Abraham, Moses And Elijah: A Lesson in Leadership (Part 1)
(This article was originally published in December 2001. It is here re-published by Our Learning Company.)
- What is the limit of responsibility to a community of a leader?
- Are all conflicts of interest to be resolved in favor of the community?
- What about conflicts between the community and God – should a leader resolve them always, as it were, in God’s favor?
- Does God always take precedence over the community?
- Can a leader oppose God on behalf of the community?
These questions touch upon some of the crucial issues in lives of three prophets: Abraham, the first prophet and progenitor of Israel; Moses, liberator and lawgiver of his people; and Elijah, religious revivalist par excellence.
Common to all three prophets is an encounter with God over the fate of a people, with Abraham challenging God over the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses dissuading God from destroying Israel after the worship of the Golden Calf, and Elijah adducing before God evidence of Israel’s waywardness. They are also linked up as beginning, middle and end. At the creation of Israel, Abraham appears on the scene; at the revelation at Sinai, Moses stands between Israel and God; and at the redemption, it is told, Elijah will be the harbinger.
In looking for leadership models, let us examine how each comported himself in the face of what was thought to be imminent Divine punishment.
ABRAHAM’S CHALLENGE OF GOD (Genesis 18)
The story of Abraham’s challenge of Divine justice is introduced by God’s question. “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” (Gen. 18:17). The question assumes a degree of intimacy between God and Abraham as if God, in the words of Amos, “does nothing without having revealed His purpose to His servants the prophets (3:7).” Pondering whether God should tell Abraham, God weighs three factors:
- First, Abraham will one day become a great and populous nation;
- Second, he is to serve as a medium of blessing to all the nations; and
- Third, Abraham has been the object of Divine attention in the expectation that he would succeed in instructing his posterity in the way of the Lord, namely, doing what is just and right.
The last factor weighs most heavily, for upon it hinges the Divine commitment to fulfill the covenantal promises.
To demonstrate to the reader the city’s total depravity, the narrative has God personally check out the extent of its criminality, for the threat of devastation being as it is contingent upon ALL having acted according to the cry of outrage from the city. If only SOME had acted so, an alternative distinguishing between the guilty and innocent would have to be found. The fact that Abraham objects to the plan of total destruction attests to the fact that God could not come up with sufficient number of righteous to justify sparing the whole city. Unaware of this, Abraham, not being able to imagine such a large metropolitan area bereft of any saving grace, questions God’s right to the mantle of universal judge, being prepared as He is to destroy the righteous along with the wicked. Getting away with his initial impudence, Abraham immediately ups the ante and suggests that God should forgive, or at least delay, punishment of the whole city if there be found 50 innocent within the city. No city tolerating a righteous community in its midst can be all that bad. Because the righteous community might ultimately prevail, forbearance is surely in order.
In the end, no community countering the depravity of the city was to be found. Abraham stops at 10, knowing that it takes a community to morally save a community. Less than 10 leaves only individuals, themselves worthy of being saved, as Lot and company, but lacking sufficient merit to forestall the doom of others.
Was Abraham a success? It all depends on one’s perspective. There is no question that were he operating on a contingency fee he would fail to collect from the demolished cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. From the perspective of God, however, he was a rousing success. God had already ascertained that the cities, having no saving grace, were to be destroyed. The only unresolved issue was whether to apprise Abraham of it. Risk is involved in either case. If God does not divulge the plan, Abraham would rise the following morning only to see two cities supernaturally devastated. Undoubtedly, as we have seen already, Abraham’s presumption of innocence of some Sodomites would have led him to harbor doubts about the absolute justice of God. As such, his ability to transmit the commitment to total Divine justice to his descendants would be sorely impaired, thereby endangering the whole covenantal enterprise.
The alternative risk is in divulging the plan only to find Abraham adopting the posture of conventional piety by deferring to Divine authority. Nothing could have prompted Abraham to fail Divine expectations more than for Abraham to proclaim, “Glory to God on the highest” in the face of Divine inscrutability. Challengers, not sycophants, are God’s chosen ones. Not because of his obsequiousness did Abraham merit special Divine attention, but because of his commitment to justice, the self-proclaimed way of the Lord.
Abraham’s allegiance to justice was so unequivocal that he was willing to risk his relationship with God in order, paradoxically, to adhere to the way of God! Realizing that the “seekers of God are pursuers of justice (Isaiah 51:1),” Abraham chose his God-taught commitment to justice over fawning obeisance. The result was that Abraham’s belief in Divine justice was not only confirmed, but his continuing worthiness of Divine promises was maintained. After all, how can a just God endow a people with greatness without first testing its commitment to justice? Biblically, the growth of power must be laced with the bonds of justice for the descendants of Abraham to go on being a blessing to all peoples.
(to be continued)The story of Abraham’s challenge of Divine justice is introduced by God’s question. “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” (Gen. 18:17). The question assumes a degree of intimacy between God and Abraham as if God, in the words of Amos, “does nothing without having revealed His purpose to His servants the prophets (3:7).” Pondering whether He should tell Abraham, God weighs three factors: First, Abraham will one day become a great and populous nation; second, he is to serve as a medium of blessing to all the nations; and third, Abraham has been the object of Divine attention in the expectation that he would succeed in instructing his posterity in the way of the Lord, namely, doing what is just and right. The last factor weighs most heavily, for upon it hinges the Divine commitment to fulfill the covenantal promises.
To demonstrate to the reader the city’s total depravity, the narrative has God personally check out the extent of its criminality, for the threat of devastation being as it is contingent upon ALL having acted according to the cry of outrage from the city. If only SOME had acted so, an alternative distinguishing between the guilty and innocent would have to be found. The fact that Abraham objects to the plan of total destruction attests to the fact that God could not come up with sufficient number of righteous to justify sparing the whole city. Unaware of this, Abraham, not being able to imagine such a large metropolitan area bereft of any saving grace, questions God’s right to the mantle of universal judge, being prepared as He is to destroy the righteous along with the wicked. Getting away with his initial impudence, Abraham immediately ups the ante and suggests that God should forgive, or at least delay, punishment of the whole city if there be found 50 innocent within the city. No city tolerating a righteous community in its midst can be all that bad. Because the righteous community might ultimately prevail, forbearance is surely in order.
In the end, no community countering the depravity of the city was to be found. Abraham stops at 10, knowing that it takes a community to morally save a community. Less than 10 leaves only individuals, themselves worthy of being saved, as Lot and company, but lacking sufficient merit to forestall the doom of others.
Was Abraham a success? It all depends on one’s perspective. There is no question that were he operating on a contingency fee he would fail to collect from the demolished cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. From the perspective of God, however, he was a rousing success. God had already ascertained that the cities, having no saving grace, were to be destroyed. The only unresolved issue was whether to apprise Abraham of it. Risk is involved in either case. If God does not divulge the plan, Abraham would rise the following morning only to see two cities supernaturally devastated. Undoubtedly, as we have seen already, Abraham’s presumption of innocence of some Sodomites would have led him to harbor doubts about the absolute justice of God. As such, his ability to transmit the commitment to total Divine justice to his descendants would be sorely impaired, thereby endangering the whole covenantal enterprise.
The alternative risk is in divulging the plan only to find Abraham adopting the posture of conventional piety by deferring to Divine authority. Nothing could have prompted Abraham to fail Divine expectations more than for Abraham to proclaim, “Glory to God on the highest” in the face of Divine inscrutability. Challengers, not sycophants, are God’s chosen ones. Not because of his obsequiousness did Abraham merit special Divine attention, but because of his commitment to justice, the self-proclaimed way of the Lord.
Abraham’s allegiance to justice was so unequivocal that he was willing to risk his relationship with God in order, paradoxically, to adhere to the way of God! Realizing that the “seekers of God are pursuers of justice (Isaiah 51:1),” Abraham chose his God-taught commitment to justice over fawning obeisance. The result was that Abraham’s belief in Divine justice was not only confirmed, but his continuing worthiness of Divine promises was maintained. After all, how can a just God endow a people with greatness without first testing its commitment to justice? Biblically, the growth of power must be laced with the bonds of justice for the descendants of Abraham to go on being a blessing to all peoples.
(to be continued)
