Motivations for Leadership:

Motivations for Leadership 7

Motivations for Leadership:Moses versus Aaron in the Golden Calf Crisis

Maria LegaultTuesday, February 3, 2009JS 130, Assignment #1Professor James Diamond

When examining the life of Moses, there are two closely interconnected stories which illuminate his character and his strengths as a leader of the Israelites. Exodus 2 starts his story with a shocking murder that is the beginning of his career outside the Egyptian palace while Exodus 32 reveals how much he has grown as a leader. Both stories are connected by three planned risks which Moses takes in response to a perceived injustice. Each risk results in his isolation and the strengthening of his character. Moses leadership qualities contrast sharply with those of his older brother, Aaron, whose response to the Golden Calf crisis reveals him as being either a passive, weak, or selfish leader. These qualities suggest that Aaron is more interested in maintaining or gaining power than establishing justice. Moses takes his first risk by leaving the Egyptian palace and going to visit his people (Exodus 2:11). During this planned excursion, Moses sees an Egyptian kill an Israelite man and this forces him to undertake further risks. Despite the lack of information readers have on his character at this time, Moses reaction seems to suggest that he feels a strong sense of injustice at what he has just witnessed. He has two options open to him; one, to walk away and do nothing, and two, to act out in response to the situation. Hesitant at taking on the responsibility of action, Moses looked all around (Exodus 2:12) to see if anyone else felt the same way he did about the crime. Seeing that he is alone in his indignation, Moses kills the Egyptian and buries his body in the sand. The act of burying the body could be interpreted as further supporting Moses conflicting desire to right an injustice while still maintaining his distance from the situation. The consequence of this first risk for Moses is that of isolation from both the Egyptians and the Israelites. By killing the Egyptian, Moses has rejected his past life with the pharaoh and has to flee to the temporary safety of Midian to escape the wrath of his adopted family (Vistozky, 1998). Further, the Israelites perceive him as an arrogant interloper in their midst and reject his presence when next he is amongst them (see Exodus 2:14). His time in Midian is therefore isolated and possibly unhappy as he struggles with separation from his people and the life he used to know (Vistozky, 1998). This isolation causes him to become a stronger leader who is able to take accountability for the actions of the Israelites in Exodus 32. He does this by acting as mediator between man and God. Wildavsky (1984) noted that one of Moses tasks is to get the Lord to accept human nature and Moses achieves this goal after the sin of the Israelites in Exodus 32. Immediately after the Lord announces that he is going to punish the Israelites for their idolatry, Moses again acts out of a sense of injustice and pleads with the Lord to change his mind. Prior to his exile in Exodus 2, it seems unlikely that Moses would have acted as mediator and stood up to the Lord in this situation. This gives him strength as a leader and allows him to convince God to accept the sinful nature of humans. Moses gives the Lord three lessons as he attempts to get Him to accept human nature. First, Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the commandments, sees what the Israelites are doing, and at the foot of the mountain, he threw down the tablets he was carrying and broke them (Exodus 32:19). Moses later rewrites the commandments with his own hand, thereby humanizing them and showing the Lord that the rules have to be flexible enough to accept human mistakes. Second, Moses melts the golden bull calf, mixes it with water, and forces the Israelites to drink of their sin. This is a uniquely human punishment that forces the Israelites to live with the bitter after-taste of their own evil in their mouths, something which would be more likely to remain in their memories over time (Wildavsky, 1984). Lastly, Moses individualizes the Israelites punishment by calling the Levites to him. This teaches God that punishment does not have to be collective to be effective (Wildavsky, 1984). Moses therefore gets the Lord to accept human nature only after he has become stronger through his isolation and developed the ability to act as a mediator between man and God. Moses again acts out of a sense of injustice and experiences isolation as a result of the second planned risk he takes. When Moses refuses the Lords offer of personal greatness for himself and his descendants in Exodus 32:10, he risks his future by siding with the Israelites (Wildavsky, 1984). Consistent with his behaviour in Exodus 2, Moses acts in this situation out of a sense of injustice. He does not stand to gain anything by acting and has the option of saying nothing. Instead, he chooses to present the Lord with a well-planned argument in an attempt to remind Him of His honour over past promises made to the Israelites. In so doing, Moses may have passed the Lords test of his character. He is also successful in his argument and the Lords anger cools; however, the result of his risk is that he is now responsible for the Israelites sin. This responsibility means that he must carry out what Walzer (1986) called a revolutionary purge, and this purging will ultimately result in Moses isolation from the Israelites.Moses responsibility for the Israelites requires him to purge the sinners in a way that will result in their rejection of him. After Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, he calls the Levites to him and tells them to go through the camp from this gate to the other and kill your brothers, your friends, and your neighbours (Exodus 32:27). This wide-spread killing is a purge because it is meant to remove the last of the Israelites who are still faithful to the Egyptian gods (Walzer, 1986). It is also revolutionary because the Israelites who are about to be killed are given no warning or judgement for their crimes (Walzer, 1986). The action is therefore meant to cleanse the population of those who still hold in their bellies the water of the bull calf. In the aftermath of the wide-spread killings, Moses has been rejected by the entire community and lives in an isolated tent separate from the Israelites encampment (see Exodus 33:7-11). The third planned risk which Moses takes in Exodus 32 results in a different form of isolation than his past two actions. Following the purging, Moses returns to the Lord to beg that He forgive the sinful Israelites. Moses then takes a risk by saying that if the Lord will not forgive them, then remove my name from the book in which you have written the names of your people (Exodus 32:32). Wildavsky (1984) notes how these words put Moses at risk of being killed along with the Israelites in their punishment. As with his last two risks, Moses may be guided here by the sense that justice will only occur if he is included in the penalty. He does not have any ulterior motive for his request and in fact risks being figuratively forgotten from the annals of history as a leader of the Israelites by saying this. These noble, self-sacrificial intentions mean that his character as a leader has grown to full maturity, as he is unable to separate his own personal interests from those of the people. However, these leadership qualities also set him so far apart from the rest of humanity that he is now completely isolated. His separation from humanity is well-illustrated in Exodus 34:29-31, in which he descends from Mount Sinai with his face shining after speaking with the Lord. As a political leader, Moses is motivated by the need to eliminate injustice by taking planned risks which result in his isolation from the Israelites. These altruistic characteristics of Moses personality are contrasted in Exodus 32 to the passive, weak, and selfish leadership of his older brother, Aaron, in response to the Golden Calf crisis. When the people get anxious that Moses has not yet come back to them from Mount Sinai, they turn to Aaron in search of reassurance and guidance (Wildavsky, 1984). Aaron quickly acquiesces and creates for them a bull calf which could symbol the Israelites alliance with the devil or their continued adherence to the past religious ways of Egypt (Walzer, 1986; Wildavsky, 1984). Both possibilities are disturbing as they represent the distance that Aaron has allowed the Israelites to stray from God during the absence of Moses.Aarons actions in response to the Israelites demands could be interpreted in three different ways. The first interpretation suggests that he was passively acting under the peoples will. When Moses confronts Aaron and demands an explanation for his actions, Aaron separates himself from the demands of the populace and suggests that they were impossible for him to fight. Aaron says to Moses, dont be angry with me; you know how determined these people are to do evil (Exodus 32: 22). Politically, this passive response could be seen as a democratic channelling of the needs of the people (Wildavsky, 1984). However, Aarons denial of his active involvement undermines the positive connotations inherent in democracy and negates its application in this situation. In contrast to this, Moses often acted independently of all outside influences to maintain his inner sense of justice. This viewpoint suggests that Aaron was more interested in maintaining his status in society by passively accepting the peoples wishes. The second interpretation of Aaron as merely a weak leader casts him in a slightly more positive light. Perhaps by building the bull calf for the Israelites, he was trying to buy time for Moses to come down from the mountain (Wildavsky, 1984). He may also have created the bull calf with the hope that his announcement of a festival to honour the Lord (Exodus 32:5) would direct the Israelites back to God. These explanations make some sense because Aaron has grown up with the Israelites; therefore, he would have known that they would be punished for their sin and would perhaps have wanted to protect them. In contrast to this, Moses was not afraid to take drastic actions when required and his responses were never weak. The revolutionary purge is a good example of where Moses comes into the situation, sees the problem, and does something immediately to rectify the situation. This interpretation suggests that Aaron was too weak to seize power when required, even if his motivations were good. The final interpretation of Aarons response to the Golden Calf crisis is the opposite of the one just discussed. In this case, Aaron is seen as a sly, strategic leader who takes advantage of his favoured brothers absence. This interpretation suggests that Aaron was more interested in gaining short-term political power amongst the Israelites than with their long-term well-being. In contrast to this, Moses constantly has the welfare of the Israelites foremost on his mind. For example, when God threatens to kill the Israelites for their sin, Moses vigorously defends them (Exodus 32:11-13). This last interpretation presents readers with a dichotomous image of the two brothers; Moses, who acts to keep a minimum of power for himself, versus Aaron, who actively seeks power out. The stories of Moses in Exodus 2 and 32 provide insight into his strengths as a leader of the Israelites. Both stories are connected by three planned risks Moses takes to re-establish justice which ultimately result in his isolation. Killing the Egyptian means that Moses is isolated in Midian, is forced to grow into an effective mediator between man and God, and is able to complete his task of getting God to accept human nature. His second risk of refusing the Lords offer of a great nation results in the responsibility of the Israelites sin being transferred to him. He is then forced to undertake a revolutionary purge that results in his isolation from the Israelites. In begging the Lord to forgive the sins of the Israelites, Moses takes his third risk and is isolated from humanity for his total self-sacrifice. In contrast to these noble qualities, his older brother Aaron responds to the Golden Calf crisis in a way that suggests he is a passive, weak, or selfish leader. Both brothers leadership qualities contrast on the basis of motivation because Moses wants only justice while Aaron may be seeking to gain or maintain personal power. References

Good News Bible: Todays English Version. (1994). Canadian Bible Society; Toronto, Ontario. Visotzky, B. (1998). The fugitive. From The Road to Redemption, p. 55-65. Crown Publishing Group. (CK) pp. 1-6.Walzer, M. (1986). Murmurings: Slaves in the wilderness. From Exodus and Revolution, p. 55-67. Basic Books. (CK) pp. 18-24. Wildavsky, A. (1984). A dialogue against death. From The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader, p. 99-115. University of Alabama Press. (CK) pp. 8-16.