Exodus 18:1 calls Moses’ father-in-law “Jethro,” yet Exodus 2:18 refers to him as “Reuel.” Are these two names for the same person, or is this a contradiction? Overview Questions often arise when comparing Exodus 2:18, which refers to Moses’ father-in-law as “Reuel,” with Exodus 18:1, which calls him “Jethro.” At first glance, this might look like a contradiction. However, a careful reading within the broader context of the Pentateuch, as well as an understanding of ancient naming practices, reveals consistent explanations that align with the text. The following sections explore these references, relevant Hebrew terms, ancient cultural background, and harmonizing possibilities. 1. Biblical References to Reuel and Jethro “When they returned to their father Reuel, he asked them, ‘Why have you returned so early today?’” This scene appears after Moses has fled from Egypt and settled in Midian. The daughters of the Midianite priest are rescued by Moses at a well, and they later report this to their father, named here as “Reuel.” “Now Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard about everything God had done for Moses and His people Israel, and how the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt.” In this passage, the same Midianite priest is referred to as “Jethro.” 2. Potential Apparent Contradiction On the surface, these verses seem to identify two different names for the same individual. Skeptics sometimes label this a contradiction, suggesting that the Bible cannot decide who Moses’ father-in-law actually was. Yet Scripture presents multiple references that can help clarify the situation rather than create irreconcilable conflict. 3. Ancient Near Eastern Practices of Multiple Names It was common in the Ancient Near East for an individual to be known by more than one name, especially if one was a personal name and another was a title or honorary designation. For example, a single figure might be referred to by: • A birth or given name (e.g., Reuel). • A title reflecting status or role (e.g., Jethro often considered a descriptive title, meaning “His Excellence” or “Abundance”). • A name signifying clan or lineage. In the ancient world, titles and names could be used interchangeably depending on the setting. This means an individual might be called one name in a family context and another in a wider community or religious context. 4. Harmonizing the References There are two common explanations that uphold the unity and consistency of Scripture: A. Reuel and Jethro as the Same Person • Some interpreters explain that Reuel was a personal name meaning “friend of God” (Hebrew: רְעוּאֵל) and that Jethro was either an alternate name or a title of respect. • Just as individuals in biblical history were sometimes referred to by more than one name (e.g., Gideon/Jerubbaal in Judges 6:32; Jacob/Israel in Genesis 32:28), Moses’ father-in-law could well have been both Reuel and Jethro. B. Reuel as the Patriarch and Jethro as the Immediate Father-in-Law • A second approach suggests that Reuel might have been the broader patriarch of the family, such as the father of Jethro, or “the house of Reuel,” and that Moses’ father-in-law Jethro was the primary figure Moses personally dealt with in Exodus 18. • In Exodus 2:18, the daughters say, “When they returned to their father Reuel…”—the term “father” can also denote a grandfather or clan head in Hebrew usage. Thus, Reuel could be the overarching patriarch, while Jethro served as Moses’ direct father-in-law under the same household. Both views have been affirmed in various scholarly notes and commentaries (e.g., those referencing early Jewish rabbinical commentary and Christian expositors). Neither approach leads to contradiction when one accepts the flexibility of Hebrew familial terminology and the possibility of multiple names or titles. 5. Additional References and Explanations • Numbers 10:29 introduces “Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law.” Some believe “Hobab” was another name for Jethro, or possibly a brother or close relative in the same household. These overlapping names demonstrate that the Midianite family tied to Moses could carry several designations that highlight their roles and relationships. • Historical and Cultural Research: Ancient Semitic cultures occasionally designated elders as “fathers” of their clan, even if they were technically grandfathers or great uncles. This usage is not entirely dissimilar from many current world cultures, where an older relative can be referred to with a paternal term. • Archaeological and Linguistic Notes: Certain documents and inscriptions from regions close to Midian (such as in northwestern Arabia) indicate that high-status men could bear multiple epithets. Specialists in Semitic languages note that “Jethro” (Hebrew: יִתְרוֹ) could function as an honorific, further explaining why in some contexts he is called Jethro, while in others he is named Reuel. 6. Scriptural Consistency No Old Testament writer expresses any confusion or correction about these names, which points strongly to the fact that the original audience understood the references. The apparent dual naming was neither a controversial point nor explained away as if it were a contradiction. Rather, the original readers would have comprehended that these names referred either to the same individual under different designations or to members of the same household closely identified with one another. The forthright handling of names in ancient biblical manuscripts also attests to the reliability of these accounts. Later Jewish and Christian interpreters did not attempt to remove or homogenize the names but left them as preserved, indicating they were not viewed as inconsistencies but as complementary details. Conclusion When asking whether Moses’ father-in-law is called Reuel or Jethro, the textual evidence consistently shows these names are not contradictory. They either represent two names or titles for one person, or alternatively, they designate closely related family leaders within the same household. Multiple names in the ancient world were common. Scriptural context and the family structure of the era support that Moses’ father-in-law could be referred to in more than one way. Rather than indicating an error, these references reflect the richness of the biblical narrative and the naming conventions of its time. Both Jews and Christians through the centuries have found no insurmountable difficulty in these passages, affirming that Exodus refers appropriately to one father-in-law—whether addressed by personal name (Reuel), a title (Jethro), or a familial association within his larger household (Numbers 10:29’s mention of Hobab). There is no inherent contradiction, only a demonstration of the realistic nature of ancient life and the richly detailed character of Scripture. |
    |