Exodus 2:12Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

This deed, while significant, pales in comparison to the greater events that followed. In a conversation concerning moral applications to the New Testament, we see that such is the nature of anger. When vexed, it is crucial not to abandon gentleness; and when calm, one should assert against wicked thoughts. Though these thoughts may assail him, he should recognize them rather than forsake them. Even when strangers may shower him with affection, he must not show undue compassion. The devil may appear as a friend, but let all recognize that he is an outsider. Thus, we can cherish virtue, even if it brings us sorrow, and shun vice, even if it offers us pleasure. We must not behave worse than dogs, who, despite being beaten and tormented, remain loyal to their yard and are quick to lash out at others, even those who feed them. Similarly, anger can be beneficial when it rises against outsiders. The phrase, ‘He who is angry with his brother without cause’ (Matthew 5:22), conveys the message to refrain from seeking personal vengeance and to resist repaying harm. If we witness another in distress, we should extend a helping hand; there will be no room for anger when we liberate ourselves from self-interest. David had Saul at his mercy yet did not act with anger nor strike him down (1 Sam. 26:7); instead, he demonstrated mercy, overcoming the devil through his gentleness. Moses reacted violently when he saw a stranger assault a fellow Jew, yet when his own people wronged one another, he sought reconciliation rather than vengeance. Despite being described as exceedingly humble (Num. 12:3), even he sometimes allowed anger to rise. In contrast, we often exhibit greater ferocity than all wild creatures when we should be gentle, while becoming lethargic and indifferent when anger is indeed warranted. Consequently, when we misdirect our strength, we waste our lives in futility, akin to shells that ruin everything when misapplied. For instance, if someone possesses a sword but fails to use it when necessary, or employs it when action is required by hand, he will achieve nothing. Likewise, a physician who neglects to excise where it is warranted or cuts inappropriately will cause great harm. Therefore, I urge you to wield this tool (anger) wisely and timely. Anger serves no purpose when we should be aiding ourselves; however, it must be engaged with particular fervor to rescue others when correction is needed. By striving to master our anger, we may embody the likeness of God and reap eternal blessings through the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, and honor, now and forever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Indeed, we read that His demons petitioned Him, requesting that He not command them to enter the abyss (Luke 8:31), implying that a vast multitude of them had already been cast there, while those remaining pleaded with Him to postpone their condemnation alongside the others. Their punishment for their cruelty towards us is evident to those willing to observe, as they cry out: "Let us alone! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come here to torment us before the appointed time?" (Mk. 1:24; Mt. 8:29). Thus, when the Lord witnessed the relentless torment inflicted by the Egyptian on those living on earth, He confined him to hell. In a similar fashion, as a foreshadowing, Joshua, who led the Israelites across the Jordan after Moses, bound the five kings of the Amorites in a cave (Num. 10:18, 23), subtly prefiguring the Immanuel, who reigns as King over us after living a life of righteousness, will ultimately seal the princes of the demons in a profound abyss beneath the earth.

Furthermore, consider Moses, who after looking around and finding no one, buried the dead Egyptian in the sand. He then urged his fellow Israelites to reconcile. The Lord fights against Amalek, but only "with a strong hand" as it is written (Psalm 135:12), and no inhabitant of the earth has seen the extraordinary acts He performed through Christ. Likewise, who among those on earth could discern how or when the demonic forces were judged and ordered to reside in the abyss?

Moreover, we can observe this internal struggle within ourselves in various contexts. Humanity finds itself positioned between conflicting factions, and whichever side one chooses effectively determines the victor in this strife. Consider the contrasts of idolatry and piety, wickedness and purity, justice and injustice, arrogance and humility; these dichotomies illustrate the ongoing struggle between the Egyptian and the Hebrew. Thus, through his actions, Moses teaches us to align ourselves with virtue and to vanquish any opposition to it. Indeed, the triumph of piety is achieved through the eradication of idolatry, just as injustice is defeated by righteousness and arrogance by humility.

This incident should have served as a sign to the Hebrews of his future role in their salvation, yet this people, known for their persistent unbelief, failed to acknowledge Moses as their messenger, mirroring how future generations rejected the Son of God.

It is clear from the context of this narrative that at that time, Moses had not yet received divine appointment as leader and liberator of the Hebrew people, nor was it revealed to them that he would be their deliverer from Egyptian oppression. Consequently, he lacked the legitimate authority to intervene in matters concerning Israel. Yet, notably, this act of murder is not recorded in Scripture as a fault of Moses. Therefore, St. Augustine reasonably deduces that Moses had been divinely endowed with the responsibility to protect his fellow Hebrews even before he was publicly recognized. The Holy Scriptures remain silent on how this divine trust was conferred upon Moses to ultimately become the liberator of his people. Nonetheless, St. Stephen, inspired by the Holy Spirit, clarifies in the Acts of the Apostles that Moses, through his courageous act against the Egyptian, sought to signal to all of Israel that God intended to deliver them from their bondage in Egypt. The people, however, failed to grasp the significance of this event. His intent was to communicate to his brethren that God would bring them salvation through his hand, yet they did not understand. This passage suggests that Moses, prior to any public acknowledgment, had been secretly appointed by God to lead the Israelites out of slavery.

But how should we interpret this act? Did Moses unintentionally deliver a fatal blow, intending merely to deliver a lesson, or did he consciously take the life of the Egyptian? The latter interpretation seems more plausible, considering the potential threat of leaving a witness who could report him to the Egyptian authorities. Moses also ensured thorough concealment of the execution, having carefully confirmed that there were no observers present.

This act prompts reflection on its moral justification. It is suggested that Moses slew the Egyptian out of a desire for justice and the traditional right of retaliation rooted in Eastern customs, a principle later codified in the laws established by Moses himself. Yet, the response presented by Moses does not reflect a proportionality between the offense and the consequence; the punishment for the Egyptian's assault on the Hebrew went far beyond a disciplinary response, culminating in death. Such an action cannot be justified as an act of justice or legal retribution, especially since this right was meant for the relatives of the victim.

The first Martyr, Stephen, interprets Moses’ actions by asserting that killing the Egyptian, he “thought that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand” (Acts 7:25). In other words, Moses believed he was chosen by God to liberate the Hebrews from oppression and sought to articulate this conviction to his fellow countrymen. His act of slaying the Egyptian was intended as a sign of their impending deliverance, thus positioning Moses as the instrument of God’s plan for their salvation.

However, it is contended that the means he employed do not justify the ends he sought. Moses's fervor for his people's well-being, while admirable, manifested in a fundamentally misguided manner. Despite being stirred by both the extraordinary experiences of his life and the unseen influence of the Holy Spirit, he should have exercised greater patience before hastily revealing his intentions, especially through such violent means. He ought to have awaited God’s timing for his divine calling, which eventually came forty years later. Instead, Moses succumbed to the same flaw that he resented in the Egyptians—self-governance.

Blessed Augustine offers a perspective on Moses's action, drawing a parallel to the Apostle Peter, who, in a moment of anger, attacked Malchus, the servant of the high priest, but was rebuked by Jesus for his actions. Augustine acknowledges that while Moses's actions are not commendable, they do indicate a noble spirit capable of great deeds, much like the unrefined land that produces an abundance of tall weeds yet may yield a fruitful harvest when cultivated properly.

Despite the validity of Augustine’s view, it must be reconciled with Stephen's remarks concerning Moses. After stating that Moses believed his brethren would perceive God's intervention through him, Stephen adds, “but they did not understand him.” This reflection shifts the blame from Moses to the Hebrews, who failed to grasp his intentions, exemplifying a recurring theme in their history as those who resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

Consequently, Moses’s act should not merely be interpreted as reckless self-assertion or unbridled zeal; rather, it was a manifestation of divinely inspired conviction. It pleased God to reveal through Moses the initial action of His justice against the Egyptians, thereby signifying Moses as the appointed agent of their salvation.