midbar. In any case it might be more advisable to abide by the natural translation, "to the back of the desert," from which it would follow that Moses traversed a barren tract of desert with his flocks, before he arrived at the pasture land of the mountains of Sinai. We should then have to look for the settlements of this tribe of Midianites somewhere to the east or north-east of Sinai, but still on the western side of the gulf. Subsequently, however, and after the call of Moses, they must have left this district and sought pasturage elsewhere, probably returning once more to the eastern side of the gulf. We are obliged to assume this, for the simple reason that the Israelites never met with the Midianites, and the father-in-law of Moses came from a distance to visit him (Ex. xviii., Num. x. 30). But whatever our decision may be, we must at all events regard the Midianitish tribe of which Reguel was the head as a nomadic branch, which had separated from the main body of the nation, and never united with the rest again; for whilst the great mass of the Midianites always maintained a hostile position towards Israel, the descendants of Reguel continued friendly to the last (Vol. iii. § 32. 2).

רְעוּאֵל)

(7). A fresh difficulty arises from the different names given to the Midianitish priest, into whose service Moses entered, and to whom he became related. In Ex. ii. 18 sqq. he is called REGUEL (y), and described as the father of Zipporah. But afterwards (in chap. iii. 1, iv. 18, xviii. 1 sqq.) he is called JETHRO, and described as the father-in-law () of Moses. In Num. x. 29 we meet with him under the name of HOBAB, where he is described as the son of Reguel, and the Chothen of Moses; and the same description occurs again in Judg. iv. 11. Hartmann, De Wette, and others regard these differences as attributable to differences and discrepancies in the genealogies employed. But in that case we should have to impute to the author, be he who he may, an amount of carelessness, which is really inconceivable (and this even Winer admits, ii. 310). The author, who wrote two different names so close together as in chap. ii. 18 and iii. 1), must certainly have been conscious of this difference, and if he had found any discrepancy in the two accounts, he would not have adopted them both. But if he saw no discrepancy, we are not justified in supposing that any really existed. The different notions conveyed by the word which

אב

יתר

meant both father and grand-father, and by, which was used for brother-in-law and father-in-law, as well as the constant fluctuations in the use of names, justify us in assuming that the cause of the difference is to be sought in the one or the other. The most probable explanation is, that one of the names was a title of honour, given to indicate his priestly and princely dignity. Lengerke supposes the name Reguel (i.e. friend of God) to have been the official name (Kenaan i. 391). But he appears to me to be mistaken in his selection, since we should expect to find the proper name, and not the official designation, mentioned in connexion with his first appearance in Ex. ii. 21, and still more in the genealogical account in Num. x. 29. We prefer to ascribe to the name Jethro (i.e. excellentia ejus) the dignity of an official title, especially as we find it written in the form in Ex. iv. 18. The three names would thus be reduced to two, and the only questions remaining would be: (1) whether we are to identify the Jethro of Ex. iii. 4, 18, with the Reguel in Ex. ii. 18, or with the Hobab in Num. x. 29 and Judg. iv. 11; and (2) whether we are to regard Reguel as Zipporah's father, or grand-father, and Hobab as the brother-in law or father-in-law of Moses. To the first question it seems to us that the only possible answer is that the Jethro, mentioned in Ex. iii. 4, 18, is the same person as the Reguel referred to in Ex. ii. 18; with regard to the second we are doubtful whether we are to consider the in Ex. ii. 18 or the in Num. x. 29 as used indefinitely, i.e. whether the former is to be rendered grand-father, or the latter brother-in-law. Ranke (Pentat. ii. 8) decides in favour of the latter, and adduces Judg. xix. 4, 6, 9, to confirm the indefinite character of the word; for in these passages, on account of the ambiguity of the word, which might just as well mean brother-in-law as father-in-law, the words "the father of the damsel" are added to point out what the meaning of the word really is.-So much, at all events, is clear: that Reguel, who was also called Jethro, was at the head of the tribe up to the period referred to in Ex. xviii. It is in Num. x. that we first meet with Hobab as the leader of the tribe, and on this account he is also classed genealogically as the son of Reguel. In the meantime, therefore, Reguel must have died. The father-in-law of Moses is held in veneration as

a prophet, both in the Koran and among the Arabs, under the name Shoeib (which has arisen probably from an alteration of the name Hobab).

The description given of Reguel, that he was a priest of Midian, suggests the enquiry, what was the religious condition of that people? In seeking for an answer to this question, we must necessarily make a distinction between the different groups into which the Midianites were divided. We know nothing at all with regard to the religion of those who dwelt on the eastern side of the Elanitic gulf, and who, according to Gen. xxxvii. 28, 36, were a trading community mixed up with the Ishmaelites. On the other hand, we know that those who dwelt on the north, and were allies of the Moabites (Num. xxii. 25), had given themselves up to the abominable worship of Baal-peor, probably in consequence of their connexion with the Moabites. With reference to the third group, of which Reguel, and subsequently Hobab, were chiefs, we can safely assume, so much at least, that they were not worshippers of Baal-peor. Such a thing is absolutely inconceivable, when we consider the close association which was constantly maintained between them and the Israelites (Vol. iii. §32. 2). Their nomadic isolation from the rest of the tribe renders it probable (and the earlier the separation took place the greater the probability would be), that in general they had preserved the theism, which they inherited from Abraham (see Ex. xviii. 9 sqq.). Still, we must not form too exalted a notion of the purity and genuineness of their theism, since Moses evidently refrained from communicating much to Jethro respecting the divine revelations which he had received. And the obstinate refusal of Zipporah to allow her sons to be circumcised (Ex. iv. 25) indicates a feeling of contempt for the religion of the Israelites.

(8). The house of the Midianitish priest was, doubtless, a severe but salutary school of humiliation and affliction, of want and self-denial, to the spoiled foster-son of the king's daughter. We can understand this, if we merely picture to ourselves the contrast between the luxury of the court and the toil connected with a shepherd's life in the desert. But we have good ground for supposing that his present situation was trying and humiliating in other respects also. His marriage does not seem to have been a happy one, and his position in the house of his

father-in-law was apparently somewhat subordinate and servile. The account, given in Ex. iv. 24 sqq. (§ 21. 3), shows us clearly enough the character of his wife. Zipporah is there represented as a querulous, self-willed, and passionate woman, who sets her own will in opposition to that of her husband, who will not trouble herself about his religious convictions, and, even when his life is evidently in danger, does not conceal the reluctance with which she agrees to submit, in order to save him. We might be astonished to find that a man of so much force of character as Moses possessed, could ever suffer this female government. But the circumstances in which he was placed sufficiently explain them. He had arrived there poor and helpless, as a man who was flying from pursuit. A fortunate combination of circumstances led to his receiving the Emir's daughter as his wife. It is true he could not pay the usual dowry. But the remarkable antecedents of his life, his superior mental endowments, his manly beauty, and other things, may have been regarded at first by his chosen bride and her relations as an adequate compensation for its omission. But if the character of Zipporah were such as we may conclude it to have been from Ex. iv. 24 sqq., we can very well imagine that she soon began to despise all these, and made her husband feel that he was only eating the bread of charity in her father's house. Nor does he seem to have been admitted to any very intimate terms with his father-in-law; at least we might be led to this conclusion by the reserve with which he communicated to Jethro his intended departure, and the little confidence which he displayed (Ex. iv. 18). Thus he was, and continued to be, a foreigner among the Midianites; kept in the background and misunderstood, even by those who were related to him by the closest ties. And if this was his condition, the sorrows arising from his exile, and his homeless and forlorn condition, must have been doubly, yea trebly severe. Under circumstances such as these, his attachment to his people, and his longing to rejoin them, instead of cooling, would grow stronger and stronger. There is something very expressive in this respect in the names which he gave to the sons who were born to him during his exile (Ex. ii. 22; xviii. 3, 4). They enable us to look deeply into the state of his mind at that time, for (as so frequently happened) he incorporated in them the strongest feelings and desires of his heart. The eldest

5

he named Gershom, which means a stranger there, "for," he said, “I have become a stranger in a strange land ;” and when the second was born, he said, "the God of my father has been my help, and has delivered me from the hand of Pharaoh," and he called him Eliezer (God is help). We may also call to mind the miserable style in which he set out to return to Egypt (Ex. iv. 20): his wife and child he placed upon an ass, and he himself went on foot by their side.

THE CALL OF MOSES.

Vid. Die Berufung Moseh's (by Hengstenberg?) in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung 1837. No. 50–51.

§ 20 (Ex. ii. 23-iv. 17).-The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt still continued. The king died, but the principles of hist government were carried out by his successor. The change of rulers appears to have excited hopes in the minds of the Israelites, which were doomed to disappointment. Their oppression was not only perpetuated, but rendered increasingly severe, and their disappointment added to their sufferings. But the first signs of a powerful agitation were just appearing among the people, an agitation which was to ripen them for freedom. It was not a resolution to help themselves, or a plot to overthrow the existing government, which grew out of these disappointed hopes, but a movement of a much more powerful character, namely a disposition to sigh and mourn and call upon Him who is an avenger of the oppressed, and a friend of the miserable. And this movement attained its object; God heard their complaint and remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The hour of their redemption was drawing nigh. Moses, too, who was destined to be the saviour of Israel, had passed through the chief school of his life, the school of