·And helped them. This is the second time that we see Moses assist the feeble and injured (Cahen).

18. The chief difficulty of this verse

lies in the name Reuel, which is here attributed to the father-in-law of Moses, whilst in iii. 1, iv. 18, he is called Jethro, and in Numb. x. 29, Hobab the son of Reuel, which latter designation agrees with Judges iv. 11, so that Reuel would be the grandfather and not the father of the seven daughters mentioned in our text. Although father is sometimes used in a general sense for ancestor, and son and daughter in that of grandchild, yet the distinct repetition of their father, his daughters, etc., excludes, in our passage, that conception, which is, however, adopted by Targum Jonathan, Ebn Ezra, Rashbam, Mendelssohn, and Rosenmüller. Abarbanel leaves the question undecided. Nor is this view sufficiently corroborated by the remark of Michaelis, that Reuel, the grandfather, was still alive, and was, therefore, the head of the family, when Moses first arrived in Midian, but that, after his death, that dignity passed over to Jethro, his son, who is, therefore, from the next chapter, exclusively mentioned (for between our verse, and the beginning of the third chapter, lies a long interval of time, ver. 23). But Jethro would then, according to the context (ver. 21), be the brother, and not the father of Zipporah. To explain this difficulty, some critics have advanced, that Coten, which the Hebrew text here uses, has a wider signification than father-in-law, including all the relatives on the side of the wife. But this meaning of the word is, with certainty, not found in any passage of the Bible. Vater suggests, that Reuel is a mere appellation, "friend of God," or an official title; and Clericus asserts the same of Jethro: but these are nothing more than convenient suppositions, although those of Clericus and Vater are strengthened by

Josephus (Antiq. II. xii. 1). Eichhorn removes the difficulty very unceremoniously, by his dissecting and anatomising theory, asserting, that the first two chapters of Exodus have a different author from the following part of the book, and that the one calls Moses' father-in-law Reuel, the other Jethro; by which explanation, however, hazarded in itself, the third name, Hobab, is not accounted for, unless, indeed, he suppose a third author, and a third fragment, which is actually done in the English commentary of Wilson (1853), with the following words: "Three different writers gave varying accounts, and the compiler of the Pentateuch [according to that author, Ezra, B. C. 500] implicitly followed his original documents," because "not any single writer would throw such uncertainty about his subject." Nor would even the most heedless compiler, much less the wise Ezra, have given such confused statements; for is a compiler less bound to regard the unity and harmony of his work than the author of original documents? Such theories are convenient, but not scientific. Cahen throws out the remark: "Moses had, perhaps, several fathers-in-law," without in any way substantiating this opinion. But we need only recur to the observation of the Talmud, that Moses' father-in-law had seven different names, mentioned Reuel, among which Hobab and Jethro. (These three words have a similar signification,-the beloved of God.) Nor is it unusual in the East for the same person to have more than one name; so, for instance, is Jacob identical with Israel, and Israel with Jeshurun; Esau bore also the name of Edom; David called the son of Bathsheba Solomon, whilst the prophet Nathan

are

you

called him Jedidiah. For the names were not unfrequently, at eventful circumstances in the lives of individuals, altered in accordance with the character of those facts. So were the names of Abram and Sarai changed into Abraham and Sarah when a new epoch in their existence was announced to them by the deity; Hoshea was called Jehoshua (Num. xiii. 16) when he was sent to explore the land of Canaan; Gideon was called Jerubbaal after he had, by the destruction of the altar of Baal, declared open war to idolatry and idolators (Judges vi, 32, vii. 1). Sometimes the son received also the name of the father, as Tobias i. 9. 19. An Egyptian. Moses was considered as an Egyptian either on account of his language (Abarbanel), or his dress, or both; but certainly not on account of his physiognomy (as Cahen observes), which, being Asiatic, differed materially from that of the native and original Egyptian. (About the descent, the personal character, and the race to which the Egyptians belonged, see Heeren, Ideas, ii. p. 544-553).-And also drew water for us. The daughters of Reuel had drawn water and filled the gutters in order to water their sheep (ver. 16). The shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses filled the gutters anew, so as to be sufficient for the whole flock (ver. 17, 19; Abarbanel, Mendelssohn). "Either they magnified the services of Moses, or the water which they had drawn did not suffice” (Ebn Ezra).

20. That he may eat bread, that is, refresh himself. About the application of the word bread in the Hebrew for meals in general, see note on xvi. 3.

21. And Moses consented. The Sep

tuagint does not express the verb consented. Vulg.; "Moses swore that he would dwell with him;" according to a rabbinical tradition, that Moses promised with an oath, that he would not leave Midian without the consent of Jethro. Abarbanel infers from this verb, that Moses was, only after repeated and pressing solicitations of Reuel, and after having convinced himself of his superior wisdom, induced to stay in the house of an idolatrous priest, and to enter with him into bonds of relationship. Glaire takes it here in the signification of hazarding, venturing, and explains, that Moses, by marrying the daughter of Reuel, exposed himself to the vengeance of the shepherds, and risked, for ever to be retained among a foreign people, and never to see again his dearly-beloved family. But, under the circumstances, no alternative was left to him, nor did his marriage in any way check his resolute plans for his returning to Egypt, and the deliverance of his nation.- With the man, is evidently Reuel, for nobody else has been mentioned in the preceding verse; and this is a further corroboration of the opinion, that Jethro and Reuel are identical; for Jethro is incontestably the father of Zipporah, who alone could give his daughter to Moses (see on ver. 18).

We need not, therefore, attend to the very forced supposition of Ebn Ezra, that Jethro, the father, is here not mentioned, because he happened to be absent, engaged with the performance of his clerical functions; nor can we see anything of the difficulty which Rosenmüller finds in this passage. Zipporah. a Semitic word, signifying bird; and so in Arabic, which was spoken in Midian.

(see ver. 16).-It appears that the matrimonial alliance between Moses and Zipporah was concluded only a very considerable time after the arrival of the former in Midian, as, at his return to Egypt (about forty years later), his children were still of a very tender age.

22. Gershom. The etymology of this name is here stated, as if it were compounded of ger (a stranger), and sham (there), wherefore the Septuagint writes Tepoάu, whilst others believe it to be identical with Gershon, and derive it from Garash, to expel. The derivation given in the text shows, unmistakably, that although Moses was, in Midian, safe against the vindictiveness and persecution of Pharaoh, and his other adversaries, and although he lived among a kindred nation, descended from Abraham, he entertained still a longing desire for that country where his brethren suffered, and that he felt deeply all the bitter pangs of an exile, although Egypt was not the land of promise, and the Israelites were then no free nation. The second son of Moses, Eliezer, was also born to him during his sojourn in Midian, which he left accompanied by his wife and children (iv. 20). In xviii. 3, 4, both are mentioned, and some manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Arabic, Syriac and Coptic versions, introduce here also that younger son.

23. And it came to pass in that long time, namely, in that extended period between the flight of Moses, and his return to Egypt, which embraces a space of time of about forty years (see on ver. 11, according to Ramban and Abarbanel, sixty years).-The king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed

because of the bondage. The Hebrews had, with anxious expectation, hoped for the death of the tyrant as the event which would relax their fetters, and alleviate their miseries; but his successor enacted new and still more rigorous measures of cruelty, for the deliverance from which they implored the intervention of the God of their ancestors, to whom "they now at last returned after many years of idolatrous aberration" (Ebn Ezra), and their prayers were favourably accepted by the merciful Ruler of mankind. Osburn is of opinion, that the king who died, was Siphtha, the husband of Thouoris, (whom he believes to have saved and adopted Moses), and therefore, son-in-law of Sesostris the Great, who was the "new king" mentioned in i. 8, the originator of the cruel measures against the Hebrews (Mon. Hist. ii. p. 572; compare pp. 429-549). But the historical character of Sesostris entirely disagrees with the picture which the first chapter of our book draws of his conduct. Osburn himself says: "he was the greatest, the wisest, and the best king that ever sat upon the throne of Egypt" (p. 545). But the policy of the

66

new king" against the Israelites is both cruel and unwise in the extreme; the sanguinary edict to kill all male children, must necessarily produce a result perfectly the reverse of that which he desired, and which his interests demanded: it was not calculated to effect an amalgamation of the Israelites with the Egyptians, but their extirpation.

24. Compare Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 15; xv. 18; xvii. 8; xxiv. 7; xxvi. 3, 4.

25. And God regarded them. These words, which the English Version renders: "and God had respect unto them," and which are emphatically brief, have called forth very different explanations. However, Rashi already has given the most acceptable interpretation: "he directed his mind upon them, and did not avert his eyes.". The expressions and God heard, remembered, looked, regarded, are not anthropomorphistic, but the only possible phraseology which the human language can use with reference to the Eternal Being. (Compare the excellent remarks in Cusari ii. 4, and our note to xix. 20, 21). The Rabbinical dictum is: "The law employs the ordinary human language."