High Noon At The O.K. Coral
Introduction: The following is plausible argument; first, by reviewing a popular account with a different perspective and, also, providing a correlation with modern-day custody and adoption.
As for the picture above, most should be familiar with this movie actor playing the part as Pharaoh. My one sister, an attorney, called Judge Biehn, from Bucks County, Pa., a "King", a judge that "...can do anything he wants". What is a pharaoh? A king. (Click Here for related story.)
Next, as for Moses, who was this guy? (1) If you read what is commonly known as "Exodus, 2:11-15", Moses (a) committed pre-meditated murder, first looking if someone was watching, (b) lied about what he did when he hid the body in the sand to bear false witness of events, (c) as a thief, took a man's life without just cause, (d) as a coward fled prosecution and then (e) confessed to his lie by documenting the event. (I could toss in the fact that Moses no doubt wanted to play the hero with his hatred of injustice. Biblical version of the Molly Maguires. And is now regarded as "The Father Of Law" having his picture displayed in many court buildings.)
Years later Moses returns. But first, why would G-d pick such a man as the leader of his "people"? If I may speculate, G-d must of said, "If this man wants to liberate the slaves, using violence, then I'll send him back to do just that".
What a spectacle it must have been. The great king of Egypt, inside his bureaucratic palace, decorated by the craftsman's work of find buildings, images, attire and rituals: sort of the Egyptian version of the Whitehouse. The sense of power, no doubt intoxicating as his discretion was challenged by nothing or no one. Bureaucratic King = arbitrary discretion? Seems so then as now.
Next, he hears news that a camel jockey arrived, two in fact, with absurd claims that they want the king to free the slaves. (As like today, the Pharaoh's world, his luxury, bureaucratic control, centered on commerce and that meant cheep labor.) How could he let the slaves go went it would mean a collapse of Egypt's economic stability? The best interest of the Egyptian commonwealth was at stake. Yes, the best interest of Egyptian children, for their social status, luxury and comfort, needed the exploitation of the slaves. (I often wondered why Pharaoh, upon first encounter with Moses and Aaron, didn't have them immediately executed. Seems they were not taken as a serious threat. Centuries later, King Herod, learning from history, no doubt didn't want to make the same mistake and reasoned it was in the best interest of Israel and his relations with the Roman Empire to murder the Messiah as a young boy: at least he tried.)
So, Moses was sent on a nut mission. What is that? If you read "Exodus, 4:21", he was given prior notice that Pharaoh would not free the slaves. I wonder how Moses must of felt, sent to confront Pharaoh already knowing the outcome. Second, Moses made things worse: Pharaoh retaliated, like a typical social worker, and placed heavier burdens on the slaves. By accounts Moses was not a popular celebrity in that he made things worse. Pharaoh? Typical scenario of showing who's the boss routine. (I have a separate page called "Nut Mission", Click Here.) You see, Pharaoh, because he didn't know about the G-d Moses represented, thought that Moses had mental problems at the same time Pharaoh sought the comfort in the entities of fiction, things of make believe: Egyptian corporate icons; false gods of bureaucracy.
It must of been absurd for Pharaoh to hear the words of Moses, "Let my people go". Pharaoh would not listen to reason that he had no venue, authority or jurisdiction over the Hebrews. So, there was a clash of "best interest". On the one had, Pharaoh's version of best interest was keeping his slaves and retaining his power and control. On the other, Moses wanted the best interest of the people to be liberated (who didn't want the type of freedom Moses had in mind; they were, for all intent, institutionalized).
What happened next? It could be said what we had was a bureaucratic demolition derby as two titans bucked horns over the best interest at hand. A modern phrase today, used by bureaucrats, is "collateral damage". Was it in the best interest of a young child (Pharaoh's son) to be killed to teach his father a lesson? Best interest for the Hebrews to be enslaved in the first place? Moses got away with murder. Was it in the best interest of society to set such a precedent? (2) Didn't the family of the man Moses murdered deserve justice? Best interest of a class of young boys where were murdered in Herod's attempt to exterminate the Messiah? And so on.
Breaking sequence for a moment, in the Hazleton area, the coal region, a woman named Sophia Coxe was dubbed, "Angel of the coalfields". (One of her family members, Tench Coxe, was given the title as "father of the American cotton [slavery] industry".) Her family were coal barons, grew rich off the sweat and blood of miners who were treated as slaves: mostly Irish niggers. Her family exploits a group of people amassing great fortune. Then, from a position of wealth and influence, wants to use the family's monetary strength and political power to "ease the suffering" of the miners. How shameful. The local bureaucrats create a "hero" to divert attention of the misery caused in the first place by documenting the token gesture of kindness that, if her family treated the miners with humanity in the first place, Sophia's role never would of been needed. I argue she was in denial to think that her actions were not primarily engaged for self-centered reasons of "respectability" and "notoriety". Looking at it a different way, a prosecutor knowingly convicts an innocent man then uses the conviction to get elected as judge. Later on, his daughter, living a comfortable life brought about by her father's position, decides many years later to correct a wrong so she has the man's conviction overturned, greets him at the prison gates upon his release as reporters take pictures and gives the man a free bus ticket to nowhere. As like the miners, nameless, faceless people who were exploited yet the name of Sophia Coxe continues as she switched one trophy of exploitation for another. That means she used the miners no different than her father did: both did so for personal gain.
Next part of this page is about adoption. We will look at Moses' adoption. We will call the Pharaoh's daughter the Angel of the Nile for this exercise. First, like a coal baron himself, Pharaoh decides there are too many slaves so, in the best interest of Egyptian society, he orders the first male child to be post-aborted. This in turn, to save Moses' life, fearing this threat, he is placed afloat in the river. (Good thing Children & Youth wasn't around.) Look at the contradiction of setting. Where was the Pharaoh's daughter while all the first born of Israel were ordered to be murdered by her father's command, telling the social workers: the midwives to do his bidding? Did she know? Care? Would the Pharaoh's daughter of taken Moses if his mother handed him to her personally? I doubt that would of happened. Why? Think about it. Playing on human psychology, the "find" and "rescue" gratification.
What a twist of irony. Pharaoh wants luxury so he gets slaves. Then he fears having too many slaves so he wants the males killed. His daughter saves one who ends up freeing the slaves and cost her brother's life in the process; thus, ending the luxury for Egyptian bureaucrats and her own comfort and leisure. I wonder if the Pharaoh blamed his daughter for raising the death of Egypt?
Moral of the story? The demise of bureaucracy always comes from within.
Next part will be added shortly.
I have a separate page called "Best Interest Of The Child", Click Here.
(1) It is said, who can best describe the pains of addiction than one who suffered the addiction. Maybe I can understand who Moses was because I did what Moses did for the same reason. After all, he killed a foreman. So did I.
(2) Ever hear of Barabbas? (The name means Son of the Father.) Being a Hebrew, he would of been raised on the stories of Scripture. As found in what is commonly known as "Mark 15:7", Barabbas was alleged to have committed murder in an "insurrection". (Many historians agree that Barabbas was part of a revolt against Roman occupation and convicted of killing a soldier.) One account, "John 18:40", has him listed as a "robber". So, what. So was Moses. Where is this leading? It can be argued, Barabbas, a man loyal to his national identity, (historically correct to say that the Hebrews hated Roman occupation), read the accounts of Scripture, felt just in seeking armed revolt against the pagan lords as his ancestors had done, and apparently failed as Moses did the first time around. Conclusion? He did what Moses did for the same reason and was spared from death; only difference, Barabbas was prosecuted while Moses fled prosecution.
Footnote: An expanded summary, bearing the significance of Barabbas will be added shortly. For now, he alone was responsible for the Messiah's execution. What? Never heard of that before? Once the people made a choice between the two, favoring Barabbas, according to then Roman Law, he had a right to refuse: which would of shifted the burden back on Pilate to free the Messiah. It can be said that the final appeal fell at his feet. However, according to Jewish custom, it was a severe insult to refuse a gift, esp. something as one's life.