Two very different leadership contests have competed for the attention of religiously observant American Jews in recent weeks. One of them played out among Republican candidates seeking the right to challenge Barack Obama for leadership of the most powerful nation on earth. The other played out in the Torah portions describing the fateful battle in the name of the Lord that Moses conducted against Pharaoh, in his day the most powerful ruler on earth. I couldn't help looking at each contest in the light of the other, despite real reluctance to sully the Exodus narrative -- one of the most profound and sacred stories in the biblical canon -- by comparing it to a political campaign that has lately been the opposite of noble. The juxtaposition proved too illuminating to ignore.
Note first what the Bible has to say to the questions on many American minds as the mudslinging and counterpunching take their toll week by week on candidates and electorate alike: Why would anyone in their right mind want to go through this? Why would any sane person seek the presidency? Moses, notably, did not seek his prophetic office; indeed, he begged God to send someone else to stand before the Israelites and Pharaoh. Unlike candidates who proclaim that they alone are worthy of our vote, Moses repeatedly and quite sincerely professed his lack of suitability for the task of leading the Israelites. He is the first in a line of prophets who established a rule that holds good for many biblical leaders: if you want the job, you're not right for it. God does not choose individuals who approach with confidence the difficulties that await them (not least the difficulty of standing before God and doing God's bidding). One wishes that candidates for modern elected office had similar humility -- and that the public were wise enough to reward that virtue rather than scorning it.
Pharaoh, for his part, is not equipped to do anything but say no. He is schooled for power and only for power and, as a result, is ill-equipped to imagine any options beyond a narrow repertoire of intimidation, manipulation and control. It is difficult to blame the king for not knowing the new god in whose name Moses demands liberation of the Israelites. One is not surprised that Pharaoh's first reaction to the plagues God rains on Egypt is to ignore them, his second is to try to use the new god rather than obey him, and his third is to negotiate. Offer your sacrifices here in Egypt, Pharaoh tells Moses at one point: The men can go, perhaps, but not the women or children. By the ninth plague of the 10, however, it seems that Pharaoh has been trapped by the limits of his own political imagination. "Remove this death from me," he begs in a moment of honest weakness, only to stand fast again and refuse to think about reengineering his economy to do without slave labor. "Go -- but leave your flocks," he proposes as Egypt sinks into darkness. Only the 10th plague changes his mind, and that change too proves temporary. He will not let the slave-people go. He would rather die.
The lesson for world leaders battling historical forces of similar magnitude seems clear, even if -- this being the Bible -- that lesson is neither simple nor easily put into practice. Moses succeeds as the leader of the Israelites not only because he has God on his side, but because he reaches deep into every pocket of his experience, tests every ounce of his resilience, and stretches the horizon of his mind past anything he or anyone else has previously encountered. He will soon learn that standing for God and before God often requires him to stand up to God in defense of the people. The Israelites disappoint him, infuriate him, mock his leadership and -- once out of Egypt -- display little faith that the God who got them across the sea will bring them to the Promised Land. Yet Moses refuses to give up on them, and will not let God give up on them either. Moses exhibits a sort of integrity -- personal and national -- that is rarely found in any leader, ancient or contemporary. He is one with himself and one with his people, loving them despite their failures and refusing to accede to those failures, because he knows his people can do better.
The comparison between Moses and present-day leaders or candidates breaks down a bit (though not entirely) in at least two respects. Readers of the Bible of course know that Moses had God behind him (though it is worth remembering that Moses's contemporaries, including members of his own Levitic clan, were sometimes not so sure). What is more, Moses is a wartime, rather than a peacetime, leader. His job is to take charge of a violent uprising that leaves no Egyptian household untouched by death. The rebellion succeeds, launching a prolonged phase of wilderness wandering, only after Pharaoh's army drowns in the sea.
I think Moses realizes early on that his upbringing at court conferred the indispensable ability to take on the Pharaoh, but it was his murder of the Egyptian taskmaster (Exodus 2:12) that qualified him to stand alongside God as the leader of a revolution. His own resort to violence made Moses complicit in the violence that God, with his assistance, will wreak on Egypt. For the same reason, I suspect, God's announcement to Moses that every firstborn male in Egypt will die is followed without pause in the text by the mysterious passage in which God appears to attack Moses's own firstborn son, who is saved only when the boy's mother suddenly circumcises him with a piece of flint (Exodus 4:25). Moses needs to learn the terror of violence, and its impact on victim as well as perpetrator, before he makes violence his instrument and, by doing so, becomes its instrument.
Every American president in our time has borne this burden too. The weighty responsibility for war seems utterly out of keeping with the tenor of campaign rhetoric, unless one believes that dishing out insults and withstanding them in turn is a kind of proxy -- like football -- for battering the enemy and shouldering the burden of American casualties.
I am struck by one final relevant juxtaposition as I write this essay on the eve of the Florida primary. Moses learns near the very beginning of his career as a leader that he cannot lead the Israelites to freedom without sacrificing popularity. This is, of course, the difference between divine election and democracy, and it causes one to wonder how and whether a future (or current) leader can tell people what they need to hear -- the very definition of true leadership -- rather than succumbing to the apparent political necessity of telling them what they want to hear.
Moses's life seems to grow harder rather than easier with every achievement he records, every challenge he meets, every step he takes with his people on the circuitous journey toward the Promised Land. Allies -- even his own brother -- prove unreliable. God, by the end, has become his best friend, perhaps his only friend.
Why take on such a task? Because you know you are called; know that with help you can do it; and know that, when the task seems impossible, God, your spouse, your friends and perhaps history will lend a hand.
"This is, of course, the difference between divine election and democracy, and it causes one to wonder how and whether a future (or current) leader can tell people what they need to hear -- the very definition of true leadership -- rather than succumbing to the apparent political necessity of telling them what they want to hear."
How true! Not that I support a non-representative form of government, but I think that democracy fails in its ability to give people what's best for them, and instead gives them what they want (good or bad). Ironically, we have historical events of people moving away from democracy (post-WWI Germany), embracing totalitarianism, and helping people to realize man's potential for destruction.
I suppose, in the end, some things are only recognized as evil in retrospect, and we have to learn from our mistakes so not to repeat them.
I did have one other comment about your statement: "He is the first in a line of prophets who established a rule that holds good for many biblical leaders: if you want the job, you're not right for it." Although I agree that many prophets were initially hesitant to accept the responsibility, I think this assumption is no longer true after a prophet embraced (and wanted) his role- after all, it's on behalf of God!
God often does that in the Bible as a way to show his own power. If some group stands against the people of Israel because God had made their enemies recalcitrant, he has the chance to help his people achieve a victory. God gains nothing if the enemies of Israel just roll over.
Bruce Feiler in AMERICA’S PROPHET, Moses and the American Story, says “For four hundred years, one figure stands out as the surprising symbol of America. One person has inspired more Americans than any other. One man is America’s true founding father. His name is Moses.†The Rabbi is in good company in seeing the relationship between the Exodus narrative and American politics.
“The Principles of Jewish Law†Edited by Menachem Elon provides a detailed treatment of Jewish Public Law. The concept that “True sovereignty is Divine†and the limitations on the power of rulers, has its foundation in the Torah of Moses. The requirements for a just legal system in general are considered universally binding on all mankind. It is not only forbidden for a leader to impose undue awe on the community if not for the ‘sake of heaven’ (le-shem shamyim:RH 17a) but he must himself stand in awe of the public (Sot. 40a).
The American political process is peaceful if not noble. Campaigns are a non-violent ritual war. Many a “politicianâ€, however, has risen to the office upon election and provided genuine leadership.
On the subject of Moses, only Herman Cain saw himself as that figure this election season. He claimed to have been called by God and claimed that he tried to beg off, as Moses had done.
Your version does make some sense since both the pharaoh and Moses did want a monotheistic religion.
Since when is choosing a violent and bloody method to accomplish a goal considered moral and righteous when there are non-violent means which accomplish the same goal? God could have put all the Egyptians to sleep, erased their memories of their Hebrew slaves, had the Hebrews leave, and wake them up once everyone had left. Bingo, not a drop of blood shed and the Hebrews got to leave.
The Judeo-Christian theology is disugsting... But what do you expect, they're having to justify bronze age barbarism and try and spin it into something positive or else accept that their holy book is just another book.
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."--President Lincoln
The biggest question is who would be Gollum - Gingrich or Ron Paul. "My precious... My precious..."
Commenting recently on another article, you correctly pointed that the burden of proof lies upon him who makes a positive statement. And yet here you yourself make a positive statement for which evidence is lacking. We don't know how much of the story of Exodus might be true.
Concerning the numbers of Israelites described in the OT as comprising the Exodus, since so many point to that as evidence that the story is fictional: 600,000 men, plus women, children, non-Israelites and livestock. It amazes me that people get so hung up on this number. It would seem that that many people wandering in the desert for 40 years probably would've left some evidence which archaeologists or other scholars, searching for so long, would've come across by now. But often people of other cultures in other eras had nothing resembling our accuracy when counting large numbers of people or other objects. (Cf Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol i, pp 336-341, for a good discussion of how Medieval Europeans tended to use large numbers.) Combine an inexactness in counting to begin with, with the centuries of oral transmission which may have occurred before the story of the Exodus took fixed form, (now THIS would be an example of a game of Elephant) and it's easy to imagine that a migration of 60,000 families, or 6,000, or much fewer still, could've provided the basis for the OT stories.
If the Exodus turns into a miracle-less story where a small portion of the Hebrew population left Egypt then you're left with a much different story. One which is much more believable, but also much more boring and insignificant.
If that's what the Exodus story is reduced too, then sure, its very possible that it's true. But when you add in all the elements that Exodus has, then its rightfully labeled a myth.
In Exodus 32, when Moses comes down from the mountain and finds the Levites dancing "au naturel" and worshipping a golden calf, does he say, "Listen up, everybody! After you all put some clothes on, I'd like to share with you some of my thoughts about worshipping metal figurines?"
No. Moses becomes furious, and tells them that God needs to punish them, and that God has ordered them to take their swords and start killing each other. So they do, and three thousand of them get killed.
And centuries later, when Muhammad presents his Allah, you can be sure that he doesn't fail to equip his new God with the delightful attribute of divine refusal to allow freedom of worship or freedom of speech. As far as that goes, Muhammad didn't need to change a thing - except perhaps to make his God's penalties a bit more "eternal." And now we have witnessed centuries of grief and misery brought to humanity the world over by this little idiosyncrasy of God and Allah.
But thanks anyway, for your "sort of integrity," Moses!
I agree with you that that's a bad idea. But your comment reminded me of another bad mental habit. (I don't know whether you yourself are guilty of it, you just reminded me of it.) Namely, the habit, when judging the Bible, of asserting that so many stories and so many principles in it have been "stolen" from earlier stories and religions and philosophies -- it's funny, I very rarely hear people complain about the ancient Romans having "stolen" their mythology from the Greeks -- except when it comes to negative things. Then, it's assumed that the ancient Israelites or the Christians made it up all by themselves.
Were the Israelites really the first people ever to clamp down on freedom of speech? I doubt it very much.
I'm not quite sure where you got the stolen idea from, I didn't get that from their post. This point has been brought up, though. As for it, people don't really proclaim Roman mythology as their religion, at least not in any substantial number. If hundreds of millions of people did worship the Roman Gods I'd imagine there would be atheists reminding its followers of how recycled their beliefs are.
The Hebrews, after seeing the 10 plagues of Egypt, seeing a sea part for them, seeing a pillar of flame and smoke guide them through a desert, seeing water spring from a rock and mana fall from Heaven, decided to worship a golden calf despite knowing that it would upset their God who just did all of the previously mentioned not-so-natural events.
Perhaps those events weren't as impressive as the scripture says, how else would people be so easily swayed. Christians now-a-days wouldn't worship a golden calf and they didn't see even a percent of what these Hebrews allegedly saw. Seems to me that these "miracles" weren't all that miraculous... This seems to be a reoccuring theme in the Bible too...
This explains in part why Moslems during their history received the Jews warmly when they were fleeing persecutions in the West.
Oh how God saved his beloved Moses and companions and destroyed the pharo and his army.
This should give plenty of hope to the tortured Palestinian people. God will not forget you.
If you want to know what god thinks of power, just take a look at those he grants it to .
"Pharaoh, for his part, is not equipped to do anything but say no".
Though you’d think that an all powerful deity could simply make him say yes.
"Pharaoh's first reaction to the plagues God rains on Egypt is to ignore them"
He may have thought they had no more significance than global warming.
"Pharaoh tells Moses at one point: The men can go, perhaps, but not the women or children."
Since all pyramid schemes depend on a steady supply of serfs.
"Moses refuses to give up on them, and will not let God give up on them either."
Surely an all knowing entity would have known what would transpire. Therefore, something yet to occur must be providing an incentive to persevere with the investment.
"Readers of the Bible of course know that Moses had God behind him"
Yet politicians who make similar claims, can't explain why their names are missing from that text.
"a kind of proxy"
Plagues: The supernatural equivalent of drones?
"the difference between divine election and democracy"
For the former, the outcome is fixed. For the latter, fixing the outcome is more a matter of mammon.
"telling them what they want to hear."
Easy. Leave out all the detail, and let them imagine for themselves that exists .
For some strange reason, Eisen never mentions the amazing episode recounted in Exodus 32.
Moses had gone up a certain mountain to get some stone tablets. When he came back down with the tablets, he discovered that the people had taken to dancing - "au naturel" - and had started worshipping a certain calf made of gold. To punish them, he ordered them to go around killing each other, with the result that three thousand of them were killed.
Well if that's a "sort of integrity," let's just be thankful that it's only found rarely!
"32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
"32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
"32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
"32:29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.
"32:30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin."
- No wonder God has "become his only friend!"