“And Samuel called the people together unto the LORD to Mizpah.”
The conclusion of Samuel 10 reads anti-climactically, sort of. Those verses pertain to the coronation of
King Saul in Mizpah, attended by the entire nation. Abravanel explains that the venue, Mizpah, held
centuries-long, religious importance as a holy haunt. Some five hundred years earlier, Joshua had
erected an altar there. From that time forward, Jews regularly frequented Mizpah, where they would
pour out their hearts to the Maker. A magnet, Mizpah attracted Hebrews. It evoked the very best in
people, helping them achieve closeness with God.
Let’s move on to the main point here in this essay: the selection of King Saul to serve as the first Hebrew
monarch. In Mizpah, the prophet assembled the people. “And he said unto the Children of Israel.” At
this juncture, Samuel lambasted the Jews. Though they experienced miracle after miracle wrought by
the Creator in Egypt and beyond, still they clamored for a monarchy. Thus, a lottery began. “Now
therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands.”
High drama ensued. “So Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was
taken. And he brought the tribe of Benjamin near – by their families. And the family of the Matrites was
taken; and Saul the son of Kish was taken.”
Abravanel questions Samuel’s motives for having convened the people. Hadn’t God already commanded
Samuel of His choice? Hadn’t the prophet already anointed Saul? Even more fundamentally, Abravanel
asks, why had God been the Kingmaker (via Samuel) in the first place? Was that the Creator’s domain?
Far better, Abravanel boldly entertains, had the nomination and nod come from among the ranks, from
the people themselves. After all, it had been their initiative – and not the Maker’s – to establish a
monarchy. Finally, the world over, it is the people who elect their leaders, a choice based on merit.
- God took the prerogative to Himself because He feared tribal bickering. Each tribe would put
forth a man from his tribe and the matter had potential for igniting ugly, internecine
factionalism. Or worse, perhaps in an absence of consensus two or more kings would reign. - Men are gullible. And choosing Mr. Right is tricky business. If the Maker had not directed Samuel
to anoint Saul, owing to his sterling character, a charlatan may have looked the right part and
won the popular vote. Man sees superficialities. He votes for whom he believes to be
upstanding, although in actuality the churl is a cad. God, in contrast, sees what’s in a man’s
heart and thus can be depended upon to pick the right man for the highest job in the land. - Had the people voted on a king, perforce, he would be beholden to them. A favor here. A job
there. In short, the king’s dispensations would all but assure a national disaster, a corrupt cadre
of boors and bums. Torah values assure the proper running of society, not policies based on
returning favors to avarice, manipulative, and disingenuous kingmakers.
Really, our discussion here should be viewed as a complement and/or supplement to a verse found in
Deuteronomy 17: “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 a king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who
is not your brother.”
God, naturally, via His prophet, had settled the matter of kingship to the people’s satisfaction. “And
Samuel said to all the people: See you him whom the LORD has chosen, that there is none like him
among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said: Long live the king.” In this way, Abravanel
peeks into Samuel’s head to answer the questions posed above, allowing Bible students to gain clarity as
to God’s, the Kingmaker’s rationales, in His vital role in establishing the Jewish regent.