Exodus 2
THE
BIRTH, ESCAPE, AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.
Some
years before the Pharaoh issued his edict for the general destruction
of the
Hebrew male children, Amram of the tribe of Levi, had married
Jochebed,
his kinswoman (ch. 6:20). They had already had two
children
— Miriam, a daughter, born probably soon after the marriage, and
Aaron,
a son, born some twelve years later. Soon after the issue of the
edict,
Jochebed gave birth to her third child, a son, who therefore came
under
its terms. Knowing as she did what fate was in store for him, if his
existence
became known to the Egyptians, she “hid him three months.”
Then,
despairing of being able to keep him concealed much longer, she
devised
the plan related in vs. 3-4, which proved successful.
1 “And
there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter
of Levi.”
There
went a man. The
Hebrew language is deficient in tenses,
and
cannot mark pluperfect time. The meaning is, that “a man of the
house
of
Levi had gone, some time before, and taken to wife a
daughter of Levi.”
Miriam
must have been fourteen or fifteen at the time of the exposure of
Moses.
By a
daughter of Levi, we must not understand an actual
daughter,
which is irreconcilable with the chronology, but one of Levi’s
descendants
— “a wife
of the daughters of Levi,” as the Septuagint translates.
2 “And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw
him that he was a goodly child, she hid him
three months.”
And the woman conceived. Not for the first time, as appears
from
v. 4, nor even for the second, as we learn from ch. 7:7; but
for
the third. Aaron was three years old when Moses was born. As no
difficulty
has occurred with respect to him, we must regard the edict as
issued
between his birth and that of Moses. When she saw that he was a
goodly child. Perhaps Jochebed would have done the same
had Moses
been
ill-favored, for mothers have often loved best their weakest and
sickliest;
but still it naturally seemed to her the harder that she was called
upon
to lose a strong and beautiful baby; and this is what the writer means
to
express — the clauses are not “simply co-ordinate.” She hid him — i.e,
kept
him within the house — perhaps even in the female apartments.
Egyptians
were mixed up with the Israelites in
any
great numbers, but still so that no Hebrew felt himself safe from
observation.
The
Birth of Moses (vs. 1-2)
In the
providence of God, great men are raised up
from
time to time, for the express object of working out His purposes. Here is the
founder
of the Jewish nation, Moses, the
originator of its independence, its lawgiver,
historian,
prophet, for the first time introduced to our notice; and not one word is
said
to exalt him, to challenge to him special attention, to show that he is the
foremost
man of his age, greater than Pentaour the poet, or Seti, or Rameses.
“There went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi;
and the woman
conceived and bare a son.” (v. 1) His father and mother not
even
named — “a
man” — “a daughter of Levi” — no
rank assigned
them,
no epithet used — nothing recorded but the bare facts: a
marriage, a birth, the
child a
male child, a son.” The
last verse of ch. 1. had told of the barbarous edict
issued
by the cruel despot who wielded the scepter of
born
under such circumstances perish at once, or will he escape? Can it be possible
to
elude or defy the express order of an absolute monarch? And if so, how? The
sequel
shows, relating as it does Moses’escape from death through the faithful, bold,
and
loving action of his mother. We learn from ch. 6:20 that some years
before the
Pharaoh
issued his edict for the general destruction of the Hebrew male children,
Amram of
the tribe of Levi, had married Jochebed, his kinswoman . They had already
had two
children — Miriam, a daughter, born probably soon after the marriage, and
Aaron, a
son, born some twelve years later. Soon after the issue of the edict, Jochebed
gave birth
to her third child, a son, who therefore came under its terms. Knowing as
she did
what fate was in store for him, if his existence became known to the Egyptians,
she “hid him three months.” (v.2)
Then, despairing of being able to keep him
concealed
much longer, she devised the plan
related in vs. 3-4, which proved
successful.
The
Beauty of Moses (v. 2)
Moses was “a goodly
child” — beautiful to took upon — “fair to God,” or
“exceeding fair,” as Stephen expresses it (Acts 7:20). Though beauty be but
“skin-deep,”
and if unaccompanied by loveliness of character is apt to
be a
snare and a
curse, yet, in its degree, and rightly employed, it
must
be regarded
as a
blessing. The beauty of Old Testament saints is often
mentioned.
Moses
was “goodly.” David “ruddy and of a beautiful countenance” (I Samuel
16:12),
Daniel fair
and well-favored (Daniel 1:4, 15), Esther fair and beautiful
(Esther 2:7),
Solomon was
comely and “the chiefest among ten
thousand” (Song of Solomon
5:10); One
greater than Solomon was “fairer than the children of
men” (Psalm
45:2).
It is an
affectation to ignore beauty, and the influence which it gives. Those
who possess
it should be taught that they are answerable
for it, as for other
gifts,
and are bound to use it to God’s glory.
Esther’s example may help them
in the
details of conduct. Regardless, Moses’
mother “saw that he was a
goodly
child. Perhaps Jochebed would have done the same had Moses
been
ill-favoured, (unlike many women, I can’t
say mothers, of the twentieth
and twenty-first centuries who abort such children – remember
Tim Tebow)
for
mothers have often loved best their weakest and sickliest; but still it
naturally
seemed to her the harder that she was called upon to lose a strong
and
beautiful baby; and this is what the writer means to express — the clauses
are
not “simply co-ordinate.”
3 “And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of
bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and
with pitch, and put the child
therein; and she laid it in the flags by
the river’s brink.”
She took for him an ark
of bulrushes. The
words translated
“ark” and “bulrushes” are
both of Egyptian origin, the former
corresponding
to the ordinary word for “chest,” which is feb, teba, or
tebat,
and the latter corresponding to the Egyptian kam, which
is the same
in
Coptic, and designates the papyrus plant. This is a strong-growing rush,
with a
triangular stem, which attains the height of from 10 to 15 feet. The
Egyptian
paper was made from its pith. The rush itself was used for
various
purposes — among others for boat-building (Plin. ‘H. N.’ 6:22;
7:16;
Theophrast, 4:9; Pint. ‘De Isid. et Osir.’ § 18, etc.), as appears from
the monuments.
It would be a very good material for the sort of purpose to
which
Jochebed applied it. She daubed it with slime and with pitch. The
word
translated “slime” is the
same as that used in Genesis 11:3, which
is
generally thought to mean “mineral pitch” or “bitumen.” According to
Strabo
and Dioderus, that material was largely used by the Egyptians for
the
embalming of corpses, and was imported into
Boats
are sometimes covered with it externally at the present day (Ker
Porter,
Travels, vol. 2. p. 260; Layard,’
5.);
but Jochebed seems to have used vegetable pitch, the ordinary pitch of
commerce
— for the purpose. Here again the Hebrew word is taken from
the
Egyptian. She
laid it in the flags. “Suph,” the word translated “flags,”
is a
modification of the Egyptian tuff, which
has that meaning. Waterplants
of all
kinds abound in the backwaters of the
tracts
communicating with it. The object of placing the ark in a thicket of
reeds
probably was, that it might not float away out of sight. The river’s
brink.
Literally, the lip of the river — an
Egyptian idiom.
4 “And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.”
His sister. There
can be no reasonable doubt that this is the “Miriam” of
the later
narrative
(ch. 15:20-21; Numbers 20:1), who seems to have been Moses’ only
sister
(Numbers 26:59). She was probably set to watch by her mother
5 “And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river;
and her
maidens walked along by the river’s side;
and when she saw the ark among
the flags, she sent her maid to fetch
it.” The daughter of Pharaoh. Probably a
daughter
of Seti I and a sister of Rameses
the Great. Josephus calls her Thermuthis;
Syncellus, Pharia; Artapanus, Merrhis, and some
of the Jewish commentators, Bithia
— the
diversity showing that there was no genuine tradition on the subject.
There
is nothing improbable in an Egyptian princess bathing in the
a
place reserved for women. (See Wilkinson, ‘Manners and Customs of
Ancient
Egyptians,’ vol. 3. p. 389.) The
its
water as health-giving and fructifying (Strab. 15. p. 695). Her maidens.
Egyptian
ladies of high rank are represented on the monuments as attended
to the
bath by a number of handmaidens. As many as four are seen in one
representation
(Wilkinson, 1.s.c.). Her
maid is her special personal
attendant,
the others being merely women attached to her household.
6 “And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe
wept.
And she had compassion on him, and said,
This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”
The
princess herself opened the “ark,” which was a sort of covered basket.
Perhaps
she suspected what she would find inside; but would it be a living or a
dead
child? This she could not know. She opened, and looked. It was a living babe,
and it
wept. At once her woman’s heart, heathen as she was, went out to the child —
its tears
reached the common humanity that lies below all
differences of race and
creed — and she pitied it. “One touch of nature
makes the whole world kin.”
This is one of the Hebrews’ children.
Hebrew characteristics were perhaps
stamped
even upon the infant visage. Or she formed her conclusion merely from
the
circumstances. No Egyptian woman had any need to expose her child, or
would
be likely to do so; but it was just what a Hebrew
mother, under the
cruel circumstances of the time, might have felt herself forced
to do. So she
drew
her conclusion, rapidly and decidedly, as is the way of woman.
7 “Then said his sister to Pharaoh’s daughter, Shall I go and call to
thee a nurse
of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the
child for thee? 8 And Pharaoh’s
daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went
and called the child’s mother.
9 And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Take
this child away, and nurse it for
me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the
women took the child, and nursed it.”
Then said his sister.
Miriam had watched to some purpose.
She
had seen everything — she had drawn near as she beheld the “maid”
go
down to the water’s edge, and take the ark out. She had heard the
words
of the princess; and thereupon she promptly spoke — “Shall I go
and call thee a nurse of
the Hebrew women?” No doubt, all had been
prepared
beforehand by the mother, who had selected the place and time of
the
exposure from a knowledge of the habits and character of the princess,
had
set her daughter to watch, and — so far as was possible — instructed
her
what she was to say. But Miriam at least carried out the instructions
given
her with excellent judgment and tact. She did not speak too soon,
nor
too late. She did not say a word too much, nor too little. “Surely,”
exclaimed
the princess, “this is one of the
Hebrews, children.” “Shall I
fetch
thee then a Hebrew mother to nurse him? is the rejoinder. Egyptians,
it is
implied, cannot properly nurse Hebrews — cannot know how they
ought
to be treated; an Egyptian nurse would mismanage the boy — shall I
fetch
one of his own nation? And the princess, feeling all the force of the
reasoning,
answers in one short pregnant word — “Go.” “Yes,” she
means,
“do so; that will be best.” And then the result follows — “The
maid (Miriam)
went and
called the child’s mother.” So the scheming of
the
loving mother, and the skilful performance of the part assigned her by
the
clever sister, were crowned with success — Moses’ life was saved, and
yet he
was not separated from his natural guardian, nor given over to the
tender
mercies of strangers: the child went back to his own home, to his
own
apartment, to his own cradle; continued to be nourished by his own
mother’s
milk; and received those first impressions, which are so indelibly
impressed
upon the mind, in a Hebrew family. Pharaoh’s daughter said,
“Take this child away,
and nurse it for me.” “Take him with you —
take
him to your own home for a while — and there nurse him for me, as
long
as he needs nursing.” And to mark that he is mine, and not yours —
to
silence inquiry — to stop the mouths of informers — “I will give thee
thy wages.” Jochebed
was more than content, and “took the child and
nursed it.”
The Infancy of Moses (vs. 1-9)
MOTHER, A
MOST AFFECTING ILLUSTRATION OF THE
We come down from the general statement of the first chapter
to the
particular instance of the second. Moses was born, in all
likelihood, just at
the very height of Pharaoh’s exasperation, and when the
command of
ch.1:22 was in process of being carried out. His servants,
ever
becoming more savage and brutal in disposition, as the very
consequence
of the harshness and severity they had daily to exercise,
would be going
about, watching the
midwives and hanging round the abodes of the
Israelites to listen for
the first faint cry of the newborn child. In such
circumstances, the work of the midwives most likely fell
into abeyance; for
the midwife became the unwilling herald of the murderer.
Thus mothers in
the crisis of their greatest need might be left without any
ministry or
sympathy whatever; their greatest safety in solitude, their
greatest comfort
to know that the newborn infant’s existence was utterly
unknown to any
Egyptian. No hour could well be darker, no circumstances
more
provocative of despair. We may depend upon it that God meant
much to
be suggested to
time. “In which time Moses was
born” (Acts 7:20). May we not well
imagine that when in later years Moses stole away from time
to time, out
of the splendors and luxuries of his royal home, to spend an
hour or two
with his own mother, she would tell him that, for all his
relation to
Pharaoh’s daughter and all his privileges about the court,
he had been
once, with many another helpless babe, the object of
Pharaoh’s bitterest
animosity. Things were in a very bad state when Moses was
born. Bad for
merciless and unscrupulous man
sat upon the throne; bad for the prospects
of Moses and all the coming generation. And so we
cannot but feel that the
whole world was in a very bad state when Jesus was born. He was
exposed
to the risk of a Herod; and Herod was but one of many
like-minded
oppressors. And worse than any cruelty and oppression from
without was
the state of the people in their hearts. Jew and Gentile were alike utterly
departed from God. Romans, ch. 1., does as much
as human language can
do to give us the measure of the universal
corruption and degradation. We
shall do well to mark in the New Testament the many things
that show
what unregenerate, vile, and apostate hearts were those with
whom Christ
and His apostles came in contact. Then, when we have the
dark, repulsive
picture of the times well before us, we may imitate Stephen,
and say — “in
which time Christ was born.”
CARES AND
SORROWS WHICH BELONG TO THE MATERNAL
RELATION. “When she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him
three months.” This can
hardly mean that if he had been a puny dwarfling,
she would have cast him aside as not worth anxiety. We know
that it is
precisely the weakest, the least attractive to a stranger’s
eye, who most
draws forth the mother’s love; thus furnishing a sweet
suggestion of that
Divine affection which
yearns, with the greatest tenderness, over those
who may seem to others hopelessly lost. But as Moses was a goodly child,
she was bound by this fact to give all available chances for
the promise that
was in him. Who can tell what anxieties and alarms filled
her thoughts
during these terrible three months, and how often she
skirted the extreme
edge of disaster, always feeling that with each succeeding
week her task
became more difficult? How keen must have been the struggle
before she
brought her mind to face the dread necessity of exposure! We
can imagine
her being driven to decisive action at last, by seeing the agonies
of some
neighboring mother, as the
servants of Pharaoh discover her child and
ruthlessly extinguish its
delicate life. Here, in
the sufferings of the mother
of Moses, and of all the rest whom she but represents, we
have something
like the full significance set before us of that curse which
first rested upon
Eve. There may have been a measure of truth in what the
midwives said
concerning the case with which the mothers in
but not so were they going to escape the curse. Their
trouble only began
when the man-child was born into the world. Not to them at
least was the
birth to be an occasion of joy, but the beginning of
unspeakable solicitude
(Matthew 2:16-18; 24:19; John 16:21). This poor woman
exposed her tender
infant, not because she was callous of heart, unnatural, and
lacking in love;
but because of the very intensity of her love. So wretched
had the state of
PLACE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE
SAFEST — the warm
bosom of the mother. (What an indictment on
world, that we have come back to this via the ABORTION INDUSTRY!
CY – 2017)
WOMANLY
SYMPATHY. The Scriptures, true to their character as
being the fullest revelation not less of human nature than
of the Divine
nature, abound in illustrations of the demonstrativeness of
womanly
sympathy. To go no further afield, we have such an
illustration in the
previous chapter (the conduct of the midwives). But here
there is an
instance which is peculiarly impressive. It was the daughter of Pharaoh
who showed the much-needed
sympathy. She knew well how the babe
came to be forsaken, and how, though it was forsaken, this
waterproof ark
had been so carefully provided for it. Somewhere in
mother anxiously speculating on the fate of this child; and
she knew that all
the strange discovery she had made came out of the stern,
unrelenting
policy of her own father. Some women indeed in her
circumstances would
have said, “Sad it may be that an infant should thus perish,
but my father
knows best. Leave it there.” But compassion
rose to flood-tide in her
heart, and choked all thoughts of selfish policy, if they
even so much as
entered into her mind. Jesus says to His disciples,
concerning one of the
difficulties and pains of discipleship, that a man’s foes
shall be they of his
own household. And the principle seems to hold good in the
carrying out
of worldly plans. If a man wants to be downright selfish, he
also may find
foes in his own household, not to be conquered, bribed, or
persuaded.
Pharaoh thinks he is closing-up the energies of
fashion; but his own daughter opens a little window only
large enough for
an infant three months old to get through it, and by this in the course of
time all the cunning and
cruelty of her father are made utterly void.
CRITICAL
ILLUSTRATION OF THE REALITY OF SPECIAL
narrative; indeed, he is not mentioned as having anything
directly to do
with Moses, until the interview, long after, at Horeb. There
is plenty of
mention of human beings, in the play of their affections,
their desires, and
their ingenuity. The mother, the child, the sister, the
nurse, the mother by
adoption, all come before us, but there is no
mention of God. Yet who
does not feel that the Lord of Israel, unmentioned though He
be, is yet the
central, commanding, and
controlling figure in all that takes place!
Ø It was He who caused Moses to be born at that particular
time.
Ø It was He who sheltered the infant during these three
months,
when perhaps others were being snatched away in
close proximity
on the right hand and the left.
Ø It was He who put into the heart of the mother to
dispose of her
child in this particular way, and taught her to
make such a cradle
as surely never was made before.
Ø It was He who gave the sister wisdom to act as she did —
a
wisdom possibly beyond her years.
Ø It was He who turned the feet of Pharaoh’s daughter (of
her
and no one else) in that particular direction,
and not in some other.
All His excellent working in this matter is hidden from
those who do not
wish to see it; but how manifest it is, how wonderful and
beautiful, to those
whose eyes He Himself has opened! How different is His
working here
from the working of the Deus ex machina (ἀπὸ
μηχανῆς θεός - apò mēkhanês
theós),
meaning 'god from the machine' - The term has evolved to
mean a
plot device
whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem
is suddenly and abruptly
resolved by the inspired
and unexpected intervention of some new event,
character, ability or
object. Its function can be to resolve an otherwise
irresolvable plot
situation, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to
a happy ending –
Wikipedia),in the tanglements and complications of
classical fable. There when things get to all appearance,
hopelessly
disordered, a deity comes in visible form and puts them
right. But in this
real deliverance of Moses, the God who is
the only true God works in a
far different way. He works
through natural means, and so silently, so
unobtrusively, that if men wise in their own conceits are determined
to ignore His presence, there is nothing to force it upon them.
SPECIAL
BEARING ON THE CAPABILITIES AND DUTIES OF
WOMEN. We have
here in the compass of twenty-five verses a
most encouraging instance of what women are able to do. So
far, in this
book of the Exodus, God is seen exalting the woman and
abasing the man.
Man, so far as he appears, is set before us a weak, thwarted
creature; cruel
enough in disposition, but unable to give his cruelty
effect. Even a king
with all his resources is baffled. But weak women set themselves to work,
to shelter a helpless
infant, and they succeed. Here as on other occasions
the hand of God is manifest, taking the
weak thing? of the world to
confound the strong. What a lesson, what an appeal and
warning to
women! We are all only too readily inclined to say, “What
can I do?” -
women perhaps more than others, because of their inability
to share in the
bustle and strain of public life. Think then of what God
enabled these
women to do, simply following out the dictates of natural
affection and
pity. They did far more than they were conscious of. Might not
women ask
very earnestly if they are doing anything like
what they ought to do, and
have the opportunity to do,
in bringing up children in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord? Christian
women, those who are themselves new
creatures in Christ Jesus, able to have all the love and
wisdom and every
spiritual grace that belongs to the new creature, might do a
work for the
world, compared with which the work of these women whom we
have
been considering would look a small matter indeed.
The
Escape of Moses (vs. 3-9)
The
escape of Moses teaches three things especially:
1. God’s over-ruling providence, and His
power to make wicked men work
out His will;
2. The blessing that rests upon a mother’s
faithful love and care; and
3. The fact that natural virtue is
acceptable in God’s sight.
·
GOD’S
OVER-RULING PROVIDENCE turned the cruel king’s edict
to
the advantage of the child whom he designed for
great things. Had it not
been for the edict, Moses would never have been
exposed, and Pharaoh’s
daughter would probably never have seen him. Had
she not come down
to the river when she did — had
any little circumstance occurred to
prevent her, as might easily have
happened, the child might have died
of hunger or exposure
before she saw it, or might have been found by an
unfriendly
Egyptian
and thrown from the ark into the water. Moreover, had
the child
not
happened to be in tears when she opened the ark, it might not
have
moved
her compassion, or at any rate not have so stirred it as to make
her
take
the boy for her son. In any of these contingencies, Moses, even if
saved by some further device of his
mother’s, would not have had the
education which alone fitted him to
be the nation’s leader and guide, nor
the familiarity with court life
which enabled him to stand up boldly before
the Pharaoh of his time and contend
with him as an equal. Thus Pharaoh’s
pet weapon, the
edict, was turned against himself, and brought about that
Exodus of the
Israelites which he was so anxious to hinder (Exodus
1:10).
It was an aggravation of his
punishment that the hand by which his
designs were frustrated was that of
his own daughter, who unwittingly
preserved the child which, of all
others, he was most concerned to destroy.
“By faith
Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of
his
parents” (Hebrews 11:23). Disobedience to the edict of
the king would
in
Amram and Jochebed, but especially
Jochebed, who must have been the
main agent in the concealment,
braved these penalties — did not allow
their fear of them to influence
their conduct — had faith in God that He
would, somehow or other, give
success to their endeavors to preserve
their child, and either save them
from .punishment or reward them in
another world. (Maybe this is where
Moses first learned to have “respect
unto the recompence of the reward” –
[Hebrews 11:26] – CY – 2010)
And it was done to them according as
they believed. The concealment of
the birth was undetected for the
long space of three months — the ark was
placed, no one perceiving, among the
flags at the edge of the river — the
daughter of Pharaoh made her
appearance at the time expected — “had
compassion” on the
babe — accepted without hesitation Miriam’s suggestion
that she should fetch a nurse —
accepted without demur or suspicion the
mother as the nurse-gave him back to
her care for a space of nearly two
years — and finally assigned the
child the highest position possible, almost
that of a prince of the blood royal
— allowed him to be called and considered
her son — and had him educated
accordingly. Jochebed’s utmost hope had
probably been to save her child’s
life. God’s blessing brought it to pass that
she not only obtained that result,
but procured him the highest social rank
and the best possible cultivation of
all his powers, whether of mind or body.
Mothers should lay this lesson to
heart, and — whatever danger threatens
their children — hope for the best,
plan for the best, work for the best; they
may not always, like Jochebed, find
all their plans crowned with success; but
they may trust God to .bless their
endeavors in His own way and in His own
good time, if only they be made in
faith, and with due submission of their
own wills to His. Moses’ life was saved, and yet he was not
separated from
his natural guardian, nor given over
to the tender mercies of strangers: the
child went back to his own home, to
his own apartment, to his own cradle;
continued to be nourished by his own
mother’s milk; and received those first
impressions, which are so indelibly
impressed upon the mind, in a Hebrew
family.
through both the Old and the New
Testament a continual protest against
the view that God is “a respecter of persons”
in the sense of confining His
favor to those who have been brought
by the appointed mode into actual
covenant with Him. The lesson is
taught with frequent iteration, that “in
every nation he
that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted
with Him” (Acts
10:35). Here it is an Egyptian Pharaoh’s daughter —
that is evidently regarded
favorably. Elsewhere it is Rahab of Jericho, or
Ruth the Moabitess, or Arannah the
Jebusite, or Darius the Mede, or Cyrus
the Persian, or Artaxerxes, or the
Syro-Phcenician woman, or Cornelius
the centurion — all of whom are
examples of the same universal law,
which is, that God looks graciously
upon all His creatures, and accepts
every sincere effort towards good
that is made by any of them. In His house
are “many mansions” — in His
future kingdom are many gradations. No
one is shut out of his kingdom by
the circumstances of his birth or
profession. Let a man but seek
honestly to do His will according to his
lights, and persevere to the end, he
will obtain acceptance, whatever the
belief in which he has been brought
up, and whatever his professed
religion. His
profession will not save him; but his love of goodness, his
efforts to do what is right, his
earnest cleaving to truth, and right, and
virtue, will be accepted, through
the merits of Christ, and counted to
him for righteousness.
10 “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and
he became her son. And she called his name
Moses: and she said, Because
I drew him out of the water”. The child grew. Compare Genesis 21:8, where
the
full phrase is used — “The child grew, and
was weaned.”
Jocbebed had saved
her
son’s life by a transfer of her mother’s right in him to Pharaoh’s
daughter.
She had received him back, merely as a hired nurse, to suckle
him.
When the time came, probably at the end of the second year, for him
to be
weaned, she was bound, whatever the sufferings of her heart may
have
been, to give him up — to restore him to her from whom she had
received
him, as a child put out to nurse. And we see that she made no
attempt
to escape her obligations. No sooner was the boy weaned, than
“she brought him unto
Pharaoh’s daughter” — as it would seem, of her
own
accord. And
he became her son. (I should think that as Christ said
that
the Queen of Sheba shall arise in judgment to condemn “this generation”
(Matthew
12:42) that Pharaoh’s daughter will do the same in not condemning
the
babe to death, like contemporary mothers and abortion doctors, lawyers,
and so
called statesmen, do today in promoting the abortion
industry. CY – 2017)
There
is no evidence that formal “adoption” was a custom of the Egyptians;
and
probably no more is here meant than that the princess took the child into
her
family, and brought him up as if he had been her son, giving him all the
privileges
of a son, together with such an education as a princess’s son usually
received.
We obtain the best general idea of what such an education was from
the
words of Stephen (Acts 7:21) — “Now Moses was learned
in all the wisdom
of the Egyptians.” This “wisdom,” though not perhaps very deep, was
multiform
and manifold. It included orthography, grammar, history,
theology,
medicine, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and engineering.
Education
began, as in most countries, with orthography and grammar.
The
hieroglyphical system was probably not taught, and the knowledge of
it
remained a special privilege of the priest-class: but the cursive character,
known
as the hieratic, was generally studied, and all tolerably educated
persons
could read it and write it. Style was cultivated, and though no
great
progress was made in the graces of finished composition, the power
of expressing thought and relating facts in a simple and
perspicuous prose
was
acquired by the greater number. Much attention was paid to letter writing;
and
models of business and other letters were set before the pupil
as
patterns which he was to follow. By the more advanced, poetry was
read,
and poetic composition occasionally practiced. Arithmetic and
geometry,
up to a certain point, were studied by all; and a plain morality
was
inculcated. But history, theology, astronomy, medicine, and
engineering,
were viewed as special studies, to be pursued by those
intended
for certain professions, rather than as included within the
curriculum
of an ordinary education; and it may well be doubted whether
Moses’
attention was much directed to any of them. He may indeed have
been
initiated into the mysteries, and in that case would have come to
understand
the esoteric meaning of the Egyptian myths, and of all that most
revolts
moderns in the Egyptian religion. But, on the whole, it is most
probable
that he was rather trained for active than for speculative life, and
received
the education which fitted men for the service of the State, not
that
which made them dreamers and theorists. His great praise is, that “he
was mighty in words and deeds “(ibid.); and
he was certainly
anything
rather than a recluse student. We should do wrong to regard him
as
either a scientific man or a philosopher. His genius was practical; and his
education
was of a practical kind — such as fitted him to become the
leader
of his people in a great emergency, to deal on equal terms with a
powerful
monarch, and to guide to a happy conclusion the hazardous
enterprise
of a great national migration. And she called his name Moses.
The
Egyptian form of the name was probably Mesu, which signifies “born,
brought
forth, child,” and is derived from a root meaning “to produce,”
“draw
forth.” Egyptian has many roots common to it with Hebrew,
whereof
this is one. The princess’s play upon words thus admitted of being
literally
rendered in the Hebrew — “he called his name Mosheh (drawn
forth);
because, she said, I drew him forth (meshithi-hu) from
the water.”
Mesu
is found in the monuments as an Egyptian name under the nineteenth
dynasty
A Child of
This
section recounts the birth, deliverance, and upbringing at the court of
Pharaoh,
of the future Deliverer of Israel. In which we have to notice:
faith of Moses’ parents is signalized in the Epistle to the
Hebrews
(Hebrews 11:23). Observe:
Ø
The occasion of its trial. The king’s edict threatened the child’s life. The
case of Moses was peculiar, yet not
entirely so. No infancy or childhood
but lays a certain strain upon the faith of
parents. The bark of a child’s
existence is so frail, and it sets out
amidst so many perils! And we are
reminded that this strain is usually more
felt by the mother than the father,
her affection for her offspring being in
comparison deeper and more tender
(compare Isaiah 49:15). It is the mother of Moses who
does all and dares all
for the salvation of her babe.
Ø
Its nature. Both in Old and New Testaments it is connected with
something remarkable in the babe’s
appearance (Acts 7:20;
Hebrews 11:23). Essentially, however, it
must have been the same faith
as upholds believers in their trials still
— simple, strong faith in God, that
He would be their Help in trouble, and
would protect and deliver the child
whom with tears and prayers they cast upon
His care. This was sufficient to
nerve Jochebed for what she did.
Ø
Its working. Faith wrought with works, and by works was faith made
perfect (James 2:22).
o
It nerved them to disobey the tyrant’s
edict, and hide the child for
three months. Terrible as was, this period
of suspense, they took
their measures with prudence, calmness, and
success. Religious faith
is the
secret of self-collectedness.
o
It enabled them, when concealment was no
longer practicable, to make
the venture of the ark of bulrushes. The
step was bold, and still bolder
if, as seems probable, Jochebed put the ark
where she did, knowing that
the princess and her maidens used that spot
as a bathing-place. Under
God’s secret guidance, she ventured all on
the hope that the babe’s
beauty and helplessness would attract the
lady’s pity. She would put
Pharaoh’s daughter as a shield between her
child and Pharaoh’s
mandate.
Ø
Learn:
o
Faith is not inconsistent with the use of
means.
o
Faith exhausts all means before abandoning
effort.
o
Faith, when all means are exhausted, waits
patiently on God.
o
Pious parents are warranted in faith to
cast their children on
God’s care.
It was a sore trial to Jochebed to trust
her child out of her own arms,
especially with that terrible decree
hanging over him. But faith enabled her
to do it. She believed that God would keep
him — would make him His
charge — would provide for him, — and in
that faith she put the ark
among the rushes. Scarcely less faith are
parents sometimes called upon to
exercise in taking steps of importance for
their children’s future.
Missionaries in
etc. The sorest trial of all, when parents
on their deathbeds have to part with
little ones, leaving them to care of
strangers. Hard, very hard, to flesh and
blood; but:
o
God lives,
o
God cares,
o
God will
provide,
He will watch the ark of the little one thus
pushed out on the waters of the
wide, wide world.
faith of Moses’ parents met with its reward. Almost “whiles”
they were yet
“praying” (Daniel 9:20), their prayers were answered, and
deliverance
was vouchsafed. In regard to which observe:
Ø
How various are the instrumentalities employed by
working out its purposes.
o
A king’s edict,
o
a mother’s love,
o
a babe’s tears,
o
a girl’s shrewdness,
o
the pity of a princess,
o
Egyptian customs, etc.
Ø
How
desired results. The will of God was
infallibly accomplished, yet no
violence was done to the will of the
agents. In the most natural way
possible, Moses was:
o
rescued by Pharaoh’s daughter,
o
restored to his mother to nurse,
o
adopted by the princess as her son, and
o
afterwards educated by her in a way
suitable to his position.
Thus was secured for Moses:
o
protection.
o
a liberal education.
o
experience of court-life in
Ø
How easily the plans of the wicked can be turned
against themselves.
Pharaoh’s plans were foiled by his own
daughter. His edict was made the
means of introducing to his own court the
future deliverer of the race he
meant to destroy. God takes the wicked in their own net (Psalm 9:15-16).
Ø
How good, in God’s providence, is frequently
brought out of evil. The
People might well count the issuing of this
edict as the darkest hour of
their night — the point of lowest ebb in
their fortunes. Yet see what God
brought out of it! The deliverance of a
Moses — the first turning of the
tide in the direction of help. What poor judges we are of what is really for
or against
us!
Ø
How greatly God often exceeds our expectations in the deliverances He
sends. He
does for us above what we ask or think. (Ephesians
3:20)
The utmost Moses’ parents dared to pray for
was doubtless that his life
might be preserved.
o
That he should be that very day restored to
his mother,
and nursed at her bosom;
o
that he should become the son of Pharaoh’s
daughter;
o
that he should grow to be great, wise,
rich, and powerful —
this was felicity, happiness that they had
not dared to dream of. BUT
THIS IS
GOD’S WAY! He exceeds our expectations. He gives to faith
more than it looks for. So in
Redemption, we are not only saved from
PERISHING,
but receive:
o
“everlasting
life” (John 3:16)
o
honor,
o
glory,
o
reward.
By Works was Faith Made Perfect (vs. 1-10)
Bad times;
harsh decrees against the Israelites; doubts and misgivings
which must
have occurred to one in Amram’s position; was a hard experience
and a dark prospect.
Still
the man believed in God, remembered the
promises,
and knew that God also must remember them; he did not see how
they were
to be fulfilled, but he was content to do his own duty AND LEAVE
ALL ELSE TO GOD! See:
Ø
His marriage. Under all the
circumstances he might well have been
excused if he had decided to remain unmarried.
Such advice as that of
Paul to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 7:25-28)
would seem to apply to
such a time. The matter, however, was not to be
so easily settled. Faith
will not permit marriage without prudence and
due forethought, but neither
will Faith permit abstinence from marriage merely because
marriage will
bring “trouble
in the flesh.” Improvidence and a too-calculating abstinence
both prompted
by selfishness. (The Bible teaches “Now The
Spirit
speaketh
expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the
faith.......forbidding
to marry.” - I Timothy 4:1, 3 – CY – 2017) Faith
looks forward and looks around, but she looks up also, and is guided by the
result of that upward look. Theories of political
economists, etc., are not to be
despised, none the less Faith will act — her
actions regulated to some extent,
but not
fettered, by calculation. Paul’s teaching is to be
qualified by Amram’s
example; Amram knew the times, foresaw the rocks
ahead, yet he “took to
wife a
daughter of Levi.”
Ø
His choice of a wife. It is clear from narrative that the woman was the man’s
true helpmeet. Of the same family, they must
have been well acquainted,
and her conduct shows that her faith equaled
his. Faith not only prompted
marriage,
but also directed
choice. Amram and his wife did not marry
merely for the sake of marrying, but “for the mutual society, help, and
comfort which the one ought to have of the
other both in prosperity and
adversity.”
Ø
Conduct in the face of trial. The two, man and wife, now as one: though
the woman comes to the fore, no doubt her faith
represents that of both.
Aaron and Miriam, reared before the trial
reached its height; then “a
goodly
child,” just at the season of greatest danger. Note the
action
prompted by faith; how different from that which
might have been
suggested by fatalism. Fatalism would have said,
“Let things be; if he must
be killed
he must.” Compare the
Eastern proverb, “On two days it skills not
to avoid death, the appointed and the
unappointed day.” Faith, on the other
hand, is ready and courageous, holding that God
helps those who help
themselves, or rather that he helps them through self-help. But notice:
Ø
The conduct of the wife justified her husband’s
choice. She was the
help-meet he hoped she would be. God gave her
wisdom to comfort and
strengthen him; His
blessing added the third strand to that threefold cord
which is not quickly broken. (Ecclesiastes 4:12)
Ø
Their united efforts for the preservation of
their children were crowned
by God with complete success. [Illustrate from
the history — all
happening, all ordained
to happen, just as they hoped.] They had prepared,
by carrying out the plan which faith prompted, a
channel through which
God’s gracious and ready help might reach them;
and God used the
channel which they had prepared. The whole narrative shows how faith,
when it is
living, proves its life by works, and how in response to a living
faith GOD SHOWS THAT HE IS A LIVING GOD! If Amram
had walked
by sight
and not by faith,
o
Moses might never have been born,
o
Jochebed never have been married;
as it was
he walked by faith and not by sight, doing his duty and trusting
God, and through him
came redemption unto
the water became the leader who should “take” his people “out of” bondage.
A Picture of True Faith (vs. 1-10)
Ø There was obedience to a Divine
impulse: her heart was appealed to, she
saw he was a goodly child, and she hid him three months. She
read in the
child’s appearance an intimation of future greatness, and
that God did not
mean him to die in accordance with the king’s commandment. The work
of faith begins in obeying the Spirit’s prompting in the heart.
Ø She was not daunted by difficulties. She might
have asked what could
this temporary concealment do but only prolong her misery.
Faith is
content if it has light but for one step.
Ø Faith is
fertile in expedients. The safety which is no longer to be had in
the home may be found on the waters.
Ø When it has
done all, it waits, as with girded loins, for the dawning light.
Miriam stood afar off.
knowing it is nothing, look unto Him, THEN GOD APPEARS FOR US!
Ø The child’s
life was saved.
Ø He was
given back into his mother’s arms.
Ø The very
might which before was raised to slay was now used to guard
him.
Ø He was
freed from the unhappy lot of his countrymen, and set among
the princes of the land. Our trust prepares a place where
God may
manifest Himself. He “is able to
do exceeding abundantly above
all that we ask or think.”
The Child of the Water (vs. 1-10)
“And she called his name Moses... water.” (v. 10).
Save Jesus,
Moses is
the greatest name in history. Compare with it Mahomet, or even
that of
Paul. As the founder of the Jewish religion — under God — his
influence
is felt today, not only by 6,000,000 Jews, but throughout the
Christian
Church. Here is the beginning of his career. This mighty stream
of
influence we can trace to its source; not like the
still in
debate, a mystery. The text gives the name and its reason. The
derivation
is either Hebrew, and then = “Drawing out,” so
designating the
act of the
princess; or Egyptian, and then = “Saved from the water.” The
name a
memorial of salvation. Happy, when children bearing distinguished
names,
shame them not in the after-years. We treat the subject in the order
of the
story: so its suggestiveness for heart and life will appear.
mother; Miriam, much older, and Aaron, three years older,
than Moses.
Note: Moses owed:
Ø Little to his family. Look at v.
1. But the pre-eminence of Levi was
not yet. The tribe did not make Moses; rather Moses (with
Miriam and
Aaron) the tribe. “Blue blood?’ Yes! and No! There is a
sense in which
we may be proud of ancestry, a sense in which not. What to
me that I
descend from a Norman baron? Everything to me that I come
from
able, gifted, saintly parentage.
My boast is not that I deduce my birth
From loins enthron'd, and rulers of the earth;
But higher far my proud pretensions rise—
The son of parents pass'd into
the skies.
(My
Mother’s Picture – Cowper)
Ø Little to his home. Only a
slave but; the scene of toil, poverty, suffering,
fear. Out of it brought one thing — sympathy with suffering.
Ø Little to his parents. Biographers
usually give us the attributes and
history of ancestors, and show how they account for the
career of the
child. Nothing of that here. Even the names of the parents
do not
appear. Note the
omission in v. 1. “A man,” etc. “A daughter,” etc.
No doubt there is here a mental and moral heritage; but
little training,
because of little opportunity. Generally, there is, under this head,
a lesson of encouragement for those who have, or fancy they
have,
hard beginnings in life. Some of
earth’s noblest have risen out of
disadvantage.
of his birth see
below:
2. While the affairs of the Hebrews were in this
condition, there was this occasion offered itself to the
Egyptians, which made them more solicitous for
the extinction of our nation. One of those sacred scribes,
who are very sagacious in foretelling future
events truly, told the king, that about this time there would a
child be born to the Israelites, who, if he were
reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low, and would
raise the Israelites; that he would excel all
men in virtue, and obtain a glory that would be remembered
through all ages. Which thing was so feared by
the king, that, according to this man's opinion, he
commanded that they should cast every male
child, which was born to the Israelites, into the river,
and destroy it; that besides this, the Egyptian
midwives should watch the labors of the Hebrew
women, and observe what is born, for those were
the women who were enjoined to do the office
of midwives to them; and by reason of their
relation to the king, would not transgress his commands.
He enjoined also, that if any parents should
disobey him, and venture to save their male children
alive, they and
their families should be destroyed. This was a severe affliction indeed to
those that
suffered it, not only as they were deprived of
their sons, and while they were the parents themselves,
they were obliged to be subservient to the
destruction of their own children, but as it was to be
supposed to tend to the extirpation of their
nation, while upon the destruction of their children,
and their own gradual dissolution, the calamity
would become very hard and inconsolable to them.
And this was the ill state they were in. But no
one can be too hard for the purpose of God, though
he contrive ten thousand subtle devices for that
end; for this child, whom the sacred scribe foretold,
was
brought up and concealed from the observers appointed by the king; and he that
foretold him
did not mistake in the consequences of his
preservation, which were brought to pass after the
manner following: -
3. A man whose name was Amram, one of the nobler
sort of the Hebrews, was afraid for his whole
nation, lest it should fail, by the want of
young men to be brought up hereafter, and was very uneasy
at it, his wife being then with child, and he
knew not what to do. Hereupon he betook himself to
prayer to God; and entreated him to have
compassion on those men who had nowise transgressed
the laws of his worship, and to afford them
deliverance from the miseries they at that time endured,
and to render abortive their enemies' hopes of
the destruction of their nation. Accordingly God had
mercy on him, and was moved by his supplication.
He stood by him in his sleep, and exhorted him
not to despair of his future favors. He said
further, that He did not forget their piety towards Him,
and would always reward them for it, as He had
formerly granted his favor to their forefathers, and
made them increase from a few to so great a
multitude. He put him in mind, that when Abraham was
come alone out of Mesopotamia into
but that when his wife was at first barren, she
was afterwards by Him enabled to conceive seed,
and bare him sons. That he left to Ismael and to
his posterity the country of
his sons by Ketura, Troglodytis; and to Isaac,
exploits in war, which, unless you be yourselves
impious, you must still remember. As for Jacob,
he became well known to strangers also, by the
greatness of that prosperity in which he lived,
and left to his sons, who came into
become above six hundred thousand. Know
therefore that I shall provide for you all in common
what is for your good, and particularly for
thyself what shall make thee famous; for that child,
out of dread of whose nativity the Egyptians
have doomed the Israelite children to destruction,
shall be this child of thine, and shall be
concealed from those who watch to destroy him: and
when he is brought up in a surprising way, he
shall deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress
they are under from the Egyptians. His memory
shall be famous while the world lasts; and this
not only among the Hebrews, but foreigners also:
- all which shall be the effect of my favor to thee,
and to thy posterity. He shall also have such a
brother, that he shall himself obtain my priesthood,
and his posterity shall have it after him to the
end of the world.
4. When the vision had informed him of these
things, Amram awaked and told it to Jochebed who
was his wife. And now the fear increased upon
them on account of the prediction in Amram's dream;
for they were under concern, not only for the
child, but on account of the great happiness that was
to come to him also. However, the mother's labor
was such as afforded a confirmation to what was
foretold by God; for it was not known to those
that watched her, by the easiness of her pains, and
because the throes of her delivery did not fall
upon her with violence. And now they nourished the
child at home privately for three months; but
after that time Amram, fearing he should be discovered,
and, by falling under the king's displeasure,
both he and his child should perish, and so he should
make the promise of God of none effect, he
determined rather to trust the safety and care of the child
to God, than to depend on his own concealment of
him, which he looked upon as a thing uncertain,
and whereby both the child, so privately to be
nourished, and himself should be in imminent danger;
but he believed
that God would some way for certain procure the safety of the child, in order
to secure
the truth of
his own predictions. When they had thus determined, they made an ark
of bulrushes, after
the manner of a cradle, and of a bigness
sufficient for an infant to be laid in, without being too straitened:
they then daubed it over with slime, which would
naturally keep out the water from entering between the
bulrushes, and put the infant into it, and
setting it afloat upon the river, they left
its preservation to God;
so the river received the child, and carried him
along. But Miriam, the child's sister, passed along upon
the bank over against him, as her mother had bid
her, to see whither the ark would be carried, where
God demonstrated that human wisdom was nothing,
but that the Supreme Being is able to do
whatsoever He pleases: that those who, in order
to their own security, condemn others to destruction,
and use great endeavors about it, fail of their
purpose; but that others are in a surprising manner
preserved, and obtain a prosperous condition
almost from the very midst of their calamities; those,
I mean, whose dangers arise by the appointment
of God. And, indeed, such a
providence was
exercised in
the case of this child, as showed the power of God.
(Josephus Antiquities. 2:9. 2-4)
Moses was:
Ø No common child. Skepticism objects that Miriam and Aaron are not
mentioned in vs. 1-2 by name. But the motive and impulse of
inspiration
are to be taken into account. The object was to give the
event which led
to the Exodus, and to the constitution of the Jewish Church.
From this
point of view interest concentrates on Moses. Hence we infer
the
extraordinary greatness of
his character and career.
Ø Born at a critical moment. See Acts
7:20. So the Jewish proverb:
“When the tale of bricks is doubled,
then comes Moses.”
Note:
o At the moment of deepest darkness God sends deliverance.
o When He wants instruments He creates them.
Ø Of no common beauty. Not only in
his mother’s eyes, which would be
natural enough, but absolutely. See Acts 7:20, as well as
v.2;
and for interesting illustration, see below:
Hereupon it was that Thermuthis imposed this
name Mouses upon him, from what had
happened when he was put into the river; for the
Egyptians call water by the name
of Mo, and such as are saved out of it, by the name of Uses: so by putting
these two
words together, they imposed this name upon him.
And he was, by the confession
of all, according to God's prediction, as well
for his greatness of mind as for his
contempt of difficulties, the best of all the
Hebrews, for Abraham was his ancestor
of the seventh generation. For Moses was the son
of Amram, who was the son of
Caath, whose father Levi was the son of Jacob,
who was the son of Isaac, who was
the son of Abraham. Now Moses's understanding
became superior to his age, nay,
far beyond that standard; and when he was
taught, he discovered greater quickness
of apprehension than was usual at his age, and
his actions at that time promised
greater, when he should come to the age of a
man. God did also give him that tallness,
when he was but three years old, as was
wonderful. And as for his beauty, there was
nobody so unpolite as, when they saw
Moses, they were not greatly surprised at the
beauty of his countenance; nay, it happened
frequently, that those that met him as he
was carried along the road, were obliged to turn
again upon seeing the child; that
they left what they were about, and stood still
a great while to look on him; for
the beauty of the child was so remarkable and
natural to him on many accounts,
that it detained the spectators, and made them
stay longer to look upon him.
((Josephus Antiquities. 2:9. 6)
All this the promise of a higher
beauty of character that opened
out with the years.
therefore must run the gauntlet of peril. Compare Jesus
under the edict of
Herod with Moses under that of Pharaoh. No sooner born than a battle for
life. The two
only infants, but full of possibilities. Pharaoh! the babe you
may crush; hereafter the man shall ruin you. A seeming law
in the case, to
which witness the legends of many nations, e.g.
Cyrus, King Arthur.
Ø
Of
the mother.
o
Concealing. Hebrews 11:23. How by faith? Went right on in
the
discharge of common
duty to the child, not turning aside to observe the
king’s commandment. Then the love went to the
other extreme:
o
Exposing. Here narrate the facts, for which see the text and
commentary above; e.g. impossibility of longer
concealing a growing child,
form and material of the ark, laid in a place of
comparative safety, “in the
flags” at “the lip of
the river,” the elements of danger — starvation,
discovery — not crocodiles on the Tanitic branch of the river. But observe
the feeling behind the facts. A mother’s despair
becoming hope, and then
faith; but a faith provident and workful, for, living in the
neighborhood,
she could not fail to know where the childless (so says
tradition) princess
was wont to bathe. Just there she placed the child.
Ø Of the sister. Imagine her
anxiety! The mother-heart in every girl. She
was:
o
Watchful: over the ark, against an enemy, for
the princess;
o
Active;
o
Clever, full of resource;
o
Successful;
o
Became eminent; a prophetess, ch. 15:20.
One of the three deliverers, Micah 6:4. The adored
of the people,
Numbers 12:10-15. In
childhood are laid the foundations of character.
Ø Of God. BEFORE ALL, OVER ALL AND BEHIND ALL! Love to
the child, sister, parents,
to
him.
part played by each of the following instruments: —
Ø The princess. Note the
independent status of an Egyptian princess, the
custom then of bathing in the open river, the probable
locality, Zoan
(Psalm 78:43), that compassion was inculcated by the
Egyptian
religion, and the probable application to her of Acts 10:35.
Ø
The sister.
Ø
The mother.
Ø The princess again; and possible lifelong parting from the mother.
Finally,
observe:
Ø The deliverances of God are wonderful. Only one
person in all the land
of
Ø
The object of God’s deliverances does not center and rest on THE
DELIVERED. It passes beyond:
o Moses for
o
o Messiah for
the world.
So Abraham, Genesis 12:2. So with elect spirits
and elect nations in all ages.
None for himself.
Ø So is it with THE GREAT
SALVATION! Wonderful! The benediction
thereof unresting, passing on from the first
recipients.
Ø But the retributions of God are just as MARVELOUS! Moses was
to
be the ruin of the house of Pharaoh, and
deservedly so. But in the
providence of God the tyrant is made to pass by
and even protect the
instrument of his future punishment. (“.....for it is written, He
taketh the wise in their own
craftiness.” - I
Corinthians 3:19 –
You can rest assured that God is able and still
is doing this and
THAT ON A GRAND SCALE WHEN
THE ENDTIMES COME –
to the point that ALL SHALL KNOW
THAT IT IS GOD DOING IT!
I recommend Ezekiel
- Study of God’s Use of the Word Know - # 223
this website – CY – 2017)
THE
EDUCATION OF MOSES (v.
10)
Education
is to fit us for the battle of life. The first and most important point is that
a
child be “virtuously brought up to lead a godly life” In
Egypt morality was highly
regarded;
and some have gone so far as to say that “the laws of the Egyptian
religion
“ — in respect of morality at any rate — “fell short in nothing of the
teachings
of Christianity” (see Brugsch, ‘History of Egypt,’ vol. 1. p. 20). This
is, no
doubt, an over- statement; but it is the
fact, that correct and elevated ideas
on the
subject of morality were entertained by the Egyptian sages, and
inculcated
on the young by Egyptian teachers. To “give bread to the hungry,
drink
to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, set the wanderer in his
path, resist the
oppressor,
and put a stop to violence,” were regarded as the
first elements of
duty,
the very alphabet of morality, which the most
ignorant was expected to
know
and practise. To the more advanced such
counsels as the following were
given: “If thou art become great
after thou hast been humble, and if thou hast
amassed
Riches after poverty, and art come to be the first man of thy city; if
thou
art known for thy wealth, and hast become a great lord: let not thy
heart
grow proud because of thy riches; for it is God who has given them
to
thee.” “Despise not another who is as thou wast; be towards him as
towards
thine equal.” “Happiness makes one content with any abode; but a
small
disgrace darkens the life of a great man” “Good words shine more
than
the emerald which the hand of the slave finds among a heap of
pebbles.”
“The wise man is satisfied with what he knows; content dwells in
his
heart, and his lips speak words that are good.” “The son who accepts
the
words of his father will grow old in consequence; for obedience is of
God,
disobedience is hateful to God.” “Let thy heart wash away the
impurity
of thy mouth: fulfil the word of thy master.” Moses in the
household
of a virtuous Egyptian princess, the wife probably of a respected
official,
would be guarded from corrupting sights and sounds, would hear
none
but “good words,” would learn courtesy, good manners, politeness,
affability,
gentlemanly ease; while at the same time he would have
inculcated
upon him the duties of activity, diligence, truthfulness,
benevolence,
consideration for others, temperance, purity, courage. The
peculiar
circumstances of his position, as a foreigner, a foundling, a mere
adopted
child, would lay him open to many a reproach and innuendo on the
part
of those who were jealous of his good-fortune. In this way his path
would
be beset with difficulties, which would furnish the necessary
discipline
that might otherwise have been lacking to one brought up by a
tender
and indulgent mistress who assumed towards him the attitude of a
mother.
He would learn the virtues of reticence and self-control. As he
grew
to manhood, active duties would no doubt be assigned to him — he
would
have to exercise a certain amount of authority in the household, to
undertake
the management of this or that department, and thus acquire
experience
in the direction and government of men. Altogether, it is easy to
see
that the position wherein by God’s providence he was placed would
furnish
an excellent training for the part which he was to be called upon to
play,
would naturally tend to make him at once outwardly gentle and
inwardly
firm and self-reliant; at once bold to rebuke kings and patient to
govern
a stiff-necked and refractory people. To the moral training thus
furnished
was added a mental training, on which we have already enlarged,
Book-learning
is of little use towards the management of men. But when it
is
superadded to a good practical education, which has already given active
habits
and facility in dealing with all the various circumstances of life, it adds
a
grace and dignity to its possessor which are far from contemptible. Moses,
without
his Egyptian “learning,” might have led his people out of
conducted
them safely to
titles and offices; he
would scarcely have been the great legislator that he was;
he could
certainly not have been the great historian, or the great poet. Moses,
to obtain
the knowledge and the powers that he shows in his writings, must
have been
during his youth a most diligent student. In this respect he is a
pattern to
all the young, and most especially to those high-placed youths
who are too
apt to think that their wealth and rank put them above the
necessity
of hard work and diligent application. The truth is, that such a
position
lays its holder under a special obligation to diligence. “Noblesse
oblige.” Those
who are highly placed, and will have many eyes on them,
should
endeavor to make their acquirements such as will bear close
scrutiny
and observation. “A city that is set on an
hill cannot be hid”
(Matthew
5:14).
THE FIRST ATTEMPT OF MOSES TO DELIVER THE NATION
AND
ITS
FAILURE (vs. 11-15)
After Moses
was grown up — according to the tradition accepted by Stephen
(Acts
7:23), when he was “full forty years old” — having
become by some means
or other acquainted
with the circumstances of his birth, which had most probably
never been
concealed from him, he determined to “go out” to his
brethren and to
see with
his own eyes what their treatment was, and do his best to alleviate it. He had
as yet no
Divine mission, no command from God to act as he did, but only a natural
sympathy
with his people, and a feeling perhaps that in his position he was bound,
more than
any one else, to make some efforts to ameliorate what must have been
generally
known to be a hard lot. It is scarcely likely that he had formed any definite
plans. How
he should act would depend on what he should see. The author of the
Epistle to
the Hebrews seems to consider that his act in “going out” to “look upon the
burdens” of his people involved a renunciation of his
court life — a refusal to be
called any
more the son of Pharaoh’s daughter (Hebrews 11:24); a casting-in of his
lot with
his brethren, so as thenceforth to be a sharer in their afflictions. If this
were
so, we can
well understand a long period of hesitation before the resolve was made
to take the
course from which there was no retreating.
11 “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he
went out unto his brethren, and looked on their
burdens: and he spied an
Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his
brethren.” When Moses was grown.
“When
he had become a man of vigor and intelligence” (Kalisch). He went out.
The
expression is emphatic, and accords with the view above exhibited — that a
complete
change in the life of Moses was now effected, that the court was quitted,
with
its attractions and its temptations, its riches and its pleasures; and the
position
of adopted child of a princess forfeited. He spied an Egyptian
smiting a Hebrew. It is
not certain that this was one of the “taskmasters”
(ch.
1:11); but most probably he was either a taskmaster, or one of
the
officers employed by them. Such persons are on the Egyptian
monuments
represented as armed with long rods, said to be “made of a
tough
pliant wood imported from
p.
119). It was their right to employ their rods on the backs of the idle, a
right
which was sure to degenerate in many cases into tyrannous and cruel
oppression.
We may assume that it was an instance of such abuse of power
that
excited the anger of Moses; “seeing one of them
suffer wrong, he
defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed” (Acts 7:24). For a
light
fault, or no fault at all, a heavy chastisement was being inflicted.
12 “And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no
man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in
the sand.” He looked this way and
that way.
Passion did not so move him as to make him reckless. He looked round
to see
that he was not observed, and then, when he saw there was no man, slew
the Egyptian. A wrongful act, the outcome of an ardent but
undisciplined spirit;
not to
be placed among the deeds “which history records as noble and magnanimous
(Kalisch),
but among those which are hasty and regrettable. A warm
sympathetic
nature, an indignant hatred of wrong-doing, may have lain at
the
root of the crime, but do not justify it, though they may qualify our
condemnation
of it. (See the remarks of
Delitzsch,
‘Commentary on the Pentateuch,’ vol. 1. p. 451: “I affirm that
the
man, though criminal and really the offender, ought not to have been
put to
death by one who had no legal authority to do so. But minds that are
capable
of virtue often produce vices also, and show thereby for what
virtue
they would have been best adapted, if they had but been properly
trained,”
etc.) And
hid him in the sand. There is abundant “sand” in the
“field
of Zoan,” and in all the more eastern portion of the
(See
the ‘Quarterly Statement of the
1880,
p. 140.)
Moses
as a Would-Be Deliverer (vs. 11-12)
Moses, as a
would-be deliverer, shows us how zeal may outrun discretion. Actuated
by deep
love for his brethren, he had quitted the court, resigned his high prospects,
thrown in
his lot with his nation, and “gone out”
to see with his own eyes their
condition.
No doubt he came upon many sights which
vexed and angered him, but
was able to
restrain himself. At last, however, he became witness of a grievous — an
extreme —
case of oppression. Some Hebrew, we may suppose, weaker than
the
generality, delicate in constitution or suffering from illness, rested awhile
from his
weary labor under the scorching sun, and gave himself a few moments
of
delightful, because rare, repose. But the eye of the taskmaster was on him.
Suddenly
his rest was interrupted by a shower of severe blows, which were
rained
pitilessly upon his almost naked frame, raising great wheals, from
which the
blood streamed down in frequent heavy drops. Moses could no
longer
contain himself. Pity for the victim and hatred of the oppressor
surged up
in his heart. “Many a time and oft” had he wished to be a
deliverer
of his brethren, to revenge their wrongs, to save them from their
sufferings.
Here was an opportunity to make a beginning. He would save at
any rate
this one victim, he would punish this one wrongdoer. There was
no danger,
for no one was looking (v. 12), and surely the man whom he
saved would
not betray him. So, having a weapon in his belt, or finding one
ready to
his hand — a stone, it may be, or a working man’s implement —
he raised
it, and striking a swift strong blow, slew the Egyptian. In thus
acting he was doubly wrong. He acted as an avenger, when he had
no
authority from God or man to be one; and, had he had authority,
still he
would have inflicted a punishment disproportionate to the
offence. Such a
beating as
he had himself administered the taskmaster may have deserved,
but not to
be cut off in his sins; not to be sent to his last account without
warning,
without time even for a repentant thought. The deed done,
conscience
reasserted herself: it was a deed of darkness; a thing which
must be concealed:
so Moses dug a hole in the sand, and hid the dreadful
evidence of
his crime. It does not appear that the man whom he had
delivered
helped him; he was perhaps too much exhausted with what he
had
suffered, and glad to creep to his home. Moses, too, returned to his
own abode,
well satisfied, as it would seem, on the whole, with what he
had done.
Having struck the blow, and buried the body unseen, he did not
fear
detection; and he probably persuaded himself that the man deserved
his fate.
He may have even had self-complacent thoughts, have admired his
own courage
and strength, and thought how he had at last come to be a
deliverer
indeed. In reality, however, he had disqualified
himself for the
office; he had committed a crime which forced him to quit his
brethren and
fly to a distance, and be thus unable to do anything towards
mitigating their
sufferings for the space of forty years! Had he
been patient, had he been
content
with remonstrances, had he used his superior strength to rescue the
oppressed without
injuring the oppressor, he would have shown himself fit
to be a
deliverer, and God might not improbably have assigned him his
mission at
once. But his self-willed and wrongful mode of proceeding
showed that
he needed a long course of discipline before he could properly
be
entrusted with the difficult task which God designed him to accomplish.
Forty years
of almost solitary life in the Sinaitic wilderness chastened the
hot spirit
which was now too wild and untamed for a leader and governor
of men.
Moses, the Ardent But Mistaken Patriot (vs. 11-12)
We are not
told much of Moses in the first forty years of his life, just as we
are not
told much of Jesus before he began His public ministry; but as it is
with Jesus,
so it is with Moses — what we are told is full of light
concerning
their character, disposition, and thoughts of the future. Just one
action may
be enough to show the stuff a man is made of. Moses, grown to
manhood, by
this single action of killing the Egyptian makes clearly
manifest
his spirit and his sympathies; shows to us in a very impressive way
much that
was good, and much also that was evil.
LIGHT UPON
CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE WORK TO
WHICH HE
WAS AFTERWARDS CALLED.
Ø
Though he had been brought up amid Egyptian surroundings, he
remained an Israelite in heart. Very early he must
have been made
acquainted, in some way or other, with the
strange romance that belonged
to his infancy. Whatever Pharaoh’s daughter
brought to bear on him in the
way of Egyptian influence one day, would be
neutralized by what he heard
from his own mother the next. For it was not
likely that, alter he was able
to understand it, his nurse would long conceal
the fact that she was his true
mother. Perhaps the very ark of bulrushes had
become one of his treasured
possessions. His name, once explained, was a
continual memento of
infantile
peril and
deliverance. And as he grew onward to manhood, he
would be inclined to reproach himself again and
again for living so easily
and comfortably with Pharaoh’s daughter, while
her father was treating
with such harshness and injustice his own
people, his own kinsfolk —
Aaron his own brother being probably among them.
Thus there was
everything to keep the state of
the way of good soil to make the seed of
patriotism grow, if only the seed
were in his nature to begin with. And there it
unquestionably was, growing
with his growth and strengthening with his
strength.
Ø
It is very important to notice how clearly the
vicarious element comes
out in the relation of Moses to
Pharaoh’s daughter. In one sense, he did not suffer himself. His life was
not made “bitter with hard bondage, in mortar,
and in brick, and in all
manner of service in the field.” No taskmaster
ever smote him. And yet, in
another sense, he suffered perhaps even more
than any of the Israelites.
There are
burdens of the spirit which produce a groaning and prostration
far worse than
those of any bodily toil. There is a laceration of the
heart
more painful, and harder to heal, than that of
any bodily wound. Moses felt
the sorrows of
he was
afflicted. (Isaiah 63:9)
Not one of them smarted more under a sense of
the injustice with
which they were treated than he did. It is a
most precious,
ennobling and
fruitful feeling to have in the heart — this
feeling which links
the unsuffering to the suffering in a bond not to be broken. It brings
together
those who have the opportunity to deliver, and
those who, fastened hand
and then can do nothing for themselves. We find this feeling, in its purest,
most
operative, and most valuable expression in JESUS, in Him who knew
no sin, no defiling thoughts, no torture of
conscience for His own wrongdoing;
and who yet came to feel so deeply the misery
and helplessness of a
fallen world, that He
descended into it for its deliverance, having an
unspeakably keener sense of its calamities than
the most observant and
meditative of its own children. It is a grand
thing to have this element of
vicarious suffering in our hearts; for the more
we have it the more we are
able to follow Jesus in serving our needy
fellow-men. Moses had this
element; the prophets had it; Paul had it; every
true and successful apostle
and evangelist must have it (Romans 9:1-5).
Every Christian in process
of salvation should have this element as he
looks round on those still
ignorant and out of the way. The civilized
should have it as he looks on the
savage; the freeman as he looks on the slave;
the healthy as he looks on the
sick; the man as he looks on the brute creation.
This element of vicarious
suffering has been at the root of some of the
noblest and most useful lives
in all ages, and not least in modern times. A
thousand times let us run the
risk of being called sentimental and maudlin,
rather than lack the element
or cripple it in its vigorous growth. Certain it
is, that we shall do but little
for Christ without it.
Ø
We have a very suggestive intimation of the superiority of Moses to the
people whom he was about to deliver; this superiority being not a mere
matter of greater social advantages, but arising
out of personal character.
The brother whom he succored treated him but
badly in return. He did
not mean to treat him badly; but simple
thoughtlessness makes untold
mischief. He must have known that Moses wished
the act kept a secret, yet
in a few hours it is known far and wide through
been so inconsiderate, but assuredly most would;
and so this man may be
taken as representative of his people. He had not the courage and energy to
return the Egyptian’s blow himself; nor had he
the activity and forethought
of mind to shelter the generous champion who
did return the blow.
was in servitude altogether; not only in body,
but in all the nobler faculties
of life as well. Hence,
if
condescending act of a superior and
stronger hand. And thus Moses
slaying the Egyptian shadows forth a prime
requirement in the greater
matter of the world’s redemption. Unless the Son of God had stooped
from His
brighter, holier sphere, to break the bonds of sin and death,
what could we
poor slaves have done?
THE
PRESENCE IN HIM OF GREAT DEFECTS WHICH REQUIRED
MUCH
DISCIPLINE AND ENLIGHTENMENT TO REMOVE THEM.
Moses, in respect of his ardent and sustained sympathy with
man after God’s own heart; but he had
everything yet to learn as to how
that sympathy was to be
made truly serviceable. His patriotism, strong and
operative as it had proved, was produced by entirely wrong
considerations.
His profound and fervent interest in
indispensable one for his work; but it needed to be produced
by quite
different agencies, and directed to quite different ends.
How had the feeling
been produced? Simply by observing the cruelties inflicted
on his brethren.
He slew the Egyptian simply because he smote his brother,
not because
that brother belonged to the chosen people of God. The thing
wanted was
that he should come to understand clearly the connection of
God, their origin and their destiny. He was to sympathize
with
only as his brethren, but first and chiefly as the people of
God. Patriotism
is
a blessing or a curse just according to the form it takes. If it
begins to
say, “Our country, right or wrong,” then it is one of the greatest
curses a
nation can be afflicted with. Arrogance, conceit, and
exorbitant self-assertion
are as hideous in a nation as in an individual, and in the
end
correspondingly disastrous. Our greatest sympathy with men is wanted in
that
which affects them most deeply and abidingly. Sympathy
has no full
right to the name till it is the sympathy of forgiven
sinners who are being
sanctified and perfected, with those who are not only
sinners, but still in the
bondage of sin, and perhaps hardly conscious of the
degradation of the
bondage, and the firmness with which its fetters are fixed.
Moses did not
know how much his brethren were losing,
because he did not know how
much he himself was still lacking, even though in such
comfortable
freedom at Pharaoh’s court. In his eyes, the main thing to
be done for
affairs. And therefore it was necessary for God to effect a complete and
abiding
change in Moses’ way of thinking. He needed to be made better
acquainted with God, and with God’s past revelations, and
expressed
purposes for
of
plans. Considered purely as a human action, it was an
aimless
one, fruitful of evil rather than good. It was natural
enough and excusable
enough; but the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God; they
that take the sword shall perish with the sword; and thus
Moses in his
carnal impetuosity made clear how dependent he was to be
upon God for a
really wise, comprehensive, practical plan of action. In the
providence of
God he was to come back to
subordinate, but with a Pharaoh himself; not to take the
sword into his own
hands, but to stand still himself, and make the people stand
still also, that
he and they together MIGHT
SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD!
The Choice of Moses (vs. 11-12)
Underlying
this episode of killing the Egyptian there is that crisis in the
history of
Moses to which reference is made so strikingly in the eleventh of
the Hebrews
— “By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to
be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer
affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of
sin for
a season,” etc.
(Hebrews 11:24-27). Two views may be taken of the episode.
Either, as
might be held, the elements of decision were floating in an unfixed
state in
the mind of Moses, when this event happened, and precipitated a choice;
or, what
seems more likely, the choice had already been made, and the
resolution
of Moses already taken, and this was but the first outward
manifestation
of it. In either case, the act in question was a deliberate committal
of himself
to his brethren’s side — the crossing of the Rubicon, which necessitated
thereafter
a casting-in of his lot with theirs. View this choice of Moses:
Moses was grown.” With years
came thought; with thought “the
philosophic mind;” with this, power of observation. Moses began to think
for himself, to see things
with his own eyes. What he saw made evident to
him the impossibility of halting longer between two
opinions. He had not
before felt the same necessity of definitely making up his
mind whether he
would be Hebrew or Egyptian. He had not seen in the same way
the
impossibility of retaining a sort of connection with both —
sympathizing
with the Hebrews, yet enjoying
awakening. The two spheres of life fell apart to his vision
in their manifest
incongruity — in their painful, and even, in some respects,
hideous
contrast. He may now be Hebrew or
Egyptian;
he can no longer be both.
Up to this time choice could be staved off. Now it is forced
upon him. To
determine now not to choose, would be to choose for
duty, and it is for him to decide whether or not he will do
it. And such in
substance is the effect of moral
awakening generally.
Ø In most
lives there is a time of thoughtlessness, at least of want of
serious and independent reflection. It is not at this stage
seen why religion
should require so very decided a choice. God and the world
seem not
absolute incompatibles. It is possible to serve both; to
agree with both.
Christ’s teaching to the contrary sounds strangely on the
ears.
Ø But an
awakening comes, and it is now seen very clearly that this double
service is impossible. The friendship
of the world is felt to be enmity with
God (James
4:4). The contrariety, utter and absolute, between what is
in the world and love of the Father (John 2:15) is manifest
beyond
dispute. Then comes the need for choice.
o God or the creature;
o Christ, or the world which crucified Him;
o God’s people or the friendship of those who deride and
despise
them.
There is no longer room for dallying. Not to
choose is already to have
chosen wrongly — to have decided for the world, and rejected Christ.
victory over the temptations of his position for Moses to
renounce all at
the call of duty, and cast in his lot with an oppressed and
despised race. His
temptation was obviously a typical one, including in it
everything which
tempts men still to refrain from religious decision, and to
dissemble
relationship to Christ and connection with His people; and
his victory was
also typical, reminding us of His who became poor that we
might be rich
(II Corinthians 8:9), and who put aside “all the kingdoms of
the world
and the glory of them,” when offered Him on sinful terms
(Matthew
4:8-10). View it:
Ø As a victory over the world. Moses knew
his advantages at the court of
Pharaoh, and doubtless felt the full value of them.
world. It represented to his mind:
o Wealth and position.
o Ease and luxury.
o Brilliant worldly prospects.
o A sphere congenial to him as a man of studious tastes.
And all this he voluntarily surrendered at the call of duty
— surrendered it
both in spirit and in fact. And are not we, as Christians,
called also to
surrender of the world? Renouncing the world, indeed, is not
monkery. It
is not the thoughtless flinging away of worldly advantages.
But neither is it
the mere renouncing of what is sinful
in
the world. It is the renouncing of it
wholly,
so far as use of it for selfish ends or
selfish enjoyment is concerned:
the sinking of its ease,
its pleasures, its possessions, in entire self-surrender
to Christ and duty. And this
carries with it the ability for any outward
sacrifice that may be needed.
Ø As a victory over the dread of reproach. In
renouncing
chose that which the multitudes shun as almost worse than
death itself, viz.
o Poverty.
o Reproach.
Yet how many stumble at reproach in the service of the
Saviour! A
measure of reproach is implied in all earnest religious
profession. And it
requires courage to face it — to encounter the moral
crucifixion involved
in being flouted and scouted by the world. It is when “tribulation and
persecution ariseth because
of the word” that “by and by” many are
“offended” (Matthew
13:21). Yet to be able to encounter reproach is
the true moral greatness — the mark of the spiritual hero.
Ø As a victory over private feelings and
inclinations. Not only was there
much about his life in
opportunities for self-culture, etc.); but there must have
been much about
the Hebrews which, to a man of his courtly up-bringing,
would necessarily
be repulsive (coarseness of manners, servility of
disposition, etc.). Yet he
cheerfully cast in his lot with them, taking this as part of
his cross. A lesson
for people of culture. He who would serve God or humanity
must lay his
account for much he does not like. Every reformer, every
earnest servant
of mankind, has to make this sacrifice. He must not be
ashamed to call
those “brethren” who are yet in every way “compassed with
infirmity,”
about whom there is much that is positively distasteful.
Here also, “no
cross, no crown.”
Moses’ choice were:
Ø Patriotism. This people
was his people, and his blood boiled with
indignation at the wrongs they were enduring. Only a nature
dead to the
last spark of nobleness could have reconciled itself to look
on their
sufferings and yet eat bread and retain favor at the court
of their
oppressor.
Ø Humanity. There was
in him that nobleness of nature, which besides
tending to sympathy with the oppressed, revolts from all
that is selfish and
cruel; and this nobleness was stirred up in him by seeing
the state of his
kindred, and comparing it with his own. This was his faith.
Faith saved him
from being content to be idle and useless, and gave him zeal
and courage
to play the part of a man and a hero in the liberation of
his people.
Ø Religion. We fail of
a right view of Moses’ conduct if we stop short of
religious faith proper. Moses knew something of the history
of his people.
He knew them to be the people of God. He knew of the
covenants and
promises. He knew of their religious hopes. And it was this
which weighed
most of all with him in casting-in his lot among them, and
enabled him to
count their reproach greater riches than all the treasures
of
was:
o
Faith in
God. He believed in the God of his fathers, and in
the truth and
certainty of His promise.
o
Faith in
the spiritual greatness of his nation. He saw in these
Hebrews,
sweat-covered, down-trodden, afflicted as they
were, the “people of God.”
Faith is not misled by the shows of things. It
pierces to the reality.
o
Faith in
duty. It is of the essence of faith that he who has,
it feels
himself to be in a world of better things than
pleasures, whether innocent
of sinful, which are only pleasures of sense;
and in which to be right is
greater and better than to be mighty or to be
rich — feels, in a word, that
the best of this life, and of all life, is
goodness.
o
Faith in the
recompense of reward. Moses believed in
future
recompense —
in immortality. A cardinal doctrine, even in Egyptian
theology, it can scarcely be supposed to have
been absent from his. How
great was the reward of Moses, even in this
life! He was happier as the
persecuted and despised worshipper of Jehovah,
the avowed kinsman of
slaves, than as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,
and the admired proficient in
all Egyptian wisdom. He felt that he was richer,
despoiled of the treasures
of
He felt that he was freer, reduced to the
bondage of his countrymen. He
was richer, because enriched with the treasures
of grace; happier, because
blessed with the smiles of an approving
conscience; freer, because
enfranchised with the liberty of the sons of
God. The blessings he chose
were richer than all the advantages he cast
away. How great has
been his reward in history! “For ages past his
name has outshone all the
monarchs combined of the one-and-thirty dynasties.
But THE ETERNAL
REWARD IS THE
GREATEST OF ALL! A glimpse
of it in the glorious
reappearance of Moses on the mountain of
transfiguration. Wise choice,
for honors like these to surrender riches and
pleasures which were
perishable! Through
faith in God, Christ, duty, and eternity, let the
same NOBLE CHOICE
be repeated in ourselves!
13 “And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the
Hebrews strove together: and he said to him
that did the wrong, Wherefore
smitest thou thy fellow?” The second day. i.e. “the
following day.”
See
Acts 7:26. Him that did the wrong.
Literally, “the wicked one.” Wherefore
smitest thou thy fellow? Literally
“thy neighbor.” In interposing here Moses
certainly
did nothing but what was right. The strife was one in which blows
were
being exchanged, and it is the duty of everyone in such a case, by
persuasion
at any rate. to seek to stop the combat.
14 “And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over
us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou
killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared,
and said, Surely this thing is known.” Who made thee a prince and a judge
over us? It was not
his interference now, but his wrongful act of the day before,
that
exposed Moses to this rebuke. There was no assumption of lordship or of
judicial
authority in the bare inquiry, “Why smitest thou thy
neighhor?” nor in
the fuller
phrase reported by Stephen, “Sirs, ye are brethren. Why
do ye
wrong one to another?” (Acts 7:26), unless as coupled with the deed of
the
preceding day. Thus the violence of today renders of no avail the loving
persuasion
of to-morrow; the influence for good which the education and
position of
Moses might have enabled him to exercise upon his nation was
lost by the
very act to which he had been urged by his sympathy with them;
it was an
act which could be thrown in his teeth, an act which he could not
justify,
which he trembled to find was known. The retort of the aggressor
stopped
his mouth at once, and made his interposition
valueless.
Moses
as a Peacemaker (vs. 13-14)
A great sin
disqualifies a man for many a long year from setting himself up to be a
guide and
teacher of others. It may at any time be thrown in his teeth, nothing could
be better intended
than the efforts of Moses, on the day after
his crime, to compose
the
quarrels of his brethren, and set the disputants
at one. Nor is he fairly taxable with
any want of
equity, or even of tact, in the manner in
which he set to work. He rebuked
“him that did the wrong.” His rebuke was mild in
character — a mere
expostulation; “Wherefore
smitest thou,” etc. Nay, according to Stephen
(Acts
7:26), it was not even an expostulation addressed to an individual, but a
general
address which avoided the assignment of special blame to either
disputant. “Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one
to another?” Yet
it had no effect; it failed utterly. The tables
were at once turned on the
expostulator
by the inquiry, “Who made thee a prince
and a judge over us?
Intendest thou to slay me as thou didst the
Egyptian?” Conscience makes
cowards of
us all. Moses, hearing this, had no more to say; he had essayed
to pluck
out the mote from his brother’s eye, and behold! the beam was in
his own
eye. (Matthew 7:3) - His brethren were quarrelsome and injurious;
but he — he was a murderer.
15 “Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses
fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in
the
down by a well.” Pharaoh heard. If we
have been right in supposing the
Pharaoh
of the original oppression to have been
Pharaoh,
from whom Moses flies when he is “full forty years old” (Acts
7:23),
and
who does not die till Moses is near eighty, must be his son, the
Great
Rameses, Rameses II. This prince was associated by his father at the
age of
ten or twelve (Brugsch, ‘History of Egypt,’ vol. 2. pp. 24-5), and
reigned
sixty-seven years, as appears from his monuments. He is the only
king
of the New Empire whose real reign exceeded forty years, and thus
the
only monarch who fulfils the conditions required by the narrative of
Exodus
supplemented by Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. He sought
to
slay Moses. We need not understand from this
expression that the
Pharaoh’s
will was thwarted or opposed by anything but the sudden
disappearance
of Moses. As Stephen says (Acts 7:29), “Then fled
Moses at
this saying,” i.e. at
the mere words of the aggressor, “Wilt thou
slay me as thou didst the Egyptian?” Moses
fled, knowing what he had to
expect,
quitted
to slay him” too
late. The
land of Midian is a somewhat vague
expression,
for the Midianites were nomads, and at different times
occupied
distinct and even remote localities. Their principal settlements
appear
to have been on the eastern side of the
Akabah);
but at times they extended northwards to the confines of
(Genesis
36:35; Numbers 22:4, 7, etc.), and westward into the
Sinaitic
peninsula, which appears to have been “the
Moses
fled (see ch. 3:1). The Midianites are not expressly mentioned in the
Egyptian
inscriptions. They were probably included among the Mentu, with
whom the
Egyptians contended in the Sinaitic region, and from whom they
took
the copper district north-west of Sinai.
And
he sat down by a well. Rather
“and
he dwelt by the well.” He took up his
abode in the neighborhood of the
principal
well belonging to the tract here called Midian. The tract was probably
one of
no great size, an offshoot of the greater Midian on the other side of the gulf.
We
cannot identify the well; but it was certainly not that near the town of
spoken
of by Edrisi and Abulfeda, which was in Arabia Proper, on the east of
the
gulf.
Unfruitful Effort (vs. 11-15)
Ø He owned
his relationship to the enslaved and hated people.
Ø He cast in
his lot among them. God calls for the same sacrifice today;
confession of Jesus and brotherhood with His people.
Ø The result
of a mother’s influence: from her he must have learned the
truth regarding his descent and the hope of
outlived the luxury, temptations, ambitions of the court.
God’s
blessing rests on these efforts of holiest love.
Ø True desire
to serve is not the only requisite for success. We may be
defeated by mistakes of judgment, an ungoverned temper, etc.
Ø There can be no true service without the heart’s waiting upon
God.
In order to guide we ourselves must follow.
Ø The power which does not wait upon God comes to nothing. Contrast
the prince with the unknown wanderer in Midian. Not only
were means
and influence lost, his very opportunity was gone. “Fret not thyself in
any wise to do evil.” (Psalm 37:8)
Unpurified Zeal (vs. 11-15)
We must
certainly attribute the killing of the Egyptian, not to Divine
inspiration,
but to the natural impetuosity of Moses’ character. At this
stage Moses
had zeal, but it was without knowledge. His heart burned with
indignation
at the wrongs of his brethren. He longed to be their deliverer.
Something
told him that “God by his hand would
deliver them” (Acts 7:25).
But how to
proceed he knew not. His plans had taken no definite
shape.
There was no revelation, and perhaps one was not expected. So,
acting
under impulse, he struck the blow which killed the Egyptian, but did
no service to
the cause he had at heart. That he did not act with moral
clearness
is manifest from the perturbation with which he did the deed, and
from his
subsequent attempt to hide the traces of it. It completed his
discomfiture
when, next day, he learned that the deed was known, and that
his
brethren, instead of welcoming his interposition, were disposed to
resent it.
He had involved himself in murder. He had sown the seeds of
later
troubles. Yet he had gained no end by it. How true it is that violence
seldom leads to happy issues! “The wrath of
man worketh not the
righteousness of God” (James 1:20). An exhibition of violence on our
own part is
a bad preparation for interfering in the quarrels of others. He
that does
the wrong will rarely fail to remind us of it. Learn lessons from
the
narrative:
true, powerful, and loving nature, was capable of vehement
and burning
anger. He was a man of great natural impetuosity. This casts
light upon the
sin of Meribah (Numbers 20:10-11). An outbreak of the old,
long-conquered
failing (compare ch. 4:13). The holier side of the same
disposition is seen
in the anger with which he broke in pieces the Tables of the
Law (ch. 32:19).
It casts light also on his meekness, and teaches us to
distinguish meekness
from mere natural placableness and amiability. Meekness —
the meekness
for which Moses is famed (Numbers 12:3) — was not a gift of
nature, but
the result of passions, naturally strong,
conquered and controlled — of
long and studied
self-repression.
Ø Unpurified zeal leads to hasty action. It is
ungoverned. It acts from
impulse. It is not schooled to bearing and waiting. It cannot
bide
God’s time, nor keep to God’s ways.
Ø Unpurified zeal unfits for God’s
service. It relies too much on self. It
takes events into its own hand. Hence Moses is sent to
Midian to spend
forty years in learning humility and patience — in acquiring
power of
self-control. He has
to learn that the work is not his, but God’s, and
that only God can accomplish
it.
Ø
Unpurified
zeal, by its hasty action, retards,
rather than furthers,
the
accomplishment
of God s purposes. By driving Moses into Midian,
it
probably put back the hour of
Moses was Grown (vs. 11-15)
According
to the tradition he had already distinguished himself as a warrior
— was “a prince and a judge” amongst the Egyptians, if not over the
Hebrews (v.
14). He was learned, too, in all the wisdom of the day (compare
Acts 7:22).
At his age, forty years, with his influence, surely if ever he was to do
anything
for his people, now must be the time. Notice:
Ø
What he did, and why he did it. “It came into his heart to visit his
brethren.” In the seminaries of the priests, in the palace, with the army, he
had not forgotten his people; but he had
scarcely realized the bitterness of
their trial. Now his heart burns within him as
he looks upon their burdens.
He feels that he is the appointed deliverer
trained for this very purpose.
What is so
plain to him must, he thinks, be equally plain to others (Acts
7:25). A chance encounter gives him the
opportunity of declaring himself;
defending a Hebrew, he kills an Egyptian. The
supposition that his brethren
will understand proves to be a great mistake: “they understood not.”
Moses did that which we are all too ready to do:
took it for granted that
other people would look at things from his
standpoint. A man may be all
that he thinks himself to be; but he will fall
in accomplishing his designs if
he makes their success depend upon other people
taking him at his own
estimate; there is an unsound premise in his
practical syllogism which will
certainly vitiate the conclusion. What we should do
is to take pains to place
ourselves
at the standpoint of other people, and before assuming that they
see what
we see, make sure that at any rate we see what they see. Moses,
the courtier, could see the weakness of the
oppressor, and how little power
he had if only his slaves should rise; the slaves, however, bowing beneath
the tyranny, felt and exaggerated the tyrant’s
power — they could not see
much hope from the aid of this self-constituted
champion.
Ø
What followed from his deed. Life endangered, compulsory flight, a
refuge amongst shepherds in a strange land,
forty years’ comparative
solitude, life’s
prospects blighted through impatience. “More haste worse
speed” is one of the
world’s wise proverbial generalizations. Moses
illustrates the proverb — forty years’ exile for an hour’s hurry!
that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will.” The
apparently wasted
years not really wasted — no needless delay, only
preparation and Divine
discipline. Moses had
learned much, but he needed to learn more. God takes
him from the
with Time and Solitude and the Desert as his tutors. What
did they teach
him?
Ø
The value of the knowledge gained already. Well “to be learned in all
the wisdom of the Egyptians.” But wisdom
improves by keeping — it
needs time and solitude to ripen it.
Intellectually and spiritually we are
ruminants; silence and- solitude are needed to
appropriate and digest
knowledge.
Ø
New knowledge. Few books, if any, of man’s making, but the books of
Nature invited study. The knowledge of the
desert would be needed by and
by, together with much other knowledge which
could be gained
nowhere else.
Ø
Meekness. He not merely
became a wiser man, he grew to be also a
better man. The
old self-confidence yielded place to entire
dependence
upon the
will of God. God had delivered him from the sword of Pharaoh
(compare v. 15 with ch. 18:3), and would help
him still, though in a
strange land. Nothing makes a man so meek as
faith; the more he realizes
God’s presence and confides in him, the more
utterly does the “consuming
fire’ (Hebrews 12:29) burn out of him all pride and selfishness.
delay occasioned by impatience! Yet how do the same pages
testify to the
way in which all along God has shaped our ends! It is a
mercy that we are
in such good hands, and not left to our own devices.
Trusting in God, we
can hope to make the best even of our errors. He can restore
— ay, more
than restore — even years which the locust hath eaten (Joel
2:25).
Mistake in Life’s Morning (vs. 11-15)
“He supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by
his hand
would deliver them: but
they understood not.” (Acts 7:25). The heart
abandonment
of the throne must have taken place before Moses went out
from the
palace of the princess to inquire, and therefore before the
enforced
flight. Place therefore “the crisis of being” between vs.10 and 11.
Let no one
fear to face this error in the life of the Lord’s servant. Admit frankly
that Moses
was wrong. We are embarrassed by a notion that clings to us, that the
Bible is a
repertory of good examples. It is not so. There is only
One perfect,
Jesus Christ, the Righteous! All other men and women in the Bible are
imperfect
and sinful, the subjects of God’s grace,
pardoning, correcting,
sanctifying, glorifying. Never lower the moral standard to defend a
Bible
character.
It gives occasion to the adversary, and brings no satisfaction to
the
believer. In this chapter of the biography of Moses observe in his
conduct:
Ø Inquiry. No
inclination to shrink from responsibility under the plea of
want of knowledge. See the striking passage, Proverbs
24:11-12.
Moses going out to investigate for himself, argues that
either his
mother or his people, or both, had opened and maintained
communication with him, informing him of his origin,
teaching
the doctrine of the true God, and awakening concern.
Ø Sympathy. “He looked on their burdens.”
Ø Indignation. We may be
angry and sin; but it is also true that we may
not be angry, and sin even yet more deeply. For illustration
cite
modern instances of cruel oppression.
Ø Excess of indignant feeling.
Ø Murder.
The “supposition” of Stephen is no justification, even if
true; but it may not
be true, or may be only partially true; for the utterance of
Stephen, based
on tradition, is not to be confounded with the inspired
dictum of God. That
furtive look “this way and that way” does not indicate an
assured
conscience. Note the true meaning and spirit of Romans
14:23.
Ø Failure
Ø Peril
Ø Fear
Ø Flight
Ø Delay of
done, lays on it the hand of the mighty. That enforced life
in the desert
became as important a part of the training of Moses as life
at Avaris;
it acquainted him with “the Wilderness of the Wandering,”
its resources,
mode of life; those other children of Abraham — the
Midianites; gave him
to wife a descendant of Abraham; led to an important policy
for all the
future of
helper and guide (Numbers 10:29-31). Thus does the Eternal Mercy
overrule and countervail the
errors, even the sins, of penitent believers.
Moses the Hater of All Oppression (vs. 13-15)
RESPECT TO
THE CHARACTER OF MOSES AND HIS FITNESS TO
BE DELIVERER
OF ISRAEL.
Ø
It is evident that his conscience did not accuse him, as touching the
slaying of the Egyptian. Wrong as the action was, he made it clear that he
had done it from a right motive. Although he had
taken the life of a
fellowman, he had taken it not as a murderer,
with malice in his heart
against the individual, but as a patriot. Hence
the conscience that makes
cowards of us all — the consciousness, that is,
of having done a wrong
thing — was absent from his breast. It is a very
great matter indeed not to
go against conscience. Let conscience have life and authority, and
God will
take his
own time and means to cure the blinded understanding.
Ø
Moses felt continued interest in the state of Israel. He Went out the
second day. He did not say, upon reflection, that these visits to his brethren
were too perilous to be continued. He did not
say, “I cannot trust my own
indignant feelings, and therefore I must keep
away from these
oppressed countrymen of mine. His heart was
wholly and steadily with
them. Interest may be easily produced while the
exhibition of an injury is
fresh, or the emotions are excited by some
skilful speaker. But we do not
want the heart to be like an instrument, only
producing music so long as
the performer touches it. We want it to have such a continued activity
within,
such a continued thoughtfulness, as will maintain a noble and alert
sympathy
with men in all their varied and incessant needs.
Ø
The conduct of Moses here
shows that he was a hater of all oppression.
His patriotic feeling had been excited by the
Egyptian smiting the Hebrew,
and now his natural sense of justice was
outraged by seeing one Hebrew
smiting another. He beheld these men the victims
of a common oppression,
and yet one of them who happens to be the
stronger adds to the already
existing sufferings of his weaker brother
instead of doing what he can to
diminish them. The patriotism of Moses, even
with all its yet unremedied
defects, was founded not only in community of
blood, but in a deep and
ardent love for all human rights. We may
conclude that if Moses had been
an Egyptian, he would not have joined Pharaoh in
his remorseless
treatment of Israel, nor seconded a policy of
oppression and diminution on
the plea that it was one of necessity. If the Egyptians
had been under the
thraldom of the Hebrews, then, Hebrew though he
was, he would have
sympathized with the Egyptians.
sad lesson Moses has now to learn, that the oppressed will
be the
oppressors, if only they can get the chance. Here we are in
the world, all
sinners together, with certain outward consequences of sin
prevalent
amongst us in the shape of poverty and sickness, and all
such trials onward
to death. Right feeling should teach
us, in these circumstances, to stand by
one another, to bear one
another’s burdens and do what we can, by union
and true brotherliness, to
mitigate the oppressions of our great enemy.
While he is going about seeking whom he may devour, we, his
meditated
prey, might well refrain from biting and devouring one
another. But what is
the real state of things? The rich sinner afflicts the poor,
and too often uses
him in his helplessness for his own aggrandisement. The
strong sinner is
always on the look-out to make as much as he can out of
every sort of
weakness among his fellow-sinners. And what is worse still,
when the
sinner professes to have passed from death unto life, he
does not always
show the full evidence of it in loving the brethren as he is
bound to do
(I John 3:14). Some professed Christians take a long time to
perceive,
and some never perceive at all, that even simple
self-indulgence is not only
hurtful to self, but an ever-flowing spring of untold misery
to others.
Ø
Notice the person whom Moses addresses. “He said to him that did the
wrong.” He does not pretend to come forward as knowing nothing of the
merits of the quarrel. He does not content
himself with dwelling in general
terms on the unseemliness of a dispute between
brethren who are also the
victims of a common oppressor. It is not enough
for him simply to beseech
the disputants to be reconciled. One is clearly
in the wrong, and Moses
does not hesitate by implication to condemn him.
Thus there appears in
Moses a certain
disposition towards the judicial mind, revealing the
germs
of another qualification for the work of his
after-life. For the judicial mind
is not only that which strives to bring out all
the evidence in matters of
right or wrong, and so to arrive at a correct
conclusion; it is also a
mind
which has
the courage to act on its conclusions, and without fear
or favor
pass the necessary sentence. By addressing one
of these men rather than
the other, Moses does in a manner declare
himself perfectly satisfied that
he is in the wrong.
Ø
Notice the question which Moses puts. He smote the Egyptian; he
expostulated with the Hebrew. The smiting of one
Hebrew by another was
evidently very unnatural conduct in the eyes of
Moses. When we consider
what men are, there is of course nothing astonishing in the conduct of this
domineering Israelite; he is but seizing the
chance which thousands of
others in a like temptation would have seized. But
when we consider what
men ought to be, there was great reason for Moses to ask his question,
“Why smitest
thou thy fellow?” Why indeed! There was no true reason he
could give but what it was a shame to confess.
And so we might often say
to a wrong-doer, “Why doest thou this or that?”
according to the particular
wrong he is committing. “Why?” There might be
great virtue in this
persistent interrogation if only put in a spirit purged as far as possible from
the
censorious and the meddlesome. ("……speaking
the truth in love.."
Ephesians 4:15) What a man does carelessly
enough and with much satisfaction,
upon the low consideration of self-indulgence,
he might come to forsake if only
brought face to face with high considerations of
duty and love, and of
conformity
to the will of God and example of Christ. Everything
we do ought
to have a sufficient reason for it. Not that we
are to be in a perpetual fidget over
minute scruples. But, being by nature so
ignorant, and by training so bound-in
with base traditions, we cannot too often or too
promptly ask ourselves whether
we have indeed a sufficient reason for the chief
principles, occupations and
habits of life.
Ø
Notice that the question put to the Hebrew wrong-doer might just as
well have been put to the Egyptian. He also had been guilty of indefensible
conduct, yet he as well as the other was a man
with powers of reflection,
and the timely question, “Why smitest thou this Hebrew?” might have
made him consider that really he had no
sufficient reason at all to smite
him. We must not too readily assume that enemies
will persist in enmity, if
only we approach them in a friendly manner. He
that would change an
enemy into a friend must show himself friendly.
The plan may not always
be successful; but
it is worth trying to conquer our foes by love, patience
and
meekness. We must ever strive to get the selfish people to think, their
thinking powers and all the better part of their
humanity only too often get
crushed into a corner before the rush of pride,
appetite and passion.
wrong-doer has no sufficient and justifying answer to give;
and so he tells
Moses to his face that he is a mere meddler. When men are in
a right
course, a course of high and generous aims, they hail any
opportunity of
presenting their conduct in a favorable aspect. But when
they are doing
wrong, then they make a pretence of asserting their
independence and
liberty in order that they may fight shy of awkward
confessions. If we wait
till we are never found fault with as meddlers we shall do
very little to
compose quarrels and redress injuries, to vindicate the
innocent or deliver
the oppressed. Men will listen to a general harangue against
tyranny,
injustice and selfishness. They will look at us with
great admiration as long
as we shoot our arrows in the air; but arrows
are not meant to be shot in
the air; they are meant, at the very
least, to go right into the crowd of men,
and sometimes to be directly and closely personal.
Moses as a
Fugitive (v. 15)
Men’s sins
are sure to “find them out.” (Numbers
32:23) - Moses had thought that
he would not be detected. He had carefully “looked this way and that way” ere he
struck the
blow, and had seen “that there was no man.” He had at
once hidden the
body of his
victim underground. He had concluded that the
Hebrew
whom he had
delivered
from the oppressor would keep silence; if from no
other reason, yet at any
rate to
save himself from being suspected. But the man, it appears, had chattered.
Perhaps
from no ill motive, but simply from
inability to keep a secret. He had
told his
wife, or his daughter, or his
neighbor; and at once “the thing was
known.” While Moses
imagined
his deed shrouded in deepest secrecy, it was
the general
talk. All the Hebrews knew of it; and
soon the Egyptians knew also.
Presently
it came to the ears of the king,
whose business it was to punish crime,
and who, naturally and rightfully, “sought to slay Moses.” But he had fled
away; he
had put seas and deserts between himself and the royal vengeance; he
was a
refugee in Midian. So, though he escaped the public execution which
Egyptian
law awarded to his crime, he had to expiate it by forty years of exile
and of hard
service, a hireling shepherd tending the flock of another man.
He had
forfeited the attractions, temptations, riches, pleasures and the
position of
the adopted child of a princess in
Sitting
by the Well: A Suggestive Comparison (v. 15)
The very
expression, “He sat down by a well,” inevitably
suggests that
conversation
beside the well at Sychar, in which Jesus took so important a
part. (John 4)
Note the following points of resemblance, and then say if they
can be
considered as purely accidental. Are they not rather involved in the
profound
designs of Him who presided over the construction of the Scriptures?
1. As we see
Moses fleeing from the face of Pharaoh, so we see Jesus making
a prudent
departure from Judaea into
2. Both
Moses and Jesus are found sitting by a well.
3. As Moses
comes in contact with seven women of a different nation, so
Jesus with
the woman of Samaria. And just as the daughters of Reuel
made the
difference seem greater still by calling Moses an Egyptian, which
though a
name partly appropriate, was yet particularly inappropriate at a
time when
he was the object of Pharaoh’s bitterest hatred — so the woman
of
ignorant
how small a part was that of the truth concerning Him.
4. The very
difference in number is significant. Moses could help a number
in the
service that he rendered, because it was a mere external service. But
Jesus needed
to have the woman of
effectually
with her peculiar, individual need. There is a great difference in
respect of
the things to be said and done, according as we are dealing with
one person
or more than one.
5. The meeting
of Moses with the daughters of Reuel led on to his
becoming
acquainted with Reuel himself; gaining his confidence and
becoming
his helper. So Jesus serving the woman
of
serve, not one only, but many of those connected with her.
6. Moses
soon entered into a nearer relation still with Reuel, and Jesus in
the course
of His conversation with the woman asserted principles which
were to
break down the barriers between Jew and Samaritan, and every
wall of
partition separating those who should be united. Lastly, he who
helped
these women became a shepherd; and his dying thought was of a
shepherd’s
work, as he prayed God to give him a successor who should be
a true
shepherd to
set Himself
before His disciples as the Good Shepherd, deeply concerned for
the
nourishment and security of His flock, and concerned most of all to
seek and to
save that which was lost (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:4; 19:10).
THE LIFE OF MOSES IN MIDIAN (vs. 16-22)
Fugitives
from
be
arrested and sent back to the Egyptian
monarch. Rameses II put a special clause
to
this effect into his treaty with the
contemporary Hittite king (Brugsch, ‘History
of
turn
his steps southeastward, and proceed along the route, or at any rate in the
direction,
which he afterwards took with his nation. Though
in the
Sinaitic peninsula, it was not difficult to avoid them; and before Sinai was
reached
the fugitive would be in complete safety, for the Egyptians seem never
to
have penetrated to the southern or eastern parts of the great triangle. “The well,”
by
which Moses took up his abode, is placed with some probability in the
neighborhood
of Sherm, about ten miles north-east of Ras Mahommed, the southern
cape
of the peninsula.
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.”
The priest of Midian. Cohen
is certainly “priest” here, and not “prince,” since
the father-in-law
of Moses exercises priestly functions in ch. 18:12. His seven
daughters
drew water for his flock, in accordance with Eastern custom. So Rachel
“kept the sheep” of her father Laban, and watered them
(Genesis 29:9). Such a
practice
agrees well with the simplicity of primitive times and peoples; nor would
it
even at the present day be regarded as strange in
17 “And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and
helped them, and watered their flock.” The shepherds came and
drove them
away. There
is not much “natural politeness” among primitive peoples. The right
of the
stronger prevails, and women go to the wall. Even the daughters of their
priest
were not respected by these rude sons of the desert, who would not
wait
their turn, but used the water which Reuel’s daughters had drawn. The
context
shows that this was not an accidental or occasional circumstance,
but
the regular practice of the shepherds, who thus day after day saved
themselves
the trouble of drawing. (See the next verse.) Moses stood up
and helped them. Ever
ready to assist the weak against the strong (supra,
vs.
12-13), Moses “stood
up” — sprang to his feet — and, though only
one
man against a dozen or a score, by his determined air intimidated the
crowd
of wrong-doers, and forced them to let the maidens’ sheep drink at
the
troughs. His dress was probably that of an Egyptian of rank; and they
might
reasonably conclude from his boldness that he had attendants within
call.
18 “And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye
are come so soon to day?” Reuel their father. Reuel is called “Raguel” in
Numbers
10:29, but the Hebrew spelling is the same in both places. The word
means “friend of God,” and
implies monotheisim. Compare ch. 18:9-12.
19 “And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the
shepherds, and also drew water enough for
us, and watered the flock.”
An Egyptian.
Reuel’s daughters judged by the outward
appearance.
Moses wore the garb and probably spoke the language of
water enough for us. The shepherds had consumed some of the
water
drawn
by the maidens, before Moses could drive them off. He supplied the
deficiency
by drawing more for them — an act of polite attention.
Moses
a Second Time the Champion of the Oppressed (vs. 16-19)
His
championship of an oppressed Hebrew, indiscreetly and wrongfully asserted, had
driven
Moses from the country of his birth. No sooner does he set foot in the land
where he
seeks a refuge, than his championship is again called forth. On the first
occasion it
was a weaker race oppressed by one more powerful that made appeal
to his
feelings; now it is the weaker sex, oppressed by the stronger, that rouses him.
His
Egyptian civilization may have helped to intensify his aversion to this form of
oppression,
since among the Egyptians of his time women held a high place,
and were
treated with consideration. He springs forward therefore to maintain
the rights
of Reuel’s daughters; but he has learnt wisdom so far that he
restrains
himself — kills no one, strikes no one — merely “helps” the victims,
and has
their wrong redressed. The circumstances
of life give continual
occasion
for such interference as this; and each man is bound, so far as he can,
to check
oppression, and “see that they who are in need and necessity have
right.” If
Moses is a warning to us in respect of his mode of action on the
former
occasion, he is an example here. The protection of women, whensoever
and
wheresoever they are wronged and ill-used, is a high Christian duty.
20 “And he said unto his daughters,
And where is he? why is it that ye
have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.” Where is he?
Reuel
reproaches his daughters with a want of politeness
— even of gratitude.
Why
have they “left the man”? Why have they
not invited him in? They must
themselves
remedy the omission — they must go
and “call him” —
that he
“may eat bread,” or take his evening meal with them.
Moses in Midian (vs. 15-20)
Moses had
to flee. The hard, unworthy reproach, humiliating as he must
have felt
it to be, nevertheless gave him a timely warning. His flight seems
to have
been instantaneous; perhaps not even the opportunity to bid
farewell to
his friends. An utter rupture, a complete
separation was his only
safety.
Consider:
Ø
Possibly Pharaoh’s daughter was still alive. If so, we can imagine her
sorrow and utter perplexity over the son of her
adoption, and the
reproaches she might have to bear from her own
kindred. How often she
may have heard that common expression which adds
insult to bitter
disappointment, “I told you so.” We may be
tolerably sure as to one result
of the long sojourn of Moses in Midian, viz.,
that when he returned, she
would be vanished from the scene, spared from
beholding the son of her
adoption the agent of such dreadful visitations
to her own people. Yet even
with this mitigation, the agony may have been
more than she could bear.
She had sheltered Moses, watched over him, and “nourished him for her
own son,” giving him the opportunity to become learned m all the wisdom
of the Egyptians; only to find at last that a
sword had pierced through her
own soul (Luke 2:35; Acts 7:21-22).
Ø
He left his brethren in servitude. Any expectation they may have had,
from his present eminence and possibly greater
eminence in the future, was
now completely crushed. It is well to effect a
timely crushing of false
hopes, even if great severity has to be used.
Ø
He left behind all difficulties that came from his connection with the
court. Had he gone on
staying in
election, sooner or later, between the Egyptians
and his own people. But
now he is spared having to decide for himself.
We have to thank God that
he sometimes takes painful and difficult
decisions out of our hands, so that
we have no longer to blame ourselves either for
haste or procrastination;
for rashness and imprudence, or cowardice and
sloth. God in His
providence
does things for us, which we might find it very hard to do for
ourselves.
whither he went. The safest place was the best for him, and
that safest
place might not immediately appear. Yet how plain it is that
God was
guiding him, as really as He guided Abraham, though Moses
was not
conscious of the guiding. He fled because he had slain a
fellow-man, yet he
was not going forth as a Cain. Under the wrath of Pharaoh,
he was not
under that wrath of God which rests upon murderers. He was
going to a
new school, having learned all that could be learned in the
old one.
He probably asked himself as he fled, “Where can I go? Who
will
receive me? What story can I tell?” He would feel, now the
homicide was
known, that it was impossible to say how far the news had
reached.
Onward he sped — perhaps, like most fugitives of the sort,
hiding by day
and traveling by night — until at last he reached the
he concluded to dwell although it may have been in his mind
only a
temporary stage to a distant and safer abode. And now
observe that with
this fresh mention of what happened to him after his flight,
there is an
immediate and still further revelation of his
character, all in the way of
showing his natural fitness for the great work of
his life. He has made an
awful mistake in his manner of showing sympathy with
consequence has exposed himself to a humiliating rebuff; but
all this does
not make him one whit less willing to champion the weak when
the
occasion comes. He was a man always ready for
opportunities of service;
and wherever he went there seemed to be something for him to
do. He had
fled from a land where the strong oppressed the weak, and
come into
another land where he found the same thing prevailing, and
in one of its
most offensive forms; for the tyranny was that of man over
woman. The
people of Midian had a priest who seems to have been himself
a hospitable
man and a judicious and prudent one (ch. 18.); but there was
so little
reality of religion among the people, so little respect for
the priest’s office,
that these shepherds drove his daughters away from the well
— whom
rather they should have gladly helped. It was not an
occasional
misadventure to the daughters, but a regular experience (v.
18). None of
these shepherds perhaps had ever killed a man, but for all
that they were a
pack of savage boors. Moses, on the other hand, even though
he has slain a
man, is not a mere bravo, one who puts little value on human
life. One
might have said of him as Chaucer says of one of his
pilgrims in the
‘
“He was a veray parfit gentil knight.”
Then, when Moses had helped the women, his difficulties and
doubts were
soon brought to an end. He had helped them, though they were
utter
strangers, because he felt it his duty so to do. He was not
looking to them
for a release from his difficulties, for how could a few
weak women help
him, those who had just been the objects of his own pity?
But as women
had been the means of protecting him in infancy, so they
were the means of
providing for him now. He did not seek Reuel; Reuel sought
him. He
needed no certificate of character, these daughters
themselves were an
epistle of commendation to their father. He might safely
tell all his story
now, for even the darkest chapter of it would be viewed in
the light of his
recent generous action.
21 “And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses
Zipporah his daughter.” Moses was content to dwell with the man.
Moses
had fled from
and
had now to determine how he would
obtain a subsistence. Received into
Reuel’s house, or tent, pleased with the man
and with his family, he consented
to stay with him, probably entered into
his service, as Jacob into Laban’s
(Genesis
29:15-20), kept his sheep, or otherwise made himself useful
(see
ch. 3:1); and in course of time Reuel gave Moses his daughter, accepted
him
for his son-in-law, so that he became not merely a member
of his household,
but of
his family, was adopted probably into the tribe, so that he could not quit
it
without permission (ch. 4:18), and, so far as his own intention went, cast
in
his
lot with the Midianites, with whom he meant henceforth to live and
die.
Such
vague ideas as he may previously have entertained of his
“mission”
had
passed away; he had been “disillusioned” by his ill-success,
and now
looked
forward to nothingbut a life of peaceful obscurity.
22 “And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he
said, I have been a stranger in a strange
land” Gershom. An
Egyptian
etymology
has been assigned to this name
(‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ vol. 1.,
p.
488); but Moses in the text clearly
indicates that his own intention was to
give
his child a name significant in
Hebrew. “He called his name Gershom,
for he said, a stranger (ger) have I
been,” etc. The only question is, what
the second
element of the name, shom,
means. This appears to be correctly
explained
by Kalisch and others as equivalent to sham “there “ —
so that
the
entire word would mean
“(I was) a stranger there” — i.e.
in the country
where
this son was born
to me.
The Long Exile (vs. 15-22)
Moses took
with him into Midian all the best elements of his character; he
left some
of the faulty ones behind. He may be assumed to have left much
of his
self-confidence, and to have been cured in part of his natural
rashness. His after growth in meekness would almost imply that he had
come to see the need of curbing his hot passions, and had, like
David,
purposed in his heart that he would not transgress (Psalm
17:3; 32:1).
But he
carried with him all his nobleness, all his magnanimity and courtesy.
This comes
beautifully out in his defense of the women at the well (vs.16-17).
Ø
The weak
pushed aside by the strong. Rude, ill-mannered fellows
thrust
aside the daughters of the priest of Midian from
the sheep-troughs, and
shamelessly appropriate the water with which
they had diligently filled
them.
Ø
Brave
championship of the weak. Moses takes their part,
stands up to
help them, and compels the shepherds to give
way. Not content with this,
he gives the maidens what assistance he is able.
The two dispositions stand
in fine contrast: the one all that is unmanly
and contemptible, the other all
that is chivalrous and noble. The instance
teaches:
o
That the chivalrous disposition is also helpful. The one grace sets off
the other. But the bully is a churl, helping
nobody, and filching from the
weak.
o
That the bully is to
boot a coward. He will insult a woman, but cringes
in the presence of her vindicator. No true man
need be afraid to beard him.
o
That acts of kindness to
the defenseless are often repaid in unexpected
ways. They are indeed
their own reward. It revives one’s spirit to maintain
the cause of the needy. Moses, like Jesus, sat
by the well; but this little act
of kindness, like the Saviour’s conversation
with the woman of
did more to refresh his spirit than the sweetest
draught he could have taken
from it. It was good for him, defeated in
resisting tyranny in
discouraged by the reception he had met with
from his brethren, to have
this opportunity of reasserting his crushed
manhood, and of feeling that he
was still useful. It taught him, and it teaches
us:
§
Not to despair of doing good. Tyranny has many
phases, and
when it cannot be resisted in one form, it may
in another. And
it taught him:
§
Not to despair of human nature. Gratitude had
not vanished from the
earth, because his brethren had proved ungrateful.
Hearts were still
to be found, sensitive to the magic touch of
kindness; capable of
responding to it; ready to repay it by love. For
the little deed of
chivalry led to unexpected and welcome results.
It prepared the
way for the hospitable reception of Moses by
Reuel and found
for him a home in Midian; gave him a wife;
provided him
with suitable occupation.
Ø
The place of it. In or near the
Fit place for education of thought and heart.
Much alone with God — with
Nature in her more awful aspects — with his own
thoughts.
Ø
The society of it. He had probably
few companions beyond his
immediate circle: his wife; her father, sheikh
and priest, — pious,
hospitable, kindly-natured; the sisters. His
life simple and unartificial, a
wholesome corrective to the luxury of
Ø
The occupation of it. He kept flocks
(ch. 3:1). The shepherd’s
life, besides giving him a valuable knowledge of
the topography of the
desert, was very suitable for developing
qualities important in a leader —
watchfulness, skill, caution, self-reliance,
bravery, tenderness, etc. So
David was taken “from
the sheepcote, from following the sheep,” to be
ruler over God’s people, over
Moses’ character that he was willing to stoop
to, and did not spurn, this
lowly toil. He that could so humble himself was
fit to be exalted. By
faithfulnesss in that which was least, he served
an apprenticeship for being
faithful also in much (Luke 16:10).
Ø
The duration of it. Forty years was a long time, but not too long
for the
training God was giving him. The richest
characters are slowest in coming
to maturity, and Moses was all this while
developing in humility, and in
knowledge of God, of man, and, of his own heart. The whole subject
teaches us valuable lessons.
Ø
God’s dealings with His servants are often mysterious. Moses in Midian
seems an instance of the highest gifts thrown
uselessly away. Is this, we ask
in surprise, the only use God can find for a man
so richly gifted, so
remarkably preserved, and on whom have been
lavished all the treasures of
could do the work of a Moses? Moses himself, in
the meditations of these
forty years, must often have wondered at the
strange irony of his life. Yet
how clear it was all made to him at last! Trust God to know better what is
good for
you than you do yourself.
Ø
How little a man has, after all, to do with the shaping of his own
history! In one sense he has
much, yea everything, to do with it. Had
Moses, e.g., not so rashly slain the Egyptian, his whole future would
doubtless have borne a different complexion. Man
is responsible for his
acts, but once he has done them, they are taken
in spite of himself out of
his hands, and shaped in their consequences by overruling
who sent
the princess to the river, sent also the priest’s daughters to the
well.
Ø
It is man’s wisdom to study contentment with his lot. It may be humble,
and not the lot we like, or had counted on. It
may be a lot to which we
never expected to be reduced. We may feel as if
our gifts and powers were
being wasted in it. Yet if it is our lot — the one meanwhile providentialiy
marked out for us - our wisdom is cheerfully to
accept of it, and make the
best of the tasks which belong to it.
Moses as a
Husband and Father (vs. 21-22)
The
Midianites were descendants of Abraham (Genesis 25:2-4); and marriage with
them was
permitted, even under the Law (Numbers 31:18).
Moses, in wedding
Zipporah,
obeyed the primeval command, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis
1:28),
while at
the same time he gave himself the
solace so much needed by an exile,
of tender
and loving lifelong companionship.
“Moses was content to dwell
with the man” - Such
vague ideas as he may previously have entertained of
his
“mission” had passed away; he had been “disillusioned” by his ill-success,
and
now looked forward to nothing but a life of peaceful obscurity. That Reuel
was willing
to give him one of his daughters
indicates that he had approved
himself as
a faithful servant in the good
priest’s household, and was felt to
deserve a
reward. That Zipporah accepted
him was perhaps mere filial
obedience,
for which she was rewarded when the fugitive and exile became
the first
man in a considerable nation. God blessed the marriage with male
issue, a
blessing fondly desired by each true Israelite, and certainly not least by
Moses, who
knew so well that in some descendant of Abraham “all the
families of the earth should be blessed.” A shade of
sadness shows itself,
however, in
the name which he gave his firstborn
— Gershom, “a stranger
there.” He himself
had been for years, and, for aught that
he could tell, his
son might always be “a stranger in a strange land” far from his true home,
far from
his own people, a refugee among
foreigners, who could not be
expected to love him as one of themselves, or
treat him otherwise than with
coldness. Depression
like this often assails us at moments of great joy, the
good obtained making us feel all the more
sensibly that other goods have
been lost. Such depression, however, after
a time, passes away, and the
desponding
cry of “Gershom” is followed (Exodus
18:3-4) by that of
“Eliezer,” or “my God helps.”
Gershom (v. 22)
Ø
The
good man in this world is often lonely at heart.
o When
violence reigns unchecked.
o When God’s
cause is in a depressed condition.
o When repulsed
in efforts to do good.
o When
severed from scenes of former labor.
o When his
outward lot is uncongenial.
o When
deprived of suitable companionships, and when he can
find few to sympathize with him.
Ø God sends to the good man alleviations
of his loneliness. We may hope
that Zipporah, if not without faults, formed a kind and
helpful wife to
Moses. Then, sons were born to him — the first, the Gershom
of this
text. These were
consolations.
o A wife’s
affection, or
o the prattle
and innocence of children
have sweetened the lot of many all exile.
Remember John Bunyan and
his blind daughter.
Life and Its Moods (v. 22)
“He called his name Gershom,” etc. (v. 22), compared with —
“And the name of the other was Eliezer,” etc. (ch.
18:3-4). Note the
isolation
and misery of the earlier time, and the mercy of the later — each
begetting
its own tone and mood of mind; and further, the
desirability of
living above the mood of the passing day. Rev. O.
Kingsley says (‘Life,’
1:82): “Let
us watch against tones. They are unsafe things. The tone of a
man or
woman’s mind ought to be that of thoughtful reverence and love;
but neither
joy or sorrow, or activity or passiveness, or any other animal
tone, ought
to be habitual.”
DEATH OF
THE PHARAOH FROM WHOM MOSES FLED
CONTINUANCE OF THE OPPRESSION OF
GOD’S
ACCEPTANCE OF THEM (vs.
23-25)
After a
space of forty years from the time of Moses’ flight from
the
estimate of Stephen (Acts 7:30), the king whose anger he had provoked —
Rameses
II., as we believe — died. He had
reigned sixty-seven years — about
forty-seven
alone, and about twenty in conjunction with his father. At his death,
the
oppressed Israelites ventured to hope for some amelioration of their condition.
On his
accession, a king in the East often reverses the policy of his predecessor,
or at any
rate, to make himself popular, grants a remission of burdens for a certain
period. But
at this time the new monarch,
disappointed
the hopes of the Israelites, maintained his father’s policy, continued
the
established system of oppression, granted them no relief of any kind. They
“sighed,” therefore, in consequence of their
disappointment, and “cried” unto
God in their
trouble, and made supplication to Him more earnestly, more heartily,
than ever
before. We need not suppose that they had previously fallen away
from
their
faith, and “now at last returned to God after many years of idolatrous
aberration”
(Aben Ezra,
Kalisch). But there was among them an
access of religious fervor;
they “turned
to God” from a state of deadness, rather from one of alienation, and
raised a “cry” of the kind to
which GOD IS NEVER DEAF! God therefore
“heard their groaning,” deigned to listen to their prayers, and
commenced
the course
of miraculous action which issued in the Exodus.
23 “And it came to pass IN THE PROCESS OF TIME (what
a somber
thought!
– CY – 2010) Literally,
“in those many days.” The reign
of Rameses
II. was exceptionally long, as previously explained. He had
already
reigned twenty-seven years when Moses fled from him (ch. 2:15).
He had now
reigned sixty-seven, and Moses was eighty! It had
seemed a
weary while to wait – “that the king of
and the children of
cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.”
The children of
how much
more to his nation! He had escaped and
was in Midian — they toiled
on in
“with hard
bondage, in mortar, and in
brick, and in all manner of service in the
field” (ch.
1:14). He could bring up his sons in safety; their sons
were still
thrown into
the river. No wonder that “an exceeding bitter cry” went up to God
from the oppressed people, so soon as they found that
they had nothing to hope
from the
new king.
Death Comes at Last, Even to the Proudest
Monarch (v. 23)
Rameses II
left behind him the reputation of being the greatest of the
Egyptian
kings. He was confounded with the mythical Sesostris, and
regarded as
the conqueror of all Western Asia, of
tract in
excel those
of any other Pharaoh. His reign was the longest, if we except
one, of any
upon record. He was victorious, by land or sea, over all who
resisted
his arms. Yet a time came when he too “went the way
of all flesh.”
(I Kings
2:20 “It is
appointed unto all men once to die, and after that the
judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27)
After eighty years of life and sixty-seven of regal
power, the
Great Rameses was gathered to his fathers. Of what avail then was
all his
glory, all his wealth, all his magnificence, all his architectural display, all
his long
series of victories? Could he plead them before the judgment-seat of an
ALL-RIGHTEOUS GOD? He could not even, according to his own belief,
have
pleaded
them before the tribunal of his own Osiris. A modern writer says
that every
stone in the edifices which he raised was cemented with the
blood of a
human victim (Lenormant, ‘Manuel d’Histoire Ancienne,’ vol.
1. p. 423).
Thousands of wretches toiled incessantly to add to his glory,
and cover
forth his
greatness. But what is the result of all, what advantage has he
gained by
it? On earth, he is certainly not forgotten; but History gibbets
him as a
tyrant and oppressor - one of the scourges of the human race. In
the
intermediate region where he dwells, what can be his thoughts of the
past? What
his expectations of the future? Must he not mourn continually
over his misspent life, and unavailingly regret his cruelties? The meanest
of
his victims
is now happier than he, and would refuse to change lots with
him.
24 “And God
heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant
with Abraham, with Isaac, and with
Jacob. 25
And God looked upon
the children of
God heard their groaning. God is
said to “hear” the prayers which He accepts and
grants; to “be deaf” to those which He does not grant, but rejects.
He now “heard”
(i.e.
accepted)
the supplications of oppressed
which He
had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — a covenant always
remembered by Him —He looked upon His people,
made them the objects of His
special regard, and entered
on a course, which was abnormal, irregular, miraculous,
in order to carry out His purposes of mercy towards
them. It is observed that
anthropomorphic
expressions are here accumulated; but this is always the
case when the love and tenderness of God towards man are spoken of,
since they
form the only possible phraseology in which ideas of love and
tenderness
can be expressed so as to be intelligible to human beings. And
God regarded them. Literally,
“and God knew.” God kept the whole in
His
thoughts — bore in mind the sufferings, the wrongs, the hopes, the
fears, the
groans, the despair, the appeal to Him, the fervent supplications
and prayers
— knew all, remembered all-counted every word and sigh —
gathered
the tears into His bottle — noted all things in His book — and for
the present
endured, kept silence — but was preparing for His foes a
terrible
vengeance — for His people a marvelous deliverance
Moses and Christ (vs. 1-25)
Compare in
circumstances of early life.
1. Obscurity
of birth.
2. Peril in
infancy.
3.
Protection in
4. Rejected
by brethren
5. Humble
toil. The carpenter’s shop — keeping sheep.
6. Long
period of silent preparation.
The period
was not so long in Christ’s case as in the case of Moses, but had a like
significance
in preparation for future work.
The Hour of Help (vs. 23-25)
Ø
It was long delayed.
o Till
tyranny had done its worst.
o Till the
last hope of help from man had disappeared.
Improvement may have been looked for at death of
king.
Ø
It came at last.
o When the
bondage had served its ends.
o When the people,
in despair of man, were crying to God.
Ø When it did come!
o The man was
found ready who was to bring it.
o God was found faithful to His promise.
A Groaning
There was no supplication for help, no expression of
confidence in a
helper; seeing there was no real sense of trust in One who
could keep, and
therefore no possibility of real expectation from Him. These
Israelites did
not wait as they that watch for the morning, sure that it
will come at last
(Psalm 130:6), but rather as those who say in the morning, “Would
God it were even!” and at
even, “Would God it were morning!”
(Deuteronomy 28:67). Their right attitude, if only they had
been able to
occupy it, was that which Jesus is said to have
occupied - “Who in the
days of His flesh, when He
had offered up prayers and supplications
with strong crying and tears
unto Him that was able to save Him from
death, and was heard in that
He feared.” (Hebrews 5:7).
They should have offered up prayers and supplications along
with their
strong crying and tears to Him that was able to save them.
But the God
who had been so near to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, seemed
now removed
to a distance. No one appeared with whom the Israelites in
their despair
could wrestle until they gained the blessing of deliverance.
And thus it has
been in every generation,
and still continues. The misery of the world
cannot be silent, and in it all the saddest feature is, that
the miserable have
no knowledge of God, or, if they have, it is a knowledge without practical
use. They are WITHOUT HOPE in the world, because they are WITHOUT
GOD in the world. They go on
groaning like a sick infant that neither knows
the cause of
its trouble nor where to look for help. And in the midst of all this
ignorance, Jesus would lead men to true prayer — to
intelligent and calm
dependence upon God for things according to His will.
CRYING. They
sighed by reason of the bondage. Bodily restraint,
privation, and pain — in these lay the reasons for their
groaning. Their pain
was that of the senses, not that of the spirit. Little
wonder then that they
were not susceptible to the presence of God. Contrast their
painful
experiences with those recorded in the following Psalms,
32., 38., 39, 51.,
119., 136. Jesus made it evident by His dealings with many
of those who
came to Him that the bulk of men, like the
Israelites of old, are sighing
because of some temporal bondage. They think that pain would vanish, if
only they could get all sensible comforts. The poor man
thinks what a
comfort wealth and plenty must be, yet a rich man came to
Jesus, still
unsatisfied in spite of his wealth, and was obliged to go
away again, sad,
because of what Jesus had said, deeply
disturbed and disappointed; and
all because he had great possessions. There was no chance of doing much
good to
The pain
of life which comes through the senses would sink into a matter,
of
superficial insignificance, if only we
felt as we ought to do the
corruption
and danger which come through sin. We should
soon come to
THE TRUE
REMEDY for all our pains, if only we learned to cry for the
clean heart and the right spirit.
A REAL
PRAYER, YET GOD ATTENDED TO IT. God made allowance
for the ignorance of the people. He knew what
was wanted, even though
they knew not. The father on earth, being evil, has to make
the best guess
he can at the interests of his children; our Father in heaven knows exactly
what we want. God does
not expect from the ignorant what can only be
presented by those who know Him; and He was about to deal
with
that they might know Him. And first of all they must be made
to feel that
and his sons, coming out of famine-stricken
past when there was any temptation to say, “Surely
Canaan; we shall be able to
take our ease, eat, drink, and be merry.”
There had not only been corn in
have all to find out what
we cannot appreciate THE NEARNESS OF GOD AND PROFIT BY IT!
God can do much for us when we
come to the groaning-point, when the
dear
illusions of life not only
begin to vacate their places, but are succeeded by
painful, stern, and
abiding realities. When we begin to cry, even though
our cry be only because of temporal losses and pains, there
is then a chance
that we may attend to the
increasing revelations of THE PRESENCE OF
GOD and learn to wait upon Him in OBEDIENCE and PRAYER
God is Never Deaf to Earnest Prayer for
Deliverance (vs. 24-25)
It was
eighty years since the cruel edict went forth, “Every son that
is born
ye shall cast into the river” (ch. 1:22) — ninety, or
perhaps a hundred, since the
severe
oppression began (ibid. vs. 11-14).
and groaned
during the whole of this long period, and no doubt addressed
many a
prayer to God, which seemed unheard. But no earnest
faithful
prayer
during the whole of the long space was unheard. God treasured
them all up
in His memory. He was “not slack, as men count
slackness”
(II Peter
3:9) He had to wean His people from
their attachment to
he had to
discipline them, to form their character — to prepare them to endure
the
hardships of the desert, and to face the fierce tribes of
was done —
when they were fit, He gave effect to their prayers — “heard
their groaning” — and just as they were on the point of
despairing,
delivered them.
The lesson to us here is, that we never despair, never grow
weary and
listless, never cease our prayers, nor strive to make them more and
more
fervent. We can never know how near we are to the time when God
will show
forth His power to grant and accomplish our prayers.
Three Facts (vs. 23-25)
As in
streams the water is attracted to and swirls round various centers, so here the
interest of
the narrative circles about three facts. We have”
Aahmes I. . — see Canon Cook, in ‘Speaker’s Commentary;’
others,
Rameses II. — see R. S. Poole, In Contemporary Review,’
March, 1879.]
What he had done is sufficiently evident. Confronted with an
alien people,
of whose history he knew little and with whom he had no
sympathy, he had
treated them with suspicion and cruelty. Walking by sight he
had
inaugurated a policy which was sufficiently clever but
decidedly unwise; he
had hatched the very enmity he dreaded, by making those whom
he feared
miserable. Nevertheless, he, personally, does not seem to
have been the
loser in this life. He left a legacy of trouble for his
successor, but probably
to the last he was feared and honored. Such lives were to
the Egyptians,
and must still be, suggestive of immortality. If evil can
thus prosper in the
person of a king, life must indeed be a moral chaos if it
end with death and
there be no hereafter. “The king of
Heaven and Earth?
endorsed by the new king. Results upon an oppressed people:
Ø Misery finds a voice. “They sighed” — a half-stifled cry, which
however gathers strength; “they cried.” Forty years of silent endurance
seeks at length relief in utterance. The king’s death brings
the dawn of
hope; the first feeling after liberty is the cry of anguish
which cannot be
suppressed. Such a cry, an inarticulate prayer which needed
no
interpreter to translate it — an honest and heartfelt prayer
of which
God could take cognizance.
Ø The voice of misery finds a listener. The cry was
a cry with wings to it
— it “came up unto God.” Too many
so-called prayers have no wings,
or at most clipped wings. They grovel on the earth like
barnyard fowls,
and if they chance to pick up solace, it is, like
themselves, of the earth
earthy. Winged
prayers, even when winged by sorrow, go up, and for
a time seem lost, but they reach
heaven and find harbor there.
Ø Attention secured and the covenant
remembered. God had not been deaf
before, nor had He been forgetful of His promise. For practical
memory,
however, there must be a practical claim upon
that which is remembered.
So long as the people are indifferent, their indifference
suspends the
fulfillment of the covenant. All the while God, by
permitting the tyranny,
had been stirring up their memory that they might stir up
His. When they
are aroused, He shows at
once that He is mindful.
Ø
The
children of the covenant beheld, and respect paid to their
necessities. So far, God
had looked upon a people of slaves, trying hard
to make themselves content with servitude. Now
that misery has aroused
them to remember who and what they are, He sees once more
the
children of
come to themselves (Luke
15:17) before God can effectually look upon
them. Content with servitude, He sees them slaves.