A Biblical Record of Major Crimes: Justifiable Homicide
A Biblical Record of Major Crimes: Justifiable Homicide.
“Tell all the truth, but tell it slant. Truth in indirection lies.” (Emily Dickenson).
A Different Look to a True Story. Emily Dickenson’s advice was to come at the truth from different angles; reveal the truth while approaching it sideways. There are times when only an indirect story will effectively grab a reader’s attention and will inspire a fresh perspective on an ancient truth. There are occasions when coming at a truth from the side through a story will go further than a didactic, systematic study using logic and reason. We seem to be created in a way in which truth can often be better understood from the side instead of head-on through a blunt statement of raw truth. This fictional story below is intended to reveal the truth of a biblical crime story in a way that brings a fresh perspective, an unexpected layer of meaning, to a familiar story. Perhaps we can learn something new in this indirect approach to the true story of Moses killing the Egyptian taskmaster. (Exodus 2).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Greetings to our viewing audience here on Sky TV! We will have the privilege now of witnessing the historic case of Moses and his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster! It’s about to begin, so we bring you now to the courtroom in the clouds…
“Hear ye! Hear ye! The court will now rise while the honorable Judge Michael de Angelo takes his place behind the Bench… Thank you, you may now be seated.”
Judge: Thank you, madame court clerk. This will be what is officially called a Bench Trial in which I as the presiding Judge of the case will render the final verdict after all the legal proceedings have been completed. Bailiff, you may now bring the defendant into the courtroom from his holding cell. And now, madam Clerk, please read the charges against this defendant.
Court Clerk: Your Honor, this defendant, Moses, has been charged with Murder in the First Degree of an Egyptian taskmaster.
Judge: Thank you. Counsel for the Defense, how does the defendant plead?
Defense: The defendant pleads Not Guilty, Your Honor.
Judge: Very well. As the prosecuting attorney of record, you may now make your opening statement.
Prosecution: Your Honor, we are completely convinced that truth is on our side as we present a very compelling argument as to the defendant’s guilt in this murder charge. There is no question that the defendant unlawfully murdered an authorized representative of the Egyptian government after witnessing a job foreman simply doing his job, holding the slave worker accountable after the intentional negligence of the worker who was ineffectively making bricks out of straw. The taskmaster was simply utilizing the most effective way to punish the worker for his rebellious attitude. Following that rather physical confrontation, this defendant judged the situation for himself without any conversation with the master, and assumed that a fatal assault was going to occur at the hands of the master, which was absolutely untrue. The defendant proceeded to aggressively approach the slave master and then committed a heinous cold-blooded murder of the foreman. Not only that, but the defendant quickly tried to cover his tracks by hiding the master’s corpse in a hurriedly dug grave nearby. The defendant then continued his day without mentioning the incident to anyone, as if nothing at all had happened. We are charging the defendant with First-Degree Murder, Your Honor, based on available evidence and the experienced investigative competence of the Pharaoh’s detective office. Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Thank you, madame Prosecutor. And now, the Counsel for the Defense may proceed with his opening statement.
Defense: Thank you, Your Honor. We will counter the Prosecutor’s charges against the defendant with simple logic and common sense. First of all, there were no witnesses that have come forward. All we have are the malicious rumors spread by not only members of the Egyptian law enforcement, but also by those in the Hebrew community who didn’t understand what the defendant did and why he did it. Secondly, the Prosecution did not adequately describe the scene of the supposed crime… The fact of the matter is that the Egyptian job foreman, or shall we say slave master, was in the process of beating the Hebrew slave so severely that, had the master been allowed to continue, the slave would surely have perished. The defendant observed this terrible injustice, this extreme bullying of an innocent party by the person in authority, and responded in a way any fellow Hebrew would have responded, rushing to the aid of a helpless and powerless victim. Think about this: what were the options for this defendant at that moment… He could simply ignore a grave injustice and turn a blind eye; he could attempt to reason with the foreman in the middle of his assault; or he could come to the defense of an innocent member of his extended family and effect a rescue mission. In essence, Your Honor, the actions of the defendant in this situation were of civil disobedience in an unjust tyranny. Yes, this was against their law, but since when is it wrong to disobey an unjust law? It was well known throughout the world that Pharaoh was a heartless dictator who ruled the Hebrew slaves with an iron fist and was guilty of heinous crimes up to that point, including the murdering of newborn Hebrew boys in order to maintain his stranglehold on his vast powers. Pharaoh indeed was guilty of countless crimes against humanity. Certainly a zeal for justice was going through the defendant’s mind as he came to the rescue of the slave being assaulted by someone who represented this infamous Pharaoh. Finally, Your Honor, the defendant immediately realized his act would be met with execution by the Egyptian authorities, so it was only natural for him to hide any evidence of what he had done. Burying the body was the only recourse for his own survival after committing an act of justice in an unjust government. Thank you, Your Honor.
Judge: Thank you, counselor. Madame Prosecutor, do you have any response to what has been said?
Prosecution: Very much so, Your Honor. Burying the corpse after a heinous killing was only a logical reaction by the defendant? Sure, if by that you mean the reaction of a killer who realized the horror of his crime of passion and wanted to cover it up before anyone saw what had happened! And why did the defendant try to make sure there were no eyewitnesses before deciding to become his own version of an executioner, carefully looking around before assaulting the foreman? Isn’t that an awareness of his sense of guilt for the crime he was about to commit?
Defense: Well, that’s one way of looking at it, Judge. But here’s another way… The fact is that the defendant was fully aware that, according to his Jewish law, he was acting within his natural rights to come to the defense of a fellow Hebrew person and to personally aid in his rescue from a guilty party, especially if the slave’s life was in jeopardy. Remember, the defendant was the third party who acted in the interests of justice. A Hebrew court would find him innocent of murder, since he was obligated in Hebrew law to rescue the slave, using appropriate force in order to save the slave’s life. The defendant’s killing of the perpetrator was morally justified, Your Honor, since the assault was surely going to result in the death of the slave.
Prosecution: So if the defendant fully knew that his actions were justified, why did he secretly bury the corpse of the person he had just killed? Why didn’t he instead go around town bragging about what he had done? Which brings up another question… Even his own fellow Hebrews didn’t seem to appreciate what he had done. Why is that, if it was fully justified under Jewish law? And finally, the question has not been adequately addressed of why the defendant looked so carefully around him before committing this grave act against the master.
Defense: The defendant quickly buried the master’s corpse for the simple reason that he knew it was against Egyptian law, and he didn’t want his act of civil disobedience to result in his own unjust execution. To address your other question, the other Hebrews did not seem to accept the defendant’s actions because they didn’t ask for his help and thus saw him as more of an intruder and an unasked-for vigilante. There’s no doubt, too, they didn’t want the defendant’s actions to blow back on them and result in even more suffering from the authorities. And to your final question, there’s also another way of thinking about the defendant’s reasons for looking around so carefully before he rushed to the slave’s defense. The Hebrew word used for “man” often referred to a person who was a morally upstanding individual, much like we might mean when we say something like, “He’s the man!” In other words, the defendant could have been looking around to see if there was another Hebrew in the vicinity who would intercede for this hapless slave being assaulted. And after finding no one around to rise to the occasion, he courageously rushed in and defended the slave in a life and death matter. The defendant was following what is a key aspect of an important rabbinic tradition, and I quote… “In a place where there is no man, be a man.”
Prosecution: Nonetheless, Judge, this defendant was fully aware of his guilt in this crime and should be held accountable to the government in power at that time. The defendant rashly jumped into a matter that didn’t concern him, took matters into his own hands, and basically exerted fatal vigilante justice. Besides that, the defendant’s actions did not reflect actual faith in his Hebrew God. Did he consult with his God before his actions? Was he ever directed by his God to do what he did? And did he ever repent to his God after the deed was done? The answer to all those questions is NO. The fact is that the defendant’s crime was not an act of faith but of his own impatient and impulsive sense of justice. Your Honor, I rest my case at this time.
Judge: Thank you, madame Prosecutor. Would the Counsel for the Defense like to conclude his case for the defendant being charged?
Defense: We haven’t even mentioned the family context of the defendant. It has been rabbinic tradition that his older sister Miriam, that brave and resourceful girl who had rescued the defendant from certain death by arranging for the Pharaoh’s daughter to care for him and raise him in the palace, this very Miriam has been considered a prophetess down though Jewish history. It has always been understood that she had received a word of prophetic knowledge from the Hebrew God that her parents would give birth to the very boy who would end up being the Deliverer, the man who would help the Hebrews to escape the clutches of Pharaoh. It could very well be that this calling had been impressed on the defendant at a young age, and when the first opportunity to defend his people arrived, he seized it with all his might, thinking the Lord’s deliverance had begun. Judge, the defendant, upon my counsel, has decided not to be a witness in his own defense. Therefore, I rest my case. The final decision in this matter now rests with you, Your Honor.
Judge: Thank you for your fine work in presenting your cases, madame Prosecutor and Counsel for the Defense. I will now retire to my chambers and consider this matter carefully. Be assured I will call for you when I have reached my verdict. You are dismissed.
Two Weeks Later… Hello viewing audience here on Sky TV! Wasn’t that an exciting case? And now Judge Michael de Angelo has summoned the Counselors to announce his decision in the case of Moses vs. Egypt.
Judge: After careful consideration, I have decided that the defendant in this case, Moses, is innocent of murder charges. However I find him to be guilty of Justifiable Homicide, which is defined by law as the lawful killing of another person under specific circumstances such as self-defense or defense of others. I have found that the defendant had no criminal intent, but instead acted in the best interests of an innocent party. It’s clear that he killed a person who posed an immediate threat of serious or fatal bodily harm, and that he had a reasonable belief that deadly force was needed to rescue the overpowered slave. Therefore, the defendant will be immediately handed over to the ultimate Judge of heaven and earth, Lord Yahweh, for any further action if needed. Case is dismissed.