Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Numbers 10:
29 Now Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, “We are setting out for the place about which the LORD said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, for the LORD has promised good things to Israel.”
But then in Judges 1:
16 The descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms with the people of Judah to live among the inhabitants of the Desert of Judah in the Negev near Arad.
rUSH lAMOFF
1. Reuel and Jethro Are Likely the Same Person
Exodus 2:18 mentions Reuel as the father of Zipporah, while Exodus 3:1 and 18:1 call him Jethro. The most straightforward explanation is that Reuel is his personal name, and Jethro a title (meaning “His Excellency”) or secondary name. There is no evidence that Moses married two different daughters of two different men from Midian.
2. The Text Never Describes Multiple Marriages
The biblical narrative only names one wife for Moses—Zipporah, the daughter of the Midianite priest. The brief reference to a “Cushite woman” in Numbers 12:1 does not say Moses married her in addition to Zipporah or after her death. It could be a reference to Zipporah herself (see below).
3. “Cushite Woman” May Be Zipporah Herself
Some scholars suggest that calling Zipporah a “Cushite” in Numbers 12:1 was figurative, ethnic, or derogatory, used by Miriam and Aaron during their challenge to Moses. Ancient use of geographic labels could be fluid, and “Cushite” might reference her appearance, ancestry, or perceived outsider status, not literal origin.
4. Scripture Does Not Support Polygamy for Moses
While polygamy existed in the Old Testament, there is no evidence that Moses practiced it. If such a significant leader had multiple wives, it would likely have been recorded. Moses is presented as a model of meekness and covenant faithfulness (Numbers 12:3), not of royal-style polygamy.
5. No Distinct Father-in-Laws Are Named
All references to Moses’ father-in-law—whether under the name Reuel, Jethro, or Hobab (another possible relative or alternate name)—tie back to Midian, not to multiple ethnic or geographic regions. There is no textual evidence of a second or third father-in-law from different tribes.
6. The Focus of Numbers 12 Is Not Marital Status
The story in Numbers 12 is about Miriam and Aaron challenging Moses’ authority, not about his marriage(s). The mention of a Cushite woman is incidental to their complaint. Reading the passage as evidence for a second wife or third father-in-law stretches beyond what the text supports.
7. Kenite and Midianite Are Overlapping Identities
The Kenites were likely a clan within or closely associated with the Midianites (cf. Judges 1:16). Therefore, identifying Reuel as a Kenite and Jethro as a Midianite does not require them to be separate individuals. This harmonizes the accounts without inventing extra marriages or fathers-in-law.
Anonymous-link
He could have had Ruel the Kennite as one father-in-law and Jethro the Midianite as another, and a Cushite father-in-law on top of that.
1. Moses lived 120 years. A wife or wives could have died at 70 like many of the other people. If he married a woman in her 60’s, lost her after 10 years, married a Cushite… or whatever.
2. It’s possible that he was polygamous.
I don’t like to think that Moses was polygamous, but I can’t rule it out.
Quinn LA
The oversimplification of these passages is concerning. Rather than drawing profound connections between them, this post offers a narrative that seems more about filling space than fostering real understanding. Many Pentecostal scholars would argue for a more nuanced approach that considers the cultural implications.
Sam Walters
This interpretation seems rather superficial. The text highlights a significant shift in focus from Moses’ leadership to the genealogy of his father-in-law, which is often overlooked. The idea that we should simply accept the promises without understanding the context is misleading. Pentecostal resources often emphasize the importance of contextual reading and critical analysis of Scripture, yet this article fails to provide any substantial theological backing for its claims.
Wanda Zolfsky
‘Good things’ can be subjective; this article neglects critical examination of what those ‘good things’ entail within their historical context. A thorough study using resources from Pentecostal theologians could greatly enhance our understanding here.
Peter Patterson
‘Come with us’ sounds inviting but glosses over deeper relational dynamics at play. An accurate interpretation would consider Hobab’s perspective, which could shed light on Israel’s unfolding narrative—a point many Pentecostal resources would support.
Clara Criss
I find it hard to accept the conclusions drawn here without substantial evidence from reputable sources. The lack of engagement with Pentecostal perspectives on covenant theology and community dynamics leaves much to be desired in this discussion.
Steve Samurappi
‘The City of Palms’ holds significance that isn’t explored in this post, rendering the analysis incomplete and lacking relevance for readers who seek deeper theological discourse—a common shortfall in many modern interpretations.
Carl Cynifaretty
While I appreciate an attempt at connecting these verses, it feels forced and lacking depth. The historical context of the Kenites is crucial for understanding their role in relation to Israel’s journey, which this article fails to explore adequately. Ignoring such details does a disservice to readers seeking genuine insight.
Daisy D.
It’s disappointing to see such a shallow analysis presented as insightful. The transition from Moses’ call to Hobab’s descendants raises questions about identity and belonging that the author completely ignores. Pentecostal teachings stress personal experience and revelation, yet this piece does not engage with those aspects at all.