The Lust For Power How Politics And


The Lust For Power: How Politics And Personal Relations Become One Essay, Research Paper

The Lust For Power: How Politics and Personal Relations Become One


The stories of the Bible reveal a pattern of ?ups and downs? for the

nation of Israel. A period of prosperity, faithfulness and fearing God would

almost always be followed by a period of destitution, lawlessness and idolatry.

This recurring cycle can be linked to political authority, and the level of

separation of political authority from other influences. The successful

struggle for liberation under the leadership of Moses and the glorious conquest

of Canaan under Joshua instilled a fresh breeze of hope and a renewed faith in

God in the nation of Israel. Guided by God, the nation of Israel met with

unprecedented success as they journeyed to the promised land. During this time,

political authority among the Israelites rested in the hands of patriarchs, or

prominent members within the tribes. These men were righteous figures of

authority, chosen by God, to lead His people and to teach His ways. The success

that swept over the Israelites was short-lived, however, and for the next two

hundred years the people of Israel struggled against neighboring tribes. The

new generation of Israelites ?knew neither the Lord nor what he did for Israel?

(Judges 2:10). They began to ?do evil in the eyes of the Lord? by worshipping

other gods and engaging in various sexual activities. To save His people from

their enemies and from their ?evil ways,? God ?raised up? judges to rescue them

(Judges 2:16). These so-called judges had the political authority vested in

them to lead the people of Israel and to save them from their sins. They

mobilized the people of Israel against invasions of the tribes all around them.

At this time, the nation of Israel was nothing more than a loose confederation

of twelve tribes. Israel had no central authority, which meant no unity, no

organization and no power. During the period of the judges, there was no need

for a central government, because the people of Israel were able to defend their

tribal territories effectively against adjoining peoples. Whenever there was a

threat from a neighboring tribe, God sent a judge to lead the Israelites against

their enemies. As this era came to an end, however, the Israelites were faced

with a much larger problem – the Philistines’ military threat. As the

Israelites were eliminating all the small powers around them, the Philistines,

with their iron implements and organization, were becoming an emergent threat.

In order to protect themselves from the looming danger of the Philistine army,

the Israelites asked for a king to furnish unification, organization and power

for the nation of Israel. God granted their request, and Samuel reluctantly

appointed Saul in God’s name. The king’s function was to provide leadership and

to unify the people against their enemies. However, the responsibilities,

powers and privileges that came with kingship overwhelmingly went beyond the

scope of politics. The personal relationships between the king and his people

became increasingly involved with government. With the rise of the monarchy

came a definite change in political authority. As Israel changed from the

period of judges to the period of the monarchy, politics and political authority

became increasingly associated with personal relationships. In the period of

the monarchs, the separation between politics and personal matters was no longer

delineated as it was before, and politics and personal relations became


“Whenever the Lord raised up a judge for them, he was with the judge and

saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived” (Judges

2:18). God sent judges to lead the Israelites in the process of consolidating

tribal areas and defense against organized enemies. The judges led the

Israelites into battle and also served as reminders to the people to obey the

word of God. It is needless to say then, that the judges were leaders of the

Israelites during desperate times. The main reason why a clear distinction

between personal relations and political authority during the period of the

judges was possible , was that there was no succession of judges. God chose

judges to lead Israel against its enemies only when they were in need of

leadership and guidance, and in doing so, there was no power struggle or ?fight

for the crown.? There was no specific person ?next in line? to lead the

Israelites, because the only thing important to them at that time was defending

themselves against neighboring powers. It was of no concern to the Israelites

who the leader was, as long as the leader was competent and effective. Another

characteristic of the judges’ rule that compensated for the separation of

politics and personal matters was the brevity of their leadership. Whereas a

monarch would remain ruler of the land after conquest, the judges served only as

a sort of ?temporary relief? for the nation of Israel. After fulfilling their

assignment as leaders of the Israelites against their adversaries during times

of emergency, they would humble themselves before God and before the Israelites.

It is clear that the judges possessed political authority over the Israelites,

but rarely did they allow personal matters and relationships to interfere with

government. Only in the case of Samson did his personal relationships and

desires come in the way of political authority. There were twelve judges in

all, but the Bible pays most of its attention to three of the twelve: Deborah,

Gideon, and Samson.

Deborah, the only woman leader of the judges, won unquestioned respect.

She commanded Barak, son of Abinoam, to battle Sisera, the commander of the

army of King Jabin. Throughout the story of her triumph, not once was Deborah’s

personal relations mentioned. It can be assumed then, that Deborah kept her

personal relations separate from her political leadership, and was focused on

one thing and one thing only – the defeat of Jabin and the Canaanites.

Forty years of peace ensued after Deborah’s military victory, and then

the people of Israel again began to fall into sin and were overcome once again,

this time by the Midianites. God raised up Gideon to direct the people of

Israel against the Midianites. Gideon defeated the Midianites, and in doing so,

was offered an opportunity to be king. However, Gideon declined the opportunity

to rule declaring ?I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The

Lord will rule over you? (Judges 8:23). The lack of succession of judges is

parallel to the separation of politics and personal relations. There was

evidently no power struggle among the Israelites, because even when offered the

power to rule, Gideon declined. There was no fight for succession of leadership

because there was no succession of leadership.

The story of Samson can be seen as the transition from the period of

judges to the period of the monarchy. Samson, although the most gifted of the

judges, had a tragic flaw; he was pitifully unable to control his lust for women.

Samson’s personal desire for women affected his ability to reason, and thus

hindered his ability to lead the people of Israel. With his great physical

strength and hot temper, Samson single-handedly pushed back the Philistines -

more by accident than by intention. . He was eventually betrayed and ruined by

a woman due to his boisterous wildness and careless encounter with Delilah. God

intended Samson for great things. Of all the judges, he was the only one to be

announced by an angel before he was born (Judges 13:3). He was given

supernatural abilities, and his life was specially devoted to God. However,

despite all these advantages given to him at birth, his uncontrollable desire

for woman destroyed him. His personal relations destroyed his prospects of

becoming a great leader among the Israelites. Samson’s desire for women

overpowered his desire to deliver the Israelites out of the hands of the

Philistines, and this led to his tragic downfall. The story of Samson vaguely

foreshadows the connection between politics and personal relations in the period

of the monarchs. It acts as a link joining a period when politics and personal

relations are clearly defined and separate, and a period when they are

indistinct and inseparable.

Nearing the end of the period of the judges, the Israelites began to

notice that virtually every other nation had a king, while Isarael was nothing

more than an alliance of scattered tribes . The rising power of the Philistines

and other imminent threats to Israelite security impelled the Israelites to ask

for a king. A king offered two advantages: first, a king would provide central

government, therefore providing unity and organization; and second, since a king

would normally be succeeded by his sons, the nation did not have a crisis of

leadership every its leader became old. God despondently granted the wish of

His people and gave them a king. Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel, and

the people were satisfied. Military success went hand in hand with bringing the

tribes together in one united country, but when the desire for succession of the

crown came into play, personal relations and government become one.

Saul was successful as king of Israel until David proved to be a threat

to the crown. After David defeated Goliath of the Philistines, the people sang

aloud ?Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands? (1 Samuel

18:7). Saul thus became jealous of David, for he could not stand to be second

best in a nation he calls his own. From that point thereafter, Saul’s political

authority and leadership was no longer concentrated on the good of the nation

and the welfare of his people, but rather he focused his efforts on ?keeping a

jealous eye on David? (1 Samuel 18:11), and David ?remained his enemy the rest

of his days? (1 Samuel 18:29). Saul spent the rest of his days searching for

David in attempts to kill him so that he may regain the respect of his people,

and in doing so killed many innocent bystanders that got in his way. This rash

outrage of jealousy and personal hatred for David was critically associated with

politics. While Saul could have directed his efforts toward the betterment of

Israel, he was after personal benefit, and this led to his eventual collapse.

David, having unconditional respect for Saul, spared his life twice, and thus

allowed Saul to further pursue him. Saul eventually dies, however, and David is

made king over the house of Judah.

Although David’s reign was better than that of Saul’s, he too had

problems. Ish-Bosheth is the threat to the throne this time, while Ish-

Bosheth’s general Abner is a threat to him. Abner slept with Saul’s concubine,

therefore openly making a claim on the crown. In David’s time, women acted as

political symbols. Abner’s sleeping with Saul’s concubine suggested that he had

his eyes on becoming king himself. In pursuit of David, Abner killed the

brother of Joab, David’s general. As a result Joab had a personal vendetta

against Abner and was after his life. When Ish-Bosheth was murdered, and it was

evident that David was going to become the next king, Joab murdered Abner. It

is not difficult to see that this ?soap opera? of events is due to the fact that

personal relations and politics were interrelated. Either personal relations

effected a political change, or politics effected a change in personal relations.

After David is crowned king of Israel, he had problems of the same nature.

David, seeing the alluring Bathsheba, wanted her for his own immediately. He

blatantly disregarded the fact that she had a husband, Uriah, and took her for

his wife, having Uriah killed in the process. This corrupt use of political

authority demonstrates how political authority and personal relations are linked.

David’s son, Absalom, also had his eyes on the throne. He led a conspiracy

against his father by traveling all over Israel winning the favor of the people,

and he also slept with his father’s concubines in public. Absalom publicly

slept with his father’s concubines for political reasons; it made clear his

claim to the throne. Israelites who held back their allegiance thinking father

and son would reconcile their differences, knew now that the breach was

permanent; they had to take a side. Again sexual potency and sexual relations

are acutely tied in with politics. David was ultimately confronted with the

fact that he must capture or destroy his son Absalom. When he found out that

his soldiers killed Absalom, he mourned deeply. His love for his son collided

with his effectiveness as a leader. David wept so excessively that it

demoralized the troops who had risked their lives for him and the nation of


When David’s time was over, once again there was a power struggle for

succession of the throne. This time it was between the sons of David, Adonijah

and Solomon. Adonijah took initiative and set himself up as king, but Bathsheba,

David’s favorite wife, and Nathan the prophet, ?pulled a few strings? to secure

Solomon’s claim of the crown. Due to the efforts of Bathsheba and Nathan,

Solomon was crowned king. This ?pulling of strings? demonstrates how personal

relations may engender lasting impacts on politics. If Bathseba had not been

David’s favorite wife, and Nathan had not been David’s trusted advisor, Adonijah

may have been crowned king of Israel instead of Solomon. Solomon also used

women to his advantage; he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.

Most of his wives were princesses of nearby tribes, so it can be inferred that

his marriages were politically motivated. He was married to Pharaoh’s daughter,

and had an alliance with Pharaoh. The story of Solomon’s succession is as

complicated and as involved with personal relations as his predecessors.

As Israel developed from a confederation of tribes into a great

monarchial power, a notable change took place. As the nation of Israel moved

from the period of judges to the period of the monarchy, politics and political

authority became increasingly associated with personal matters and personal

relations. Personal relations began to affect politics and political authority,

and in turn, politics affected personal relations. This change occurred because

the characteristics of leadership changed. During the period of the judges,

there was no succession of power, and because there was no succession of power,

no one was fighting for it. The judges were sent to lead the Israelites in

times of need and emergency. Their leadership was only ephemeral, and thus not

one of them were able to gain an exorbitant amount of political power. When

the period of the monarchy was firmly in place, however, there was a system of

succession of power. Even before the king muttered his last words, there were

peopleeagerly waiting in line to take his place. And if that wasn’t enough,

people were plotting against the king in hopes of succeeding the throne, even

his own sons. This feature of the period of the monarchy allowed for the mixing

and intertwining of politics and personal relations. The use of women as

symbols of power and dominance became abundant as kings challenged the

prospective successors, and as prospective successors challenged the kings.

Events took place that can be compared to episodes of TV soap operas or Melrose

Place. Politics and personal relations became interrelated, and above all else,

the underlying reason was power. As people began to lust for power, for wealth,

and for recognition, the association of the two became imminent, and the

separation of the two became impossible.

Додати в блог або на сайт

Цей текст може містити помилки.

A Free essays | Essay
22.8кб. | download | скачати

Related works:
Power And Politics
Views On Power Relationships In Politics
Power Politics What Makes A Strong State
Lust And Love
OthelloLove And Lust
List For Lust
Love And Lust
Lust And Lutyens
© Усі права захищені
написати до нас