The Pulpit Commentary — Exodus — Volume 1 — Section 63

with them. Interest may be easily produced while the exhibition of an injury is fresh, or the emotions o.re excited by some skilful epeo.ker. But we do not want the heart to be like o.n instrument, only producing music so long as the performer touches it. We want it to have such a continued o.ctivity within, such a continued thoughtfulness, as will maintain e. noble o.nd alert sympathy with men in all their varied and incessant needs. 3. The conduct of Moses here shows that he was a hater of all oppression. His patriotic feeling ho.d been excited by the Egyptian smiting the Hebrew, o.nd now his nature.I 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 haJ ,-,ens 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 thoagh he was, he would have sympathised with the Egyptians. II. CONSIDER THE OCCASION OF ms RE.MOXS'l'RANCE. It is a 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, Lo 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 (1 John iii. 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. III. CONSIDER THE RE.MONSTRANCE ITSELF. 1. 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 conteni 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 appearl:I in Moses a certain disposition towards the /udicial 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 wro11.g, 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 favour 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. 2. 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 waB 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 1" There might be great virtue in this persistent interro"ation if only put in a spirit purged as far as possible from the censorious and the mcddle~omo. What a man docs carelessly enough and with much satisfaction, upon the  44 THE BOOK OF EXODUS. [en. u. 11-15.