Politics And Personal Relations Become One Essay

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

Israel.

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.