Do not copy-paste anything from google. kindly write in your own language.

In the answer, Must Give 5/6 bullets points. Each bullet point should have a paragraph within (40 to 50 words)

The answer should be based on the paragraph below. I will upvote after getting the answer :) thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

Comment_on_why_did_the_author_wrote_Power_and_administration_were_not_impersonal_(objective)_and_had_to_be_applied_by_individuals_onto_individuals._What_does_the_word_individual_mean_here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give comments by reading the paragraphs below:

When a king took part in the renewal of the covenant, he did so not on his own behalf but as the leading representative of the nation.37 Thus when, under King Josiah, Deuteronomy was rediscovered, the king called together all the elders. . . the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets, the whole population, high and low, and read out to them all the book of the covenant discovered in the house of the Lord. Then the king made a covenant before the Lord to obey him and keep his commandments. . . and so fulfil the terms of the covenant written in this book. And all the people pledged themselves to the covenant (2 Kgs. 22: 823: 3). There was indeed no difference in status between king and people in relation to the covenant. This is principally because both stand immeasurably below Yahweh. When the priest Jehoiada proclaimed Joash king, he made a covenant between the Lord and the king and people, that they should be the Lords people, and also between the king and the people (2 Kgs. 11: 17). But the point of this episode was to reaffirm Yahweh as sole god and to smash the temple of Baal (2 Kgs. 11: 18). A second decription of these events (2 Chron. 23: 16) made no mention of a covenant between king and people. If there was any covenant between king and people, we have no idea what it was (a mutual pledge of loyalty, perhaps). There was anyway no suggestion on any of these occasions that there was a contract between the king on one side and the people on the other, nor of limits on royal authority. (All this was read into these texts by Calvinist constitutionalists in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.) It is not, therefore, surprising that there was no procedure for dealing with either partys failure to keep a covenant between them. The Psalms express a very different view of kingship; their language is often remarkably close to that of Egypt and Mesopotamia. This is of course poetry, not constitutional theory, and it is often not clear whether the author is speaking of an actual king of Israel, or what he would like the king of Israel to be, or whether he is giving an idealized picture of kingship in general. Sometimes the king is spoken of as a future prospect. The qualities ascribed to, prayed for, or hoped for in the king are similar to those found in Egyptian and Mesopotamian royal hymns: the king will bring peace, prosperity, and justice, especially for the poor and suffering (Ps. 72: 23). This quickly turns to superhuman fantasy: he will live as long as the sun endures; prosperity will last until the moon is no more (Ps. 72: 57). At times the poet seems to be thinking of Yahweh coming to rule in person (Ps. 47 and 98). Isaiah (Gottwald 1985: 417) replicates the Egyptian and Mesopotamian themes of physical and moral desolation (The highways are deserted... Covenants are broken), followed by a restoration of order (see above, pp. 23, 38). But the Hebrew author(s) introduce two new themes: even in a time of desolation the upright man will have his bread secure and his water never failing (Isa. 33: 1516). And the rescuer is no human king, but Yahweh himself