Moses in Search For Identity

Psychological Studies on Biblical Personalities
I. Moses in Search for Identity

The understanding of the great Scriptural personalities is extremely important. It is needed to make the Bible alive to the reader. It also provides good, positive heroes for the youngsters in a world in which criminals are popularized and glorified through biographies, interviews, large photos, and first page articles, while most of the good deeds are practically ignored.
One of the most fascinating and important personalities of the Bible is undoubtedly Moses. Much has been written about him, but still there are aspects of his life that are not yet satisfactorily understood, including his youth period: the preparatory time for his role in the Exodus. This period started with an interesting and life changing event (1). He went to his people, saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew and killed the assailant. Moses returned the next day and saw two co nationals struggling together. When he tried to separate them, he was rebuked and reminded of the killing of the Egyptian, a fact which scared him. Indeed, when Moses was betrayed to the Pharaoh, the monarch tried to kill him. To save his life, Moses fled into the wilderness.
This incident, so summarily reported in Scriptures, seems very important in understanding Moses’ personality, by the interesting question that it raises. Why did Moses go to his people? Did he go to help, or was it an inspection tour? Was the killing of the Egyptian an impulsive act of “righteous indignation”? Why did Moses fear the Pharaoh over that killing? The son of a princess could act with impunity in the Egyptian autocratic society. What made the king so angry? Surely it was not the killing of a foreman by a prince.
Let us start with the killing of the Egyptian. From the beginning it should be mentioned that the idea of an impulsive act does not fare too well. We are told that Moses saw the Egyptian beating the Hebrew, he looked around and nobody being in sight he killed him and hid him in the sand. So the fact did not occur in a moment of fury. It looks more like he was executing as act of justice but experienced guilt and fear of the consequences. He probably knew the risks to his comfortable way of life, but he was not stopped. There is more clarification from the continuation of the story. On the following day, Moses went again among the Jews and saw one Hebrew striking another. He admonished the aggressor who confronted him about killing the Egyptian. This time Moses reacted quite differently. He was scared that his deed was known, but he did not kill the accusing witness; instead, he fled. What was the difference between the situations? As a prince, Moses might kill an Egyptian with little concern, but a Hebrew slave would matter even less. It is tempting to explain the disparity on the different nationality of the aggressor.
Martin Buber, who wrote an excellent book on Moses, deals with his motivation for this act in a very succinct way, mentioning that “He aims not at becoming a martyr but a liberator” (2).
Erich Fromm suggests that the killing of the Egyptian was an impulsive act of identification with his brothers (3) but he does not elaborate this idea, neither does he tie it with the other following events. Although the issue of impulsiveness is questionable, as we have seen above, Moses’ act can be seen as a step in his long search for identity.
Due to the racial difference, the princess’ knowledge that he was a Hebrew (4), and the possibility that his mother was maintaining contact with him, it is reasonable to suppose that Moses knew his true nationality and felt conflict between his identity as an Egyptian prince and that of a Hebrew. Guilt developed because he enjoyed a privileged position, and fraternized with the oppressors of his people. Some confrontation with the Pharaoh might have resulted, but fear was stopping him from following his conscience. He may have contacted the Hebrews to find his identity and alleviate the guilt. Then he saw the Egyptian beating a Hebrew. Killing the Egyptian may have solved some conflict and also forced a commitment. The resultant fear was less over the killing than because he broke his Egyptian ties. He tried to cover his deed; but once back in the palace, the new cognitive dissonance between his action and his position at the court made him return the next day among the Hebrews. With the naivity of an upper-class person, removed from the reality of Jewish life and mentality, he hopped that he would be received as a leader, a potential liberator. That explains his intervention in the fight between the two Hebrews, taking the role of a judge, of a recognized authority to which he thought he is entitled through his commitment of the previous day. The reaction of the Hebrews took him by surprise. Rejected by his own people, he felt alone facing the wrath of the pharaoh aroused by the realization of the significance of Moses’ act. He not only had betrayed the King, but the Hebrew slaves had now for the first time an educated, militarily trained leader. He had to be eliminated to avoid possible disturbances.
Afraid for his life, Moses fled into the wilderness, in the land of the Midianites (5). A first question that arises is why Moses chose to go to the Midianites and not to some more civilized people where he could continue a life closer to that with which he was familiar at the Pharaoh’s court. An acceptable hypothesis is that he did not initially intend to establish himself among Midianites. He just avoided the main rout along the coast where the multitude of Egyptian fortresses was increasing the risk that he would be captured. The alternative route led him into the land of the Midianites where his love for Zipporah made him remain. Another interpretation is that a search for identity continued to lead his behavior. The Midianites were a Semitic people, related to the Hebrews. Moses, rejected by his own people, might have realized that the long years of slavery had transformed Israel into a nation more concerned with survival than with dreams of freedom. His high-level Egyptian education did not equip him with an understanding of Jewish thinking. Living among the Midianites, which might have been a good example of what the Hebrews would have become by living in freedom, he could learn how to approach his people, and be accepted by them. It was also a way to test whether he could fit into his new identity as a Semite after his life at the Egyptian court. It is interesting that he became a shepherd, a common occupation among Jews, but one despised by Egyptians. This is another supporting argument for the identity seeking hypothesis: he was trying to model his life after his brothers and was reducing the cognitive dissonance between being a Hebrew and living like their tormentors by changing his life to be closer to that of a Hebrew.
To reach the Midianites, Moses had to travel through the Sinai Peninsula. This travel is difficult even today due to the toughness of the terrain and the lack of water. Traveling alone, in a time when man was not yet using the camels, Moses faced hardships. Although he might have known the territory from some past military expedition, this feat demonstrates courage, determination, physical strength, and great endurance.
Having arrived in Midian, Moses rested by a well, a natural place for a halt in the desert. Besides water, it provides shade from trees that usually grow wherever there is water in the desert. The seven daughters of Jethro came and drew water and filled the troughs for their father’s flock to drink. Even today, young Bedouin women from the Sinai Peninsula care for the sheep (6). It was probably a usual scene for Moses to see, so he did not lend a hand to this relatively hard task. Then a group of shepherds came, drove the girls away, and started to water their own sheep from the already filled troughs. This was too much for Moses, the self-proclaimed champion of the underdog. Single-handed, he drove away the shepherds. In order to accomplish this, Moses must have been of impressive stature and strength. It is true that he was probably helped by better weaponry. Still, three or four rough shepherds used to fighting the wild beasts could also handle with their staffs an individual with a spear or sword, unless he was quite an unusually good fighter.
Moses’ zeal might not have been stimulated only by his sense of justice and wish to help the weak. While watching the girls fill the troughs with water, he might have become interested in Zipporah, who was among the girls he defended. That will explain why, after chasing away the shepherds, he drew water for the girls, a thing he did not do before.
After the events at the well, the daughters returned to Jethro and told him what happened. Moses was invited to visit with him and later married Zipporah and became the shepherd of Jethro’s flock. It is said in the text that Moses was content to dwell with the Midianites. Still a longing for his people remained as is indicated by the name he gave his son: Gershom, which is explained by Moses himself saying, “I have been a stranger in a strange land” (7). Obviously, the Midianites, although related with the Hebrews, were not identical with them and Moses was also used to a different way of life.
Moses’ hard life as a shepherd was good schooling for the future leader. He became familiar with the wilderness and learned to communicate with simple people. The flock of Jethro must have been quite large, taking into consideration his position and Moses was probably leader of many shepherds. Generally speaking, the time spent in Midian must have been a training for self-discipline, a quality so much needed for a successful leader and apparently missing in Moses’ personality as his previous violent action demonstrated. He probably learned to lead rebellious and bickering people. Such attitudes were expected to occur between a group of rough, rude (see the well episode), undisciplined, and uneducated shepherds and Moses, a rather impulsive leaser coming out of a higher society, a different nation, with an advanced education, experiencing the frustrations of his change in social and material status and the bitterness of rejection. But life in the wilderness, their common duty of tending the flock and protecting it and themselves from all kind of dangers called for cooperation and reciprocal support. Here Moses may have learned loyalty to the group he led and the ability to forgive rebelliousness, qualities salient in Moses’ later behavior. In the next episode at the burning bush we are told that Moses led his flock in the mountainous western side of the wilderness (8), while the Midianites seem to have been established at the south-western part of the Sinai desert. In fact, some translations, instead of “the west side” (of the wilderness), have the “farthest end” (9) or include in a note the alternative “the rear part” (10), “the far side,” (11), “across” (12). It was not unusual for shepherds to go so far with their flock in search for good grass. They do the same today, because in the higher land fertile valleys with water and vegetation are found (13).
The experience that followed (14) is of decisive importance for Moses’ life. While Moses was at the other side of the wilderness, at Mont Horeb, he saw a burning bush. In a hot, dry country this might not have been an unusual sight close to a high mountain where electrical discharges in the atmosphere were frequent. But this fire had something strange about it: the bush, although burning, was not consumed by the fire. An ordinary person might have avoided such a supernatural phenomenon, but Moses, with an inquisitive mind developed probably through his studies, and with his typically impulsive courage, went to investigate. There he heard a voice telling him that He is God of his ancestors. Moses hid his face in sacred awe, afraid to look at God. Then God asked him to go back to Egypt to liberate his people. Moses’ reaction was quite human and natural. The pharaoh who tried to kill him was no longer alive, but a death sentence was pending against him. Moreover, he had already experienced the rejection of the Hebrews while he was there. What warranty did he have that a simple shepherd from a foreign land would enjoy better treatment? “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” (15), he asked. “Who am I” is for sure an expression of modesty as it was generally interpreted, but taking in consideration his past experience it seems a realistic one. For sure, his past failure produces in him a sense of inadequacy. He was rejected by both Hebrews and Egyptians, and his status was considerably lowered. He was not only afraid, but his self-esteem had to be restored first in order to become a great leader.
God reassured Moses that He would be with him, that this would not be a single-handed action. But Moses still doubted that the argument would be convincing to the Hebrews. Maybe he himself was not yet fully trusting God. So he asked His name, which would be equivalent to asking about his power or his credentials (16). Moses might have also had the intuition that a people living under slavery, in a highly structured way, were rather inclined toward concrete than toward abstract thinking. Used to material idols, they would not follow a spiritual nameless god. Although God answered with the well known “I am who I am” (17) and then foretold the success of Hebrew deliverance, Moses was still not convinced... He doubted now that his people would believe that he experienced the theophany and that he is the carrier of a mission given by God. God gave him three signs meant to convince the Hebrews. But Moses remained reluctant. He brought up the argument that he was not eloquent enough, being slow of speech and tongue. Although this last argument is valid because a poor speaker can hardly make that type of flamboyant leader that can stir up a mass of slaves, Moses seems defensive as he finds one reason after another why he should not go. Indeed, after God reassured him that He can give him the ability to speak fluently, Moses, cornered, has to betray his resistance by directly asking God to send someone else. Moses’ position was nearly tragi-comical: He who was earlier so eager to help his people that he risked all his position and even his life, now was resisting the opportunity to fulfill his dream.
There are more possible explanations for this attitude. One alternative is that with increasing age, and more experience he might have become more cautious. But this does not fit later actions in which his impetuous, impulsive temperament proves ever present. Yet fear of failure based on past experience which led to a poor self-image is still a possible explanation. To this we can add complacency that might have developed in time: he now had a family, was relatively content with his life (18), and his dreams of liberating his people were repressed, being too threatening. Therefore, when these feelings were forced into consciousness, he became defensive. God got angry and broke Moses’ last argument by giving him Aaron, his brother, as helper and promising guidance and support in the enterprise. Moses’ fears were also alleviated by reassurance that all those who thought to kill him were dead. So he decided to go. The conflict was coming to an end: He was now Moses, the servant of God, the leader of Hebrews, a man with a mission.