“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel
unto Ramah. And they said unto him: Behold, you are old, and your sons walk
not in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
In Samuel 8, Abravanel tackles the age-old question of civil governance. But, there’s a lot more
to it than poli-sci 101. As his discussion addresses numerous angles, readers stand to gain much
from his extensive discourse. We begin by providing background to the people’s popular
initiative, as relayed by the elders. Here it is.
Samuel had grown old, his strength waning. Focus turned to the hoary prophet and judge’s
successor. His two sons, though serving as judges, were, to be kind, subpar. They did not act the
part, as we shall discuss in the next essay. For now, suffice it to say that a brewing crisis boiled,
as the Hebrews sought a fix to prevent a perilous political vacuum.
This leads Abravanel to launch one of his most searching exposes. It will answer the question
that has enduring relevance: Is a monarchy good for the Jews? Does the Torah demand it?
In this essay, we will outline a subject that he broached in Deuteronomy. See Torah Seascapes.
Indeed, Abravanel takes a deep dive into governance, determined to get to the bottom of the
tense dialogue in Samuel 8. In the final analysis, we will walk away with a rich understanding of
the role (or non-role) of a monarchy.
As stated, that discourse begins with a verse in Deuteronomy: “When you are come unto the
land which the LORD your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall dwell therein; and shall
say: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me. You shall in any wise
set him king over you, whom the LORD your God shall choose; one from among your brethren
shall you set king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother”
(Deuteronomy 17).
What is the nature of this commandment, if in fact a divine commandment it is? To the point,
Abravanel asks: If establishing a monarchy is God’s will, why hadn’t Joshua assumed the throne
hundreds of years earlier? Why hadn’t the Hebrew judges placed a king upon the throne or
taken the crown themselves? Finally, had Samuel not grown old, and had his sons judged
honestly, no one would have asked for a king.
Abravanel’s comprehensive discourse covers far more assumptions and critiques than we can
delineate here. Hence, we shall share some of his most salient takeaways. On the subject of
absolute monarchies, suffice it to say that they are unmitigated disasters. Ruthless tyrants
terrorize one and all. Clearly, that system, really a nightmare, has no redeeming value.
Concerning constitutional monarchies, Abravanel gives them only moderately better marks,
despite Aristotle’s ebullience. Abravanel debunks the ancient philosopher’s premises and
conclusions. Essentially, he remains unconvinced that society can’t be better run by a congress
or assembly? Preferable, Abravanel learns, that a nation be run by majority rule, by men who
serve for short, designated periods before retiring.
Abravanel teaches that Renaissance Italy (where he lived out his last years) enjoyed
enlightened public policy, one that contributed to flourishing, Italian city-states. Two hallmarks
of their system included an audit of the outgoing assembly by the incoming one and term limits.
Let us move to Abravanel’s second question. Assuming that constitutional monarchy works best
for Gentiles (which is more than a stretch than an assumption), is it good for the Jews? Consider
the three main functions kings traditionally performed: military commander, exemplary moral
conduct, and supreme arbiter of law, even with extra-legal prerogative.
In short shrift, Abravanel implores Jews to resist a monarchy. It’s imperative that Gentiles have
a king, because they weren’t given divine commandments and concomitant divine providence.
But, for Hebrews, kings are ridiculous. The Maker fights on behalf of His people, thwarting all
enemies. Certainly, Jews don’t need someone at the helm to lecture on ethics insofar as Torah
commandments are designed to give the Chosen People a conscious. Finally, Jews don’t need
kings to serve as supreme court justices, with the wide berth and authority that allows them,
judiciously, to decide on an ad hoc basis or by means of extra-legal discretion. Hebrew judges
were granted that supra-legal tool. In summary, the reasons that drive non-Jews to desire a
king simply do not apply to Jews; God is their King. As such, Jews gain nothing from that sort of
governance. Besides, society flourished under the Hebrew judges who did exceedingly well.
What remains is to understand Abravanel’s approach regarding the Torah’s attitude toward
establishing a monarchy. Is it a mitzvah? That will be our next essay.