The Transition of Leadership in Joshua

Some Reflections

In world history Moses stands a herculean figure; he has few rivals, less eclipse him. His impact still reverberates in the Western world: in our jurisprudence, our literature, and in our moral code. Even if the moral law is being questioned and jettisoned those that do so still hope that people have a moral code, and a just legal system is still to be found. We repudiate Moses, but we still hope his influence underscores human behaviour and responsibility.

But Moses was human, he was no God. In fact, he incurred the displeasure of God for blaspheming his name amongst the people of Israel. And Moses would die one day – everyone does – he wasn’t going to last forever. He would need a successor, someone who would transition the people from the desert to the promised land. Moses lost that honour. He died seeing the land but never entered it. That was to be the responsibility, the burden of another – Joshua. He was the transitional leader, and following Moses was no easy feat.

One of the things going for Joshua was that he wasn’t at all like Moses, in notoriety or stature. Not being like Moses did have an upside.  When, in transition seasons, like-for-like is sought we are setting up the successor for failure because this can divinize the past and in so doing minimize the present and future. This hamstrings a new leader –  who is unlikely to be like the previous, especially if held in awe like Moses was. Although he would never occupy the seat of Moses, Joshua had walked in his footsteps long enough to be able to anticipate what Moses would do (WMWD), faithfully interpreting Moses. And yet, he wasn’t Moses. He had a specific job/call to fulfill, and he did just that, not by trying to be someone else. We see in Joshua a personal security that showed itself in his role, not as the lawgiver but as a soldier.

Moses was a jurist, and Joshua was a soldier. God has given men gifts; gifts complement, and gifts differentiate. One person can’t complete a vision given by God. It is always both/and, never either/or. Moses was essential, and Joshua proved to be the same.

Another reason Joshua could follow Moses so successfully is due to him having his own mountaintop experience, even if it was in a tent, in which he heard and experienced God’s presence and word. And he, like Moses, had his own commissioning encounter; Moses had it at the burning bush, and Joshua had it when confronted by an angel of the Lord, sword drawn.

Joshua wasn’t succeeding Moses with the only thing going for him being proximity – it takes more than just being familiar with someone – no matter how spectacular they may be. Joshua knew the great I AM as did Moses. Although Joshua led differently than Moses, although his place in history would never be as celebrated, the nation was able to look forward with him and not have to gaze backward to Moses.

Joshua successfully transitioned Israel from the wilderness into the promised land, after which he quietly faded from public life. Moses’ mandate was fulfilled – job done.