Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 2:13
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?
13. strove ] i.e. quarrelled, fought: cf. Exo 21:22; 2Sa 14:6.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Thy fellow – Thy neighbor. the reproof was that of a legislator who established moral obligations on a recognized principle. Hence, in the following verse, the offender is represented as feeling that the position claimed by Moses was that of a Judge. The act could only have been made known by the Hebrew on whose behalf Moses had committed it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 2:13-14
Two men of the Hebrews strove together.
Moses championship of the right
In the first instance we might have thought that in taking part with the Hebrew against the Egyptian, Moses was but yielding to a clannish feeling. It was race against race, not right against wrong. In the second instance, however, that conclusion is shown to be incorrect. We now come to a strife between two Hebrews, both of whom were suffering under the same galling bondage. How did the youthful Moses deport himself under such circumstances? Did he take part with the strong against the weak? Did he even take part with the weak against the strong? Distinctly the case was not one determined by the mere disparity of the combatants. To the mind of Moses the question was altogether a moral one. When he spoke, he addressed the man who did the wrong; that man might have been either the weaker or the stronger. The one question with Moses turned upon injustice and dishonourableness. Do we not here once more see traces of his mothers training? yet we thought that the home life of Moses was a life unrecorded! Read the mother in the boy; discover the home training in the public life. Mens behaviour is but the outcome of the nurture they have received at home. Moses did not say, You are both Hebrews, and therefore you may fight out your own quarrel: nor did he say, The controversies of other men are nothing to me; they who began the quarrel must end it. Moses saw that the conditions of life had a moral basis; in every quarrel as between right and wrong he had a share, because every honourable-minded man is a trustee of social justice and common fair play. We have nothing to do with the petty quarrels which fret society, but we certainly have to do with every controversy, social, imperial, or international, which violates human right, and impairs the claims of Divine honour. We must all fight for the right: we feel safer by so much as we know that there are amongst us men who will not be silent in the presence of wrong, and will lift up a testimony in the name of righteousness, though there be none to cheer them with one word of encouragement. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The Hebrew quarrel
1. Multiplied their enemies.
2. Weakened Israel.
3. Banished Moses.
Divisions defeat the Church. Moses, as–
1. A judge dooming his enemies.
2. A peacemaker among his countrymen. (Dr. Fowler.)
Lessons
1. Daily and successive is the care of Gods saving instruments to His oppressed Church.
2. Gods faithful instruments leave courtly pleasures to visit Gods afflicted frequently.
3. In visiting for good the oppressed Church, sad contentions may appear among the members.
4. It is an observable evil by overseers, to see Church members striving together.
5. Duels in the Church and among its members are sad things to record.
6. Men called of God must interpose and curb the injurious and offending parties.
7. Smiting of neighbours and brethren is a sin sharply reprovable in the Church (verse 13).
8. Injurious and offending parties are apt to recoil against rulers upon reproof.
9. Wickedness makes men question any authority of God, that would suppress them.
10. Sin will not endure to be suppressed by power; but will rage against it.
11. It is the artifice of malefactors to recriminate powers for escaping themselves.
12. Zealous avengers of Gods oppressed may be terrified sometimes with the criminations of the wicked. (G. Hughes, B. D.)
A good mans interference with a quarrel
I. It is the duty of good men to try to subdue any quarrels they may be called to witness.
1. Because they recognize the common grief of men. The suffering of humanity an argument for friendliness.
2. Because they recognize the claim arising from the brotherhood of men.
3. Because they ought to be superior to the passion of strife.
II. In this endeavour good men should make moral considerations the basis of their appeal to the quarrelsome.
1. Not favouritism.
2. Not greater physical strength. Christianity must aid weakness when associated with rectitude.
3. Not hope of reward. A satisfied conscience is brighter and more enduring than gold.
III. Good men, in trying to subdue the quarrels of others, often get little thanks, and may involve themselves in trouble. Who made thee, etc.
1. They imagined that Moses assumed unrightful authority.
2. They reminded Moses of, and taunted him with, past sin. It requires a blameless life to rebuke evil.
3. The heroic interference of Moses lacked moral continuity. His own sin made him a coward.
4. Moses incurred the hatred of Pharaoh. Through endeavouring to stay this quarrel, he lost position and comfort; but it was the means of putting him on the track of Divinely-imposed duty, which would win him world-wide renown. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow
?:–Apply this question–
1. To the domestic circle.
2. To society at large.
3. To the Church. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Some find reason for their conduct
1. In revenge.
2. In impulse.
3. Necessity. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Discouragement
The best friends of the Church often meet with the most discouragement.
1. Their authority is rejected.
2. They are not understood.
3. Their safety is endangered.
4. The welfare of the Church is imperilled. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
The good man must not be turned aside from duty by circumstances
1. Moses was not offended by this treatment.
2. He did not give up in despair.
3. He worked out the training of his boyhood.
4. He worked out the providence of God.
5. He worked out the dictates of his conscience. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Discord and strife
In the ringing of bells, whilst every one keeps his due time and order, what a sweet and harmonious sound they make! All the neighbouring villages are cheered with the sound of them; but when once they jar and check each other, either jangling together or striking preposterously, how harsh and unpleasing is that noise. So that as we testify our public rejoicings by an orderly and well-timed peal, when we would signify the town is on fire, we ring the bells back.ward in a confused manner. It is just thus in the Church. When every one knows his station, authority, and keeps his due rank, there is melodious concert of comfort and contentment; but when either states or persons will be clashing with each other, the discord is grievous and prejudicial. (J. Hall.)
Results of physical degradation
The Israelites had sunk into brute insensibility under oppression. It is a remarkable fact we cannot too earnestly reflect on, always and everywhere true, that extreme physical degradation dulls the intellect, and destroys moral sensibility. Some persons complain, that the very poorest classes of the community, who live in underground cellars and upper garrets, are unthankful. But it is because we are undutiful. Physical degradation has a most pernicious effect upon the moral, spiritual, and intellectual feelings of mankind. It brutalizes and barbarizes. I believe that our missions, with all their value–our city missionaries and our Scripture readers, doing a most noble work–are here vastly obstructed in their work. I believe a great physical and social amelioration in poor mens homes must be made, before a substantial moral and spiritual one begins in their hearts. We must raise the masses above the level of the brutes, before we can raise them to the level of Christians. You must make them men, before you can make them, by the grace of God, Christians. (J. Gumming, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 13. Two men of the Hebrews strove together] How strange that in the very place where they were suffering a heavy persecution because they were Hebrews, the very persons themselves who suffered it should be found persecuting each other! It has been often seen that in those times in which the ungodly oppressed the Church of Christ, its own members have been separated from each other by disputes concerning comparatively unessential points of doctrine and discipline, in consequence of which both they and the truth have become an easy prey to those whose desire was to waste the heritage of the Lord. The Targum of Jonathan says that the two persons who strove were Dathan and Abiram.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The next day after that achievement, he returns to execute the office in which God had set him as a judge, whose work it is both to destroy enemies, and to reconcile brethren.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13, 14. two men of the Hebrewsstrove togetherHis benevolent mediation in this strife, thoughmade in the kindest and mildest manner, was resented, and the tauntof the aggressor showing that Moses’ conduct on the preceding day hadbecome generally known, he determined to consult his safety byimmediate flight (Heb 11:27).These two incidents prove that neither were the Israelites yet readyto go out of Egypt, nor Moses prepared to be their leader (Jas1:20). It was by the staff and not the swordby the meekness,and not the wrath of Moses that God was to accomplish that great workof deliverance. Both he and the people of Israel were for forty yearsmore to be cast into the furnace of affliction, yet it was thereinthat He had chosen them (Isa48:10).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when he went out the second day,…. The day following:
behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together; which the Jewish writers h take to be Dathan and Abiram:
and he said to him that did the wrong; who was the aggressor, and acted the wicked part in abusing his brother:
wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? friend and companion; signifying, that it was very unbecoming, unkind, and unnatural, and that brethren and friends ought to live together in love, and not strive with, and smite one another, and especially at such a time as this, when they were so oppressed by, and suffered so much from their enemies;
[See comments on Ac 7:26].
h Targum Jon. & Jarchi in loc. Shemoth Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 4. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 5. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 48.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
13. Behold, two men of the Hebrews. This perseverance shews that Moses was firm and determined in his design of returning to his brethren, and abandoning the Court; and that he had advisedly renounced its splendor, its wealth, and comforts, although he was by no means ignorant of the miseries to which he exposed himself, and how painful and disagreeable, nay, how ignominious a condition awaited him. Wherefore we need not wonder if the Apostle says, that he chose
“
rather to endure the reproach of Christ,” “and to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” (Heb 11:25.)
Besides, the sad sight of the tyrant’s violence and of the burdens by which his brethren were oppressed, was anything but an obstacle to his proceeding, because, being prepared by the hope of future recompense to bear the cross, he was superior to present fear. But he does not assume, as before, the character of a judge; but performs a duty, which the law of charity demands of every one, addressing the men who strove together as a peace-maker, and exhorting them both to be reconciled, though he especially blames the wrongdoer. This was not peculiar to Moses, but the common duty of all believers, when the innocent are harshly treated, to take their part, and as far as possible to interpose, lest the stronger should prevail. It can scarcely be done without exasperating those who are disposed to evil; but nothing ought to allow us to be silent, while justice is violated by their forwardness. For in this ease, silence is a kind of consent. Yet Moses reproves moderately, and in kind terms, the man who had assaulted his brother; because he does not so much wish to reproach him with the greatness of his fault, as to find the means of calming his ferocity.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 2:13-14
A GOOD MANS INTERFERENCE WITH A QUARREL
I. That it is the duty of Good Men to try to subdue any quarrels they may be called to witness.
1. Because they recognise the common grief of Men. This quarrel was between two Hebrews. They were both the slaves of a tyrant king. Both felt the misery of their condition. See, then, the folly of their quarrel. It would augment their woe. Their own unity ought to have been the relief of their serfdom. So there are many people to-day who increase their trials by a factious spirit. The most abject slave may, and ought to, enjoy the luxury of peaceought to live on friendly terms with his comrades in suffering. Moses felt this. Good men should recognise the suffering of humanity as an argument for friendliness.
2. Because they recognise the claim arising from the brotherhood of men.
3. Because they ought to be superior to the passion of strife. A good man should be braveand true bravery is always calm. He is above entering into the paltry and foolish quarrels of men. He may therefore endeavour to stay them, without personal injury. By so doing he will put an end to quarrels that might have resulted in a sad and murderous consequence. He may thus benefit the factious individual by freeing him from the life-long memory of injustice; and society at large, by preventing a public spectacle of immorality.
II. That in this endeavour good men should make moral considerations the basis of their appeal to the quarrelsome. And he said to him that did the wrong. Perhaps, in some quarrels it is difficult to determine which party is in the wrong. Very often both are blameworthy. Moral considerations should be made the basis of appeal.
1. Not favouritism. It is just possible that Moses may have seen these two men before. He would no doubt cultivate the acquaintance of his enslaved countrymen. And if he had not he was open to the impressions of the moment. When we see a quarrel we almost instinctively take sides. The one man appears more calmhe is more open in physiquethe other appears more fierce and brutalOur sympathies go with the former. This is not just. Nor can a good man base his appeal on any such predilection. Which is in the right?this question contains the secret, and points to the method of settlement.
2. Not greater physical strength. In our effort to subdue a quarrel we must not necessarily side with the strongertrue, he may be more likely to come away conqueror. But if the weaker is right, our question must be directed against him that did the wrong, even though he be the stronger. In this case great Christian fortitude will be needed. Worldly men will often aid the strong in their conflict. The world likes to be on the winning side. Christianity must aid weakness when associated with rectitude. She must wait for her victory. It will come.
3. Not hope of reward. Many, in the event of conflict aid the side on which there is the greatest likelihood of plunder or spoil. The influential and the rich seldom lack comrades in their quarrels. The Christian man, in trying to stay the quarrels of men, must put aside all thought of vested interest, of temporal emolument, or transient applausehe must join himself to the right, unmoved by the promise, or hope of reward. His reward is from Godis brighter than goldis more enduringthe reward of a satisfied conscience.
III. That good men, in trying to subdue the quarrels of others often get little thanks, and may involve themselves in trouble. Who made thee a prince and a judge over us.
1. They imagined that Moses assumed unrightful authority. True, Moses had rightful authority over these slaves. As the Son of Pharaohs daughter this would be permitted to him. But the right of the good to interrupt a quarrel does not depend upon social or national supremacy, but upon moral. A king might not be a proper person to rebuke a quarrel. Sainthood is the true qualification for such a work. A man who lives much in communion with the unseen, and who has power with God, will have influence to hush the passion of his fellows.
2. They reminded Moses of, and taunted him with, past sin. Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian? Moses thought that no one had seen his act of murder. The sin of a good mans past life often weakens his present ability for doing good. When men are in the passion of strife, they are not choice as to their invectives. Hence, it requires a blameless life to rebuke evil.
3. The heroic interference of Moses lacked moral continuity. And Moses feared, &c. His own sin made him a coward.
4. Moses incurred the hatred of Pharoah. The two Hebrews would no doubt spread the story of Moses wrongdoingit was corroborated by his flight from the palacethe king was amazedhis hospitality had been abusedthe commencement of a life struggle between Egypt and Israel. The flight of Moses was the signal for the defeat of Pharoah. Thus, though endeavouring to stay this quarrel, Moses lost position, comfort, but it was the means of putting him upon the track of dutydivinely inposedthat would win him world-wide renown. Thus he did not lose much, according to a true computation, by the exchange. To stop a quarrel is a good mans duty, regardless of consequences.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Exo. 2:13. Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow. Apply this question,
1. To the domestic circle.
2. To society at large.
3. To the Church.
Some find reason for their conduct
1. In revenge.
2. In impulse.
3. Necessity. Gods faithful instruments leave courtly pleasures to visit Gods afflicted ones In visiting for good the oppressed Church, sad contentions may appear among the members.
Duels in the Church, and among its members, are sad things to record. They are reprovable.
Moses did not say, You are both Hebrews, and therefore you may fight out your own quarrel; nor did he say, The controversies of other men are nothing to me; they who began the quarrel must end it: Moses saw that the conditions of life had a moral basis; in every quarrel, as between right and wrong, he had a share, because every honourable-minded man is a trustee of social justice and common fair play [City Temple].
The reproof Moses gave on this occasion may still be of use, wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? Smiting our fellows is bad in any, especially in Hebrews; smiting with tongue or hand, either in a way of persecution, or in a way of contention. Consider the person thou smitest, it is thy fellow, thy fellow creature, thy fellow Christian; it is thy fellow servant, thy fellow sufferer [Henry and Scott].
Exo. 2:14. Offending parties are often insolent to those who rebuke them.
Wicked men are always impatient of authority.
Quarrelsome men are glad to involve others, that they may escape themselves.
Good men are sometimes frightened at the threats of the wicked.
Factious men are slow to acknowledge those who would do them moral good.
Wicked men are more willing to plead the cause of oppressors, than acknowledge just deliverers.
What authority did Moses assume in thus gently reproving a manifest outrage? Does one need a commission to perform an act of real kindness, and to endeavour to make friends of apparent enemies. It is rare virture ingenuously to confess our faults, and to receive correction with meekness [Bush].
Men know not what they do, nor what enemies they are to their own interest, when they resist, and despise faithful reproofs and reprovers. When the Hebrews strove with Moses, God sent him away into Midian, and they never heard of him for forty years [Henry and Scott].
The best friends of the Church often meet with the most discouragement.
1. Their authority is rejected.
2. They are not understood.
3. Their safety is endangered.
4. The welfare of the Church is imperilled.
The good man must not be turned aside from duty by circumstances.
1. Moses was not offended by this treatment.
2. He did not give up in despair.
3. He worked out the training of his boyhood.
4. He worked out the providence of God.
5. He worked out the dictates of his conscience
ILLUSTRATIONS
Exo. 2:11-14. In the ringing of bells, whilst every one keeps his due time and order, what a sweet and harmonious sound they make! All the neighbouring villages are cheered with the sound of them; but when once they jar and check each other, either jangling together or striking preposterously, how harsh and unpleasing is that noise. So that as we testify our public rejoicings by an orderly and well-timed peal, when we would signify the town is on fire, we ring the bells backward in a confused manner. It is just thus in the church: When every one knows his station, authority, and keeps his due rank, there is melodious concert of comfort and contentment: but when either states or persons will be clashing with each other, the discord is grievous and, prejudicial [Halls Occasional Meditations.].
Exo. 2:13. In most quarrels there is fault on both sides. A quarrel may be compared to a spark, which cannot be produced without a flint as well as a steel, either of them may hammer on wood for ever, no fire will follow [Cotton.]
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(13) The second dayi.e., the next day.
Him that did the wrong.Heb., the wicked one. Our version follows the LXX.
Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?Comp. Act. 7:26, where the words of Moses are reported somewhat differently, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another? In either case there was no offensive assumption of authority. But the wrong doer took offence, nevertheless.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13, 14. “But they understood not;” the iron had not yet gone deep enough into their souls, and Moses’s self-sacrifice in their behalf was too sublime for them to see . They betrayed their leader, (for a Hebrew must have informed against him,) and his first effort was a failure, not from Egyptian malice, but from Hebrew jealousy and envy .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 7:26 . Sweet and gentle reproof! Fellow sufferer! fellow oppressed! fellow Christian. All higher persuasions than fellow creature.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 2:13 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?
Ver. 13. Behold, two men of the Hebrews strove. ] What pity was it that brethren should strive, and one Hebrew smite another, as if blows enough were not dealt them by the Egyptians! Still Satan is thus busy, and Christians are thus malicious. Thus we have seen doves beat, and sheep butt one another. Jonathan and Rab. Solomon boldly say that these two striving Hebrews were Dathan and Abiram; and that the other Hebrew smitten by the Egyptian Exo 2:11 was the husband of Salomith the daughter of Dabri!
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
men. Hebrew, plural of ‘ish, or ‘enosh. App-14.
strove = striving.
he said. Supposing they would have understood. “But they understood not, “Act 7:25.
wrong. Hebrew. rash`a, App-44.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
and he said: Act 7:26, 1Co 6:7, 1Co 6:8
Reciprocal: Gen 13:8 – brethren Gen 24:27 – of my Gen 31:23 – General Exo 18:16 – one and another Exo 21:18 – men 2Sa 14:6 – and they two Pro 5:12 – and my