John Calvin Commentary Exodus 2:16

"Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father`s flock." — Exodus 2:16 (ASV)

Now the priest of Midian. The profane would attribute this meeting to good fortune, whereas God provides us in it a striking picture of His providence, in this way, with an outstretched hand, directing the steps of His servant.

Those young women were in the habit of coming daily to the well, and Moses sat down to ask for hospitality at the waterside, to where in a dry country the inhabitants were likely to gather in the evening. But it was by no means due to chance that he came so opportunely to render assistance to the young women, and that Jethro so hospitably invited him. Instead, God was the guide of His wandering servant’s way, not only to obtain for him a resting place for a day, but a comfortable dwelling even to the end of his exile.

For Jethro (whose title shows that he was of some dignity among his people) not only engaged his services but also chose him as his son-in-law. Although the occupation of a shepherd was a humble one, yet there was considerable consolation in this high connection.

Not all are agreed about the word כהן, cohen.²⁹ The Chaldean paraphrast incorrectly translates it as “Prince,” because this does not align with the fact that the shepherds of the country were in conflict with his daughters. Nor is it more probable that a rich and prominent man would have been without servants, so as to be forced to expose his daughters daily to the insults and quarrels of the shepherds. I think, then, that he was a priest (sacrificum), which is the most widely accepted opinion.

But the question is whether he worshiped false gods or the one true God. And certainly, many probable reasons lead us to conclude that he did not sacrifice to idols, because Moses could scarcely have been persuaded not merely to live in a house defiled by foul unrighteousness, but even to marry into it. Besides, later, many indications of piety will appear in Jethro's language.

Although, since almost the whole world had then fallen into many corrupt practices, it seems likely to me that his priesthood was somewhat corrupted. In the time of Abraham, Melchizedek was the only priest of the living God. Abraham himself was rescued from a deep abyss of idolatry into which his family was plunged. It was, then, hardly possible that the Midianites would have retained pure worship; and indeed, it is clear from other passages that they were devoted to idols.

After carefully considering all these points, nothing seems more probable to me than that under Jethro's priesthood the true God was worshiped, according to how tradition had revealed Him, but not purely, because religion at that time was everywhere contaminated by various superstitions. But there is some difference between idolatry and the impure worship of God, corrupted in some respects. I say, then, that they were worshipers of the true God because they had not entirely departed from the principles of His religion, although they had contracted some defilement from the foul pools of error that had gradually crept in.

There is also another question among interpreters regarding the name “Jethro.” Those who think Bethuel³⁰ was a different person from Jethro are easily refuted, for it is quite evident that Moses in the next chapter speaks of the same person, though under another name. Nor would it align with the mention of his marriage that the father's name should be entirely omitted; and it is a strained interpretation to suppose that in such immediate connection two persons should be spoken of as having the same degree of relationship.

Again, if Jethro were the son of Bethuel, living in the same house, he would have been a member of the family, but not its head, and therefore Moses would not be said to have fed his flock. Besides, it is probable that Hobab (who will later be called the son of Bethuel, Numbers 10:29) was Moses' brother-in-law, that is, his wife's brother; from this we infer that Jethro, as is not unusual, had two names. For it is absurd to think that it is Hobab whom Moses here calls Jethro, and an unreasonable fabrication.

We shall later see that Jethro came into the desert to congratulate Moses, but it is related in the same place that he “let him depart.” And certainly, it would not have been kind to press a man weighed down by age to accompany him on his long journey. For if he was older than Moses, he was scarcely less than ninety; and what sense would there have been in promising a frail old man the reward of his labor after they should reach the land of Canaan?

But the whole controversy is settled with one point: because Moses writes that Jethro returned home, but that Hobab was persuaded to listen to his earnest requests and to remain with him. Nothing can be more probable than that the old man Bethuel, who was unable to bear the fatigue of a long journey, returned straight home, having left his son behind with Moses to be to him “instead of eyes” and to guide them on their way.

²⁹ כהן. This verb does not occur in Hebrew in its primary conjugation (kal), but is found in Arabic, where it signifies to draw nigh. Hence the noun, being of the form of the present participle, means in strictness one who draws nigh; and in usage a priest who draws nigh to God; a prince who draws nigh to the sovereign; or, sometimes the sovereign’s guards, ministers, or near kinsmen.

³⁰ See note on ver. 18. In the French version he is always called on ver. 18. In the French version he is always called Raguel..