Abraham, Moses And Elijah: A Lesson in Leadership (Part 2)
MOSES’ PLEA ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE (Exodus 32)
It only took 40 days after the revelation for the people to retrograde to idol worship. Moses had assured the people he would return from his ascent up Sinai in 40 days – that is, 40 full days. When Moses failed to appear at dawn of the 40th day, the people panicked and fell to worshipping a Golden Calf. Enraged, as it were, for their bowing low to a molten image and accrediting it with their redemption from Egypt, God disowns them (referring to them as Moses’ people) and plans their punishment. He promises that Moses would supplant Abraham, become the father of a great nation to replace faithless Israel, if only he would let Him be.
Spurning the inducement, Moses rises to Israel’s defense. The people is surely God’s, he counters, for the manner of their redemption testifies to the unique power of the Redeemer. Further, he points out, God’s reputation – indeed, His moral investment in history – is at stake. However just God’s claim may be, the people’s demise would be excuse enough for the nations of the world to disdain any notion of Divine justice. The judge of all the earth must not only do justly, He must be perceived as doing so. Such is the price of God’s reputation being intertwined with the destiny of Israel. Finally, Moses notes, if the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can be so easily disregarded, what worth would any future promise of God have? These appeals to God’s stake in Israel, the success if His moral enterprise, and the credibility of His being a Covenant-making God prevail. God relents.
The following day, Moses beseeches Divine forgiveness. He admits their guilt, but nonetheless seeks pardon at the pain of being erased from the Divine record. Rejecting Moses’ offer, God instead commissions him to go and lead the people.
Again we have a test of leadership. The drama focuses on Moses. Will he be up to overcoming the appeal to self-interest for the sake of his people? Moses, like Abraham, passes with flying colors. Transcending his own interests, he proclaims his willingness to go down with the ship, lest his survival serve as a pretext for the destruction of the people. Willing to sacrifice all, he salvages everything.
The similarity of structure and the common promise of becoming a “great nation” invite comparison between the two. Let us ask,
“Who in arguing with God was more admirable, Abraham or Moses?”
The case of Abraham is cogent. His challenge of God is unprecedented. (Who knows what might have been the cost?) He intervenes for a community not his own, unequivocally demanding justice if not more. Moses, for his part, appeals unabashedly for mercy. Justice would have left him without a people. He stands up unequivocally for his own and rejects the enticement to put his interest above that of his people, even at the price of life itself.
Abraham is to be praised for getting involved at all. Moses, however, would have been expected to defend his people, which is why there must be an inducement to keep him out lest his true leadership mettle go untested.
The question “Who is the greater?” must ultimately remain unsolved. There clearly is a time for justice and a time for mercy, a time for standing up for more than one’s own. Neither one’s people nor humanity in general can ever be totally excluded. Greatness in leadership, apparently, is irreducible to a single paradigm. At least two models are necessary.
