Nephi positions his family as Israel during the exodus from Egypt, reprising the theme he first brought up in 1 Nephi 4:2. They are traveling according to Yahweh’s direction and will require his law in their new life and location. Nephi needs a powerful reason to overcome his reluctance to shed blood; that reason is his people’s future ability to know the commandments. Because those commandments are contained on the brass plates, they are therefore necessary to Lehi’s posterity.
History: Fred Essig and H. Daniel Fuller have written a lengthy essay, “Nephi’s Slaying of Laban: A Legal Perspective,” an exhaustive analysis of relevant Hebrew law during Nephi’s time. They cast it as a brief assessing Nephi’s defense strategy.
First, they propose that laws governing burglary and theft (Laban is in unlawful possession of the plates) might justify Nephi’s actions but find both unsatisfactory. Nephi’s home has not been burglarized. While Laban stole their wealth, the punishment for theft was a fine, not the death penalty. The authors quote Exodus 21:12–13, which might apply to Nephi: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.” Then they comment:
The attitude of the Rabbis on the involvement of God in Exodus 21:13 differs in some respects.… Their comments are found in an Amoraic utterance that was preserved by Simeon ben Laqish. The Rabbis’ thoughts are developed through a discourse that associates Exodus 21:13 with 1 Samuel 24:13. The teaching is simple. “God is absolutely just. He will deliver over to an unwitting homicide (an Exodus 21:13 killer) only a man deserving death.” In other words, the man [killed] will be, say, a murderer who, owing to lack of witnesses, escaped his proper punishment.
This case apparently fits Laban, who was both condemned and executed through the intervention of God. However, Essig and Fuller also note that the slayer is sufficiently guilty that he must seek a city of refuge for committing manslaughter. Perhaps Lehi’s departure from the known world should be seen as a type of banishment. The New World certainly became a place of refuge for them.
Essig and Fuller conclude:
Biblical and Rabbinic law provides numerous defenses to a charge of murder. Many of these, however, such as the justifications of burglary, theft, self-defense, and minority status, do not apply to Nephi’s slaying of Laban. Additionally, defenses like duress and attempted murder were probably not part of the Jewish law when the slaying occurred in 600 B.C.
Probably Nephi’s strongest defense would have been the procedural requirement of two eyewitnesses for a murder conviction, for no witnesses are mentioned in the scriptural account. There would still have been the possibility of false witnesses, however.
A substantive defense offering some hope of protection is that found in Exodus 21:13 to killers who do not lie in wait. The variety of interpretations of the passage, however, make its application in 600 B.C. uncertain.
An additional defense not formally recognized by scholars, but with some support in the scriptures, is that of obedience to a commandment of the Lord. Although Nephi plainly comes within its requirements, it probably would not have been recognized in Jerusalem at the time of the slaying.
Scripture: The legal analysis of Laban’s slaying deals with the community’s legal authority over the killer. Had Nephi stood trial for killing Laban, he would need to be reconciled through those laws—either in being punished or being exonerated. While we can speculate on the legal dynamics, they were never brought to bear. Therefore the laws of community were not relevant, except in a hypothetical sense.
However, Nephi was always answerable to Yahweh’s law. Indeed, it is the relationship of Nephi’s action to the greater moral law that is at greatest issue in this story. How can the son of a prophet who has himself received a prophetic calling kill, apparently in violation of the Decalogue?
The answer to that question can come only from Yahweh’s perspective. Does Yahweh consider that injunction inviolate? The answer is clearly no, if for no other precedent than Yahweh’s allowing or causing the death of Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea. The death of some to benefit others is manifest in Yahweh’s actions. Therefore, we cannot argue that the Spirit could not have given Nephi valid instructions.
Second, what exactly does the injunction not to kill mean? The King James Bible translates as “kill” the Hebrew ratsach, which actually means “murder.” Why was the commandment not to murder given if not to assure the preservation of human life? Let us take, for the moment, the position of the victim. If the victim were righteous and the killing grossly evil, what is the eternal effect on the victim? Modern revelation of the plan of salvation suggests that the victim will suffer no eternal consequences because his life has been shortened; for example, even had that person never heard the gospel, it would be taught to him/her in the next life. The Lord can make up for the unfairness of this life and provide all of life’s benefits to those who die. God’s justice cannot be thwarted by a murderer. Being murdered has no effect on an individual’s salvation. The injunction against murder therefore does not have any direct correlation to the quality of the victim’s resurrection/exaltation.
Rather the person affected is the murderer. The person who becomes capable of taking another’s life has undergone a transformation of soul comparable in magnitude but in exactly the opposite direction as celestialization. 2 Nephi 26:22 tells us that Satan is the originator of murder; hence, a murderer becomes like Satan instead of like Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ extends the injunction against murder to an injunction against anger (Matt. 5:21–22). Like the other examples Christ gives on that occasion, his purpose is to focus on the essential problem, not the surface law. The essential problem is the hatred and anger that might lead to murder. In the eternal sense, that deterioration of soul constitutes the true damage, the lasting devastation. It is the death of the Spirit within the one who becomes capable of murder that is the eternal consequence.
In this context, Nephi’s actions are reconciled with eternal principles. Nephi is reluctant to kill. He has not come with intent to murder. Nephi kills Laban only under the direction of the Spirit. Since there is no anger in Nephi’s heart and since he sincerely attempts to retreat from the Spirit’s command, he is not a murderer and has not suffered from that spiritual damage. Nephi stands with a clean and open heart before Yahweh. He is not guilty of any action that would eternally damn him.