How does Exodus 2:12 align with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"? Canonical Setting of Exodus 2:12 Exodus 2:11-15 narrates an event that occurs roughly four decades before Israel receives the Decalogue at Sinai. Moses, raised in Pharaoh’s court, “went out to his own people and observed their hard labor” (v. 11). Verse 12 says, “After looking all around and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” The act is historically located c. 1526–1486 BC on a conservative chronology, well before God audibly gives the sixth commandment in Exodus 20:13. Chronological Priority of Revelation Because Sinai’s law has not yet been issued, Moses is not violating a codified statute. This does not absolve him of moral accountability—Genesis 9:6 grounds the sanctity of life much earlier—but the explicit covenantal command, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), has not yet bound Israel corporately. Progressive revelation means later law clarifies earlier moral intuitions rather than contradicting them. Moral Assessment of Moses’ Action Scripture presents Moses’ killing descriptively, not prescriptively. The immediate context shows: 1. The Egyptian “was beating a Hebrew, one of his own people” (v. 11), implying Moses intervenes against what could be fatal oppression. 2. Moses “looked all around,” suggesting secrecy, not righteous transparency. 3. He “hid him in the sand,” indicating a troubled conscience. Later narrative consequences confirm the Bible does not condone the act. Pharaoh seeks to kill Moses (v. 15), and Moses endures forty years of exile—a divinely used discipline preparing him for leadership. Biblical Distinction: Murder, Justifiable Homicide, and Capital Execution The Torah later differentiates: • Murder (ratsach) — morally culpable, punishable by death (Exodus 21:12-14). • Accidental manslaughter — refuge provided (Numbers 35). • Defensive or judicial killing — permitted under strict conditions (Deuteronomy 19:21). If Moses’ act was a defensive intervention to save a Hebrew’s life, it aligns more closely with later allowances for rescuing the innocent (cf. Proverbs 24:11). If impulsive vengeance predominated, it displays human sinfulness without negating God’s later law. Either way, Exodus 2 demonstrates that God’s purposes advance despite flawed instruments. Divine Commentary via Stephen and Hebrews Acts 7:24-25 recounts the same event: “Seeing one of them being mistreated, Moses went to his defense and avenged him.” Stephen frames it as rescue, not murder, and says Moses “supposed that his brothers would understand that God was delivering them by his hand.” Hebrews 11:24-27 commends Moses’ faith in identifying with Israel, not his violence. This apostolic lens views the episode as an imperfect but genuine move toward covenant solidarity. Theological Implications 1. Human Deliverers Need Deliverance: Moses’ failure underlines that salvation finally comes through the sinless Messiah, not through flawed human heroes. 2. Law Highlights Sin: When the sixth commandment is later given, Israel can recall Moses’ earlier deed and grasp the law’s convicting power. 3. Redemption Transforms Violence: Moses spends the next forty years shepherding, not striking—symbolic of God reshaping a temper into meek leadership (Numbers 12:3). Practical Application for Believers Believers must read descriptive narratives through prescriptive commands. Exodus 2 warns against private vengeance (Romans 12:19) while validating sacrificial concern for the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17). It encourages waiting for God’s timing and lawful means rather than relying on impulsive force. Conclusion Exodus 2:12 neither contradicts nor nullifies “You shall not murder.” Linguistic, chronological, and theological factors show harmony: Moses’ isolated killing precedes the codified command, employs a different Hebrew verb, and is treated by Scripture as a morally complex act that God later redeems in the unfolding plan of salvation. |
    |