Did Moses Commit Murder?

In his best seller The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren calls Moses a murderer. He is apparently referring to the episode in Exodus 2 where Moses kills an Egyptian. This is just one of my problems with Warren, another being that his main premise that life is a Test is WRONG.

Let’s deal with Moses now and I’ll get to The Purpose That Drives My Life later…

Legal / Moral Issues

First, let’s look at the legal framework for the use of force in self-defense and the defense of others. I believe our current law is perfectly consistent with God’s law and will use it as the basis for the argument that follows. To summarize South Carolina law (others may vary / I’m not a lawyer / consult one before acting on this, etc., etc., ad nauseum):

An individual has the right to use force, including deadly force if reasonable, in self-defense if he’s:

in a place he has a right to be, and;
is not engaged in criminal activity, and;
has a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm

An example of a ‘criminal activity’ that would preclude a claim of lawful self-defense is initiating the attack. In other words, if I unlawfully attack you, the law gives you the right to defend yourself and I cannot then claim self-defense to legitimize my response to that defense.

As for going to the aid of others, a person has the right to use force, including deadly force if reasonable, if the person to whose aid you’re going has the right to use force in self-defense. We’ll use the same disqualifier above in an example of an unlawful use of force in defense of another: You are the aggressor and are struggling with your intended victim. Someone comes to your aid. That person is now guilty of an unlawful use of force because you, as the aggressor, did not have the right to claim self-defense. That’s the legal / moral part of the equation.

The Situation on the Ground

Now, let’s look at the environment. In Exodus 1:6 we learn that the Hebrews prospered in Egypt, becoming ‘exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them’. The new administration grew concerned at this development and took steps to reduce their number, first deciding to work them ‘ruthlessly’. Ruthless means ‘merciless’, or ‘cruel’. This word is used twice in quick succession to reinforce the idea.

When that plan failed, Pharaoh resorted to outright murder, telling the Hebrew midwives to kill any Hebrew boy that was born [Ex 1:16]. Practically speaking, if Pharaoh wanted to reduce the number of future generations via murder, it looks like he would have ordered all the girl children be killed. I have a feeling the Egyptians had other uses in mind for the surviving Hebrew women (1).

Whichever, when that plan also failed, Pharaoh gave the order to ‘all his people’ that every male Hebrew newborn must be drowned [Ex. 1:22].

Things were tough in Goshen.

I believe the closest analogy to the situation the Hebrews found themselves, to which we might identify, is that of the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. There, as in Moses’ day, the Jews were too numerous for the rulers of the land and were being worked to death. Hitler, just like Pharaoh, saw a way to kill two birds with one stone. Arbeit macht frei.

‘One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Glancing this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.’ Ex: 2:12-13

With the situation in mind, what type of beating is it likely the Egyptian was delivering to the Hebrew slave? Is it likely this was a corrective action meant to correct bad behavior or sloppy work? I doubt it. No, I think it’s clear that the Egyptian was beating the Hebrew to death. It should be clear from the passages above that a Hebrew’s life was cheap to the Egyptians. Should one be killed during work, oh well, Pharaoh’s explicit desire had just been fulfilled by one Hebrew.

Now, the NIV makes a clear distinction between what was taking place between the Egyptian and the Hebrew on day one, and what was going on with the two Hebrews the following day. The Egyptian was beating the Hebrew; the two Hebrews were ‘fighting’. In the second instance, Moses again acted correctly, showing restraint in a situation where he had no legal right to use force. We can and do use these two situations today in classes on the legal use of force. They are just as correct today, legally and morally, as they were in Moses’ day.

So, in the context of the situation and the legal / moral framework stated above, was Moses justified in using deadly force against the Egyptian? Clearly, yes. Frankly, I don’t see how we can believe otherwise. But, if we’re still having trouble with that concept, let me attack the problem from a different direction:

You are a Jewish boy raised by a wealthy Aryan family in 1930’s Germany. Because of your family’s position, you are inducted into the Nazi party and rise to prominence. One day, while visiting a concentration camp, you come upon a fellow German soldier beating a Jewish inmate to death. You intervene and must kill the soldier to spare the Jew’s life. Are you guilty of murder?

Surely no right thinking person would answer 'yes' to that.

(Interestingly, I’ve always remembered this story as the beating being administered by an ‘overseer’, but that word is not in the NIV. The fact the slave was probably being beaten by an ordinary Egyptian just lends credence to the idea this was what we might call an ‘aggravated assault’ where deadly force would be an appropriate defense.)

The Troublesome Aftermath

It bothers some that Moses ‘looked both ways’ before killing the Egyptian and then hid the body. These would seem to be the actions of a man doing Wrong. On one level they trouble me, too. I’d submit that Moses did these things only because he knew his life would be forfeit if Pharaoh found out. Here’s the important truth: They don’t matter. These two actions, while seemingly out of step with the concept of a righteous use of force, have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF FORCE WAS ITSELF APPROPRIATE.

Obviously, we do tell our students that they’re not to lie to the authorities that are investigating their use of force against another, but we (at least in SC) don’t live in an oppressive, totalitarian regime, either. Moses was apparently correct in his belief Pharaoh would not give him a ‘fair trial’ because Pharaoh did indeed ‘try to kill’ Moses as soon as he heard about it.

What’s God have to say about it?

I cannot find a single negative word from God about this. If Moses did indeed murder a man, wouldn’t God have him make restitution or do some sort of penance before allowing him to assume leadership over God’s own people?

One pastor with whom I was discussing this, suggested punishment was the reason God had Moses live in the desert of Midian for 40 years before returning to Egypt. I’ve no doubt God worked on Moses while he was in the wilderness, but here’s what I believe is the real reason that our wonderfully practical Father kept Moses in the hinterlands so long: Moses’ safety.

Here's what the Bible says:

'Moses agreed to stay with the man [Ruel], who gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage. Zipporah gave birth to a son, and Moses named him Gershom, saying, "I have become an alien in a foreign land." During that long period, the king of Egypt died.' Exodus 2:21-23

And;

'Now the LORD had said to Moses in Midian, "Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead." 'Exodus 4:19

There’s the answer to the wilderness stay! There is always a price to pay for shedding innocent blood. Just like earthly authorities (who base our laws on God’s), God recognizes no statute of limitations on murder. Here, God utters not a single word of condemnation to Moses for what he did that day in Egypt. If Moses had done wrong, there would have been some price still to pay, just as Paul understood restitution was owed Philemon before he and Onesimus could move on.

Lastly, Stephen, as he spoke just before his death, said that Moses ‘avenged’ his fellow Hebrew. Implicit in the use of that word is Stephen’s belief Moses acted righteously. Had there been even a hint of doubt otherwise, Stephen would not have chosen such a strong word.

Men of God, Moses was a man of action and a great military leader. We can learn much from his life and do worse than to follow his example. His name should not be associated with the word ‘murderer’. Rick Warren, you are Wrong.

Strength and Courage.
Steve

(1) There are ‘experts’ who now believe the Hebrews were not slaves, but actually comprised an effective mercenary army living voluntarily in Egypt. The fact that Pharaoh gave them land on the frontier where they could act as a buffer between central Egypt and any northern invaders may lend credence to that. Plus, his apparent concern over future generations of males is born out by Ex. 1:10 where he expresses fear the Hebrews may one day fight against him.

On the other hand, the word ‘slave’ is used repeatedly in the scriptures and this would not be the first example of an oppressor people living in constant anxiety because of the slaves they hold. Sparta and the American South come to mind.