MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Exodus 4:18
A TRUE RECOGNITION OF FILIAL DUTY
I. It consists in a true recognition of Parental Authority. “And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt.” Thus we find that Moses acknowledged the authority of his father-in-law, by asking his consent to a journey into Egypt.
1. Moses was animated by honesty. This Midianitish family had been very kind to him, they had given him a home when he was a wanderer; especially had the father of the family been his friend, in prompting the daughters to fetch the man who had protected them, in retaining him under his roof, and in his employment. Hence Moses could not honestly have left Jethro without his consent. He had become his servant, he must therefore acknowledge him as a master. He had become his son, he must therefore recognise him as a father. He had received his hospitality, he must therefore manifest gratitude in return. We have here a pattern worthy the imitation of all young men. Be honest in all your dealings with your parents. They have great claims upon you. Their attention to you in times of peril, the education they have given you, and the happy future they are opening to you, prove them to be your best friends, and therefore you ought in common honesty to recognise their authority over you. Especially should young men recognise the authority of their parents in the matter of leaving home; when the time come for them to quit the abode of their youth, it should be with the knowledge and consent of those who are so interested in them. The young man who leaves home with the blessing and prayer of his father carries a rich treasure with him, more valuable than gold. It will be the happiest remembrance of his after-life. Young men cannot be too open in their conduct with their parents.
2. Moses was related by marriage. He had married the daughter of Jethro, and was therefore under obligation to consult with him in the important movements of his life. Moses was evidently very sensitive to the claims of others. Many would have said that Jethro was only their father-in-law, and that therefore they were under no obligation to tell him their intentions. Marriage introduces a man into new relationships, it gives him new joys and new hopes, and also imposes new duties, which will ever be recognised by the true-hearted. Men cannot better show the worth of their social character than by recognizing the claims and opinions of those who may be distantly related to them. Let young men imitate the example of Moses, and consult the wish of their distant relatives prior to entering upon any great enterprise which may involve the welfare of those committed to their care.
3. Moses was obligated by kindness. As we have seen, Jethro had shewn him great generosity in providing him with a home, at the most destitute moment of his life. This required every return that Moses was capable of making. But Moses might have said that he had worked, that he had kept the flock of Jethro, in return for this kindness, and that this freed him from all obligation. He might have argued that Jethro was old and unacquainted with the requirements of life, and that he was man enough himself to know what was the most likely to enhance his future good, without consultation with anyone else. Many young men of the present day would have reasoned thus. But not so Moses. He was always responsive to kindness. He was a man of meek spirit. He knew that he had won the confidence of Jethro, and that therefore the old man would have no hesitation in allowing his daughter to accompany him on the destined journey. Some young men know that their parents cannot trust them, and this is one great reason why they seldom ask them to, Moses knew that the Divine claims were perfectly consistent with his recognition of the human responsibilities under which he was placed. God never requires a young man to go contrary to the prayerful wishes of a good and pious parent. A man is never too old to ask, and follow the judicious advice of his father.
II. It is compatible with silence in reference to the inner experiences of our spiritual life and work. Moses only asked the consent of his father-in-law to visit his brethren in Egypt; he did not name the primary object of his journey. This was quite consistent under the circumstances, with a true recognition of filial duty.
1. Silence is not necessarily cunning. Moses was not animated by a sinful motive to conceal from Jethro the object of his visit into Egypt, but by a prudential. He had no purpose o serve in acting clandestinely in the matter. He was going do nothing of which he would be ashamed; on the contrary, he was about to undertake a work required by heaven. Had he been actuated by a spirit of treachery, he would probably never have consulted with Jethro at all, but would have taken the matter entirely into his own hands. Cunning is always wicked, but never more so than when found in the family circle. In the home there should be freedom and frankness; one should never attmpt to impose on, or deceive, another. And when there is need of retaining in silence the deeper experiences of the soul, this can be done in perfect integrity, and in harmony with all the duties and requirements of filial love.
3. Silence may be discreet. It was so in the case of Moses. He had been favoured with a heavenly vision of remarkable significance. He had held communion with God. He had been divinely commissioned to undertake the freedom of Israel. If he had communicated all these experiences and facts to Jethro, he might have awakened prejudice, and rendered difficult his departure. Jethro might have derided his vanity. He might have considered him vain and deluded. He might have refused to permit him to go on such an errand. So, Christian workers must be careful how they talk about their soul-experiences; they are sacred, their meaning is not easily comprehended by the outer world, and even our nearest friends and companions are not always prepared to enter sympathetically into the visions, prayers, and toils of our moral life. Hence it is best to retain them within the privacy of our own hearts. These things penetrate deeper than any natural relationship, they enter into a realm where the spiritual and eternal take precedence of the natural and transitory. They are soul-histories; they cannot be uttered even by a child to his parent, and silence in reference to them, so far from being wilful, is discreet and consistent with filial duty.
3. Silence may be self-protective. Moses was about to enter upon a great work. It was an enterprise involving the destinies of empires. Had he communicated this fact to anyone, he might have put obstacles in his own path which would have been difficult to remove. Moses knew that the work with which he was entrusted had claims upon him as well as his father-in-law; he knew also which were the more authoritative. Hence this silence was needful to protect himself from misapprehension, to give his mission the opportunity of exerting its destined influence upon Israel, and to retain definite and influential the vision of heaven within his own soul. Many toils of Christian workers have been brought to naught by the lack of precautionary measures on the part of those who have been entrusted with them.
III. It should awaken kindly and judicious parental consideration and response. “And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.”
1. Sometimes the request should be granted. Jethro made a favourable reply to the request of Moses. He did not unduly assert his parental authority. He recognized the age, the intelligence, the moral character, the wish of Moses, and felt that the request he made was likely to be right and reasonable, especially after so long an absence from his country. Some parents take a delight in an arbitrary assertion of their authority. They put no confidence in the moral rectitude of their children; they imagine evil where there is none; they regard their movements with suspicion, and but seldom grant their requests. This kind of treatment is a fruitful source of disobedience on the part of children who, if they were properly managed, would be most dutiful. Parents should make it easy for their children to consult them in all their movements. They should not keep them in constant awe. They should take a delight in granting their requests, when for their good. By refusing a son permission to leave home you may be intercepting the agency which is to give freedom to a nation. You should recognise the probability that he is acting under a spiritual inspiration unknown to you. Jethro, in allowing Moses to go into Egypt, gave Israel a deliverer. Many a kind and judicious parent has given the world a true hero.
2. Always goodwill should be expressed. “Go in peace.” Jethro did not manifest any token of disappointment or anger. Moses had been very helpful to him; had looked after his flock, and been useful to him in the way of service. We may presume therefore that Jethro would have been glad to retain him. Moses had also married his daughter, and on this account his departure would be regretted. But Jethro was generous. He rose above every feeling of regret into a full expression of goodwill. Parents cannot deal too generously with their children. A generous parent will make a generous child. Especially should parents express goodwill to their sons when they are about to leave home for the more active engagements of life; a kind word at such a time may be productive of a grand result in the future.
3. Supremely should self be forgotten. Jethro did not allow his own opinion or welfare to stand in the way of the departure of Moses. He forgot himself, sacrificed all his hopes and feelings of parental affection for his daughter, in the wish to grant the request of his son-in-law. Moses became the emancipator of Israel. And parents who are self-forgetful when the interests of their children are concerned may thereby bring them into the line of great usefulness and fame. The self-forgetfulness of the father will shine out and find its reward in the noble character and achievements of the son.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
(14)—Parental Respect!—It is reported of George Washington that, when quite young, he was anxious to enter upon a seafaring life against his mother’s wish. She, however, yielded to his going as a midshipman. When all was in readiness—when his trunk had been put on board—he went to bid her good-bye. The tears welled up in her eyes, and stealthily stole down the maternal cheek. Seeing how broken-hearted his mother was, he called to the servant to bring back his box, for he could “not go away to break his mother’s heart.” His mother assured him that since God had promised to bless those who honour parents, He would assuredly bless her son for his filial obedience.
“One lamp—thy mother’s love—amid the stars
Shall lift its pure flame changeless, and before
The Throne of God burn through eternity.”
Willis.
(15)—Filial Memory!—It is only when we have lost our parents that we see how far short we came in filial obedience. An amiable youth was lamenting the death of a most affectionate parent. His companions endeavoured to console him by the reflection that he had always behaved to the deceased with duty. tenderness, and respect. This far from really comforting him only increased his self-reproach: “Whilst my father lived, I thought that I was a good son, but now, alas! I recollect with pain many instances of disobedience and neglect” How similar were the sentiments of Richard the Lion, when he stood in the church of Fontevraud, and gazed upon the face of his broken-hearted father’s corpse, upon which the broad light of noon was flung.
(16)—Gratitude! He that has nature in him must be grateful—
“’Tis the Creator’s primary great law,
That links the chain of being to each other,
Joining the greater to the lesser nature,
Tying the weak and strong, the poor and powerful,
Subduing men to brutes, and even brutes to men.”