Numbers 25:17

25:17 “Bring trouble ¹  to the Midianites, and destroy them,

Numbers 31:2

31:2 “Exact vengeance ²  for the Israelites on the Midianites ³  – after that you will be gathered to your people.” ⁴ 

Numbers 25:14-15

25:14 Now the name of the Israelite who was stabbed – the one who was stabbed with the Midianite woman – was Zimri son of Salu, a leader of a clan ⁵  of the Simeonites. 25:15 The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur. He was a leader ⁶  over the people of a clan of Midian. ⁷ 

Numbers 10:29

The Appeal to Hobab

10:29 ⁸ Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ⁹  “We are journeying to the place about which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, ¹⁰  for the Lord has promised good things ¹¹  for Israel.”

Numbers 25:6

25:6 Just then ¹²  one of the Israelites came and brought to his brothers ¹³  a Midianite woman in the plain view of Moses and of ¹⁴  the whole community of the Israelites, while they ¹⁵  were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

[25:17]  ¹ tn The form is the infinitive absolute used in place of a verb here; it clearly is meant to be an instruction for Israel. The idea is that of causing trouble, harassing, vexing Midian. The verb is repeated as the active participle in the line, and so the punishment is talionic.

[31:2]  ² tn The imperative is followed by its cognate accusative to stress this vengeance. The Midianites had attempted to destroy Israel with their corrupt pagan practices, and now will be judged. The accounts indicate that the effort by Midian was calculated and evil.

[31:2]  ³ sn The war was commanded by the Lord and was to be divine vengeance on the Midianites. So it was holy war. No Israelites then could take spoils in this – it was not a time for plunder and aggrandizement. It was part of the judgment of God upon those who would destroy or pervert his plan and his people.

[31:2]  ⁴ sn This would be the last major enterprise that Moses would have to undertake. He would soon die and “be gathered to his people” as Aaron was.

[25:14]  ³ tn Heb “a father’s house.” So also in v. 15.

[25:15]  ⁴ tn Heb “head.”

[25:15]  ⁵ sn The passage makes it clear that this individual was a leader, one who was supposed to be preventing this thing from happening. The judgment was swift and severe, because the crime was so great, and the danger of it spreading was certain. Paul refers to this horrible incident when he reminds Christians not to do similar things (1 Cor 10:6-8).

[10:29]  ⁵ sn For additional bibliography for this short section, see W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1-11; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; B. Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297-303; and T. C. Mitchell, “The Meaning of the Noun h£tn in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 93-112.

[10:29]  ⁶ sn There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1, and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן (khoten), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.

[10:29]  ⁷ tn The verb is the Hiphil of the root “to be good” (יָטַב, yatav); it may be translated “treat well, deal favorably, generously with.” Here it is a perfect tense with vav (ו) following the imperative, showing a sequence in the verbal ideas.

[10:29]  ⁸ tn The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.

[25:6]  ⁶ tn The verse begins with the deictic particle וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh), pointing out the action that was taking place. It stresses the immediacy of the action to the reader.

[25:6]  ⁷ tn Or “to his family”; or “to his clan.”

[25:6]  ⁸ tn Heb “before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of.”

[25:6]  ⁹ tn The vav (ו) at the beginning of the clause is a disjunctive because it is prefixed to the nonverbal form. In this context it is best interpreted as a circumstantial clause, stressing that this happened “while” people were weeping over the sin.