Exodus 2:13,14

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Exodus 2:13

A GOOD MAN’S INTERFERENCE WITH A QUARREL

I. That it is the duty of Good Men to try to subdue any quarrels they may be called to witness.

1. Because they recognise the common grief of Men. This quarrel was between two Hebrews. They were both the slaves of a tyrant king. Both felt the misery of their condition. See, then, the folly of their quarrel. It would augment their woe. Their own unity ought to have been the relief of their serfdom. So there are many people to-day who increase their trials by a factious spirit. The most abject slave may, and ought to, enjoy the luxury of peace—ought to live on friendly terms with his comrades in suffering. Moses felt this. Good men should recognise the suffering of humanity as an argument for friendliness.

2. Because they recognise the claim arising from the brotherhood of men.

3. Because they ought to be superior to the passion of strife. A good man should be brave—and true bravery is always calm. He is above entering into the paltry and foolish quarrels of men. He may therefore endeavour to stay them, without personal injury. By so doing he will put an end to quarrels that might have resulted in a sad and murderous consequence. He may thus benefit the factious individual by freeing him from the life-long memory of injustice; and society at large, by preventing a public spectacle of immorality.

II. That in this endeavour good men should make moral considerations the basis of their appeal to the quarrelsome. “And he said to him that did the wrong.” Perhaps, in some quarrels it is difficult to determine which party is in the wrong. Very often both are blameworthy. Moral considerations should be made the basis of appeal.

1. Not favouritism. It is just possible that Moses may have seen these two men before. He would no doubt cultivate the acquaintance of his enslaved countrymen. And if he had not he was open to the impressions of the moment. When we see a quarrel we almost instinctively take sides. The one man appears more calm—he is more open in physique—the other appears more fierce and brutal—Our sympathies go with the former. This is not just. Nor can a good man base his appeal on any such predilection. Which is in the right?—this question contains the secret, and points to the method of settlement.

2. Not greater physical strength. In our effort to subdue a quarrel we must not necessarily side with the stronger—true, he may be more likely to come away conqueror. But if the weaker is right, our question must be directed against him that did the wrong, even though he be the stronger. In this case great Christian fortitude will be needed. Worldly men will often aid the strong in their conflict. The world likes to be on the winning side. Christianity must aid weakness when associated with rectitude. She must wait for her victory. It will come.

3. Not hope of reward. Many, in the event of conflict aid the side on which there is the greatest likelihood of plunder or spoil. The influential and the rich seldom lack comrades in their quarrels. The Christian man, in trying to stay the quarrels of men, must put aside all thought of vested interest, of temporal emolument, or transient applause—he must join himself to the right, unmoved by the promise, or hope of reward. His reward is from God—is brighter than gold—is more enduring—the reward of a satisfied conscience.

III. That good men, in trying to subdue the quarrels of others often get little thanks, and may involve themselves in trouble. “Who made thee a prince and a judge over us.”

1. They imagined that Moses assumed unrightful authority. True, Moses had rightful authority over these slaves. As the Son of Pharaoh’s daughter this would be permitted to him. But the right of the good to interrupt a quarrel does not depend upon social or national supremacy, but upon moral. A king might not be a proper person to rebuke a quarrel. Sainthood is the true qualification for such a work. A man who lives much in communion with the unseen, and who has power with God, will have influence to hush the passion of his fellows.

2. They reminded Moses of, and taunted him with, past sin. “Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian?” Moses thought that no one had seen his act of murder. The sin of a good man’s past life often weakens his present ability for doing good. When men are in the passion of strife, they are not choice as to their invectives. Hence, it requires a blameless life to rebuke evil.

3. The heroic interference of Moses lacked moral continuity. “And Moses feared,” &c. His own sin made him a coward.

4. Moses incurred the hatred of Pharoah. The two Hebrews would no doubt spread the story of Moses’ wrongdoing—it was corroborated by his flight from the palace—the king was amazed—his hospitality had been abused—the commencement of a life struggle between Egypt and Israel. The flight of Moses was the signal for the defeat of Pharoah. Thus, though endeavouring to stay this quarrel, Moses lost position, comfort, but it was the means of putting him upon the track of duty—divinely inposed—that would win him world-wide renown. Thus he did not lose much, according to a true computation, by the exchange. To stop a quarrel is a good man’s duty, regardless of consequences.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Exodus 2:13. “Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow.” Apply this question,

1. To the domestic circle.
2. To society at large.
3. To the Church.

Some find reason for their conduct—

1. In revenge.
2. In impulse.
3. Necessity.… God’s faithful instruments leave courtly pleasures to visit God’s afflicted ones … In visiting for good the oppressed Church, sad contentions may appear among the members.

Duels in the Church, and among its members, are sad things to record. They are reprovable.
Moses did not say, “You are both Hebrews, and therefore you may fight out your own quarrel;” nor did he say, “The controversies of other men are nothing to me; they who began the quarrel must end it:” Moses saw that the conditions of life had a moral basis; in every quarrel, as between right and wrong, he had a share, because every honourable-minded man is a trustee of social justice and common fair play [City Temple].

The reproof Moses gave on this occasion may still be of use, wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? Smiting our fellows is bad in any, especially in Hebrews; smiting with tongue or hand, either in a way of persecution, or in a way of contention. Consider the person thou smitest, it is thy fellow, thy fellow creature, thy fellow Christian; it is thy fellow servant, thy fellow sufferer [Henry and Scott].

Exodus 2:14. Offending parties are often insolent to those who rebuke them.

Wicked men are always impatient of authority.
Quarrelsome men are glad to involve others, that they may escape themselves.
Good men are sometimes frightened at the threats of the wicked.
Factious men are slow to acknowledge those who would do them moral good.
Wicked men are more willing to plead the cause of oppressors, than acknowledge just deliverers.
What authority did Moses assume in thus gently reproving a manifest outrage? Does one need a commission to perform an act of real kindness, and to endeavour to make friends of apparent enemies. It is rare virture ingenuously to confess our faults, and to receive correction with meekness [Bush].

Men know not what they do, nor what enemies they are to their own interest, when they resist, and despise faithful reproofs and reprovers. When the Hebrews strove with Moses, God sent him away into Midian, and they never heard of him for forty years [Henry and Scott].

The best friends of the Church often meet with the most discouragement.

1. Their authority is rejected.
2. They are not understood.
3. Their safety is endangered.
4. The welfare of the Church is imperilled.

The good man must not be turned aside from duty by circumstances.

1. Moses was not offended by this treatment.
2. He did not give up in despair.
3. He worked out the training of his boyhood.
4. He worked out the providence of God.
5. He worked out the dictates of his conscience

ILLUSTRATIONS

Exodus 2:11. In the ringing of bells, whilst every one keeps his due time and order, what a sweet and harmonious sound they make! All the neighbouring villages are cheered with the sound of them; but when once they jar and check each other, either jangling together or striking preposterously, how harsh and unpleasing is that noise. So that as we testify our public rejoicings by an orderly and well-timed peal, when we would signify the town is on fire, we ring the bells backward in a confused manner. It is just thus in the church: When every one knows his station, authority, and keeps his due rank, there is melodious concert of comfort and contentment: but when either states or persons will be clashing with each other, the discord is grievous and, prejudicial [Halls Occasional Meditations.].

Exodus 2:13. In most quarrels there is fault on both sides. A quarrel may be compared to a spark, which cannot be produced without a flint as well as a steel, either of them may hammer on wood for ever, no fire will follow [Cotton.]