“You shall place over yourself a king” (D’varim 17:15). Our sages tell us (Sifre 157, see also Sanhedrin 20b) that this is one of the 613 Biblical commandments; Rambam lists it as positive commandment #173 and the Chinuch lists it as commandment #499. Yet, when the nation requests a king, (Sh’muel I 8:5), which would allow them to fulfill this mitzvah, both Sh’muel and G-d are quite unhappy about it (8:6-7, 10:19 and 12:17). Even though the Torah tells us (D’varim 17:14) that the process of anointing a king will start with a request from the people for a king, when they do, they are rebuked. Why is this request called “evil” if those who made it were only following the divine commandment?

Most commentators explain that requesting a king wasn’t the problem, it was the way they asked and/or their motivation for asking that was inappropriate. However, when Sh’muel lectures them about it, he only refers to the actual request, not the way it was put or their reason for making it. After demonstrating that G-d is upset with them, the people admit that they were wrong for asking (Sh’muel I 12:19), without a hint that it was anything but the request itself that was problematic. If appointing a king was commanded, why would G-d be upset with them for wanting to do so?

Some (e.g. Rav Saadya Gaon and Ibn Ezra; many understand one of the Talmudic opinions this way as well) explain that having a king wasn’t a requirement, but was permitted if the nation requested it. Nevertheless, why would G-d allow such a request if having a king was a bad idea? Or get upset about a request they were explicitly allowed to make?

S’fornu and Abarbanel compare the commandment to have a king to the commandment of the “Y’fas To’ar” (the conversion process of a female captured during war); G-d would prefer if it didn’t happen, but recognized that, due to human frailty, it was inevitable. He therefore gave us the guidelines for dealing with these unfortunate circumstances (the conversion process and the process for choosing a king). However, we are implicitly told that having a king is a good thing, that it could have prevented such catastrophes as Micha’s graven image (see Shoftim 18:1) and the near loss of the entire Tribe of Binyamin over the murdered concubine (19:1). Besides, since G-d did sanction having a king, how could He get upset when the people took advantage of the opportunity He offered them?

Which brings us back to our original question, framed slightly differently: If having a king is a good thing, why were G-d and Sh’muel upset that the people asked for one? And why wasn’t a king appointed earlier (by Y’hoshua or any of the Shoftim before Sh’muel)? On the other hand, if having a king is not a good thing, why did G-d command it (or allow it) at all?

In his commentary on Sh’muel, Malbim identifies three problems with the request for a king. The first one, which is what he focuses on in his commentary on D’varim, is based on the timing of the request. Under “natural” conditions, having a king is necessary for a society to function in order to give the people direction and coordinate their efforts to accomplish things. However, the Children of Israel did not live under “natural” conditions, at least not yet. They had leaders, most recently the Shoftim, who helped them live “miraculously,” with divine guidance and intervention, and therefore did not need a human king to lead them. This wasn’t always going to be the case, though; because there would be times (possibly long stretches of time) when the nation would not benefit from such divine guidance and intervention, having a human king would become necessary. The commandment to appoint a king was meant to be “activated” after the period of always living “miraculously” ended, which the Malbim says did not occur while Sh’muel was still alive (as evidenced by his causing it to rain during the dry season, see 12:17). Therefore, G-d was upset that they asked for a king prematurely.

There are several issues that need to be addressed with Malbim’s approach. First of all, Sh’muel had “retired,” and was no longer actively leading the nation, handing the leadership over to his sons (8:1). Malbim says they should have just asked Sh’muel to “un-retire,” but even if he could, that would only help temporarily (the verse describes Sh’muel as being “old”). It would be reasonable to ask Sh’muel now to start the process of transitioning to the kind of leadership that would become necessary after he was no longer able to lead. Secondly, if the reason the timing was wrong is based on there still being the kind of leadership that made having a human king unnecessary, when the nation offered to take back their request, why wasn’t their retraction accepted? If the time wasn’t right, and the nation was willing to wait until the time was right, why was a king still appointed? Also, if the timing was based on having someone who could lead the nation “miraculously,” were there no other prophets after Sh’muel who could do so? Without a “kingdom” that could be split, couldn’t Eliyahu, or other prophets, have maintained the nation’s “miraculous” existence?

If we combine (to a certain extent) the approaches of Sfornu/Abarbanel and Malbim, we can try to explain all of these issues. It would have been preferable if we didn’t need a king at all. Our trust in G-d should be strong enough to not need a human “Head of State” to lead us in wartime (or other times), and to follow the directions communicated through His prophets. We should respect G-d’s wish that we follow the law of the land and not need a powerful enforcer of the law. And we should treat each other well enough to not need a king to ensure that nobody is abusing the law, or skirting the law while taking advantage of others. In other words, if we were on a high enough level, we wouldn’t need a king. G-d would be our only King, and having a human king under such circumstances would be less than ideal. If, however, we cannot attain – or maintain – such high standards, we are better off having a king to rule over us, a monarchy that follows G-d’s law and does everything it can to make sure that everything runs as it’s supposed to. Are we better off not needing a king? Yes. Is it always better to not have a king? No. (As opposed to Abarbanel, who makes the case for it never being preferable to have a king – favoring a parliament run by Torah leaders.)

Y’hoshua didn’t appoint a king because he was hoping it wouldn’t be necessary. But as the years passed, it became apparent that some were taking advantage of the lack of a central authority. This occurred throughout the rule of the Shoftim, as the two verses cited above imply. What would be the true indicator that a king had become necessary? The Torah tells us to wait until the people ask for one. A popular request for a king could be a sign that injustices had become so widespread that a powerful ruler was needed to correct them. Or it could be the result of the nation falling to the point of needing a titular leader to look up to (replacing G-d, to some extent). Either way, the appropriate response would have been to try getting (back) to a level where a king was not necessary. Instead, it became necessary to actually appoint a king, in order to keep the nation from moving further away from G-d and His laws. Additionally, although the leaders asked for a king because of the lawlessness (see Sanhedrin 20b), the people didn’t want to have to deserve G-d’s protection and guidance in order to survive or succeed (see Sh’muel I 7:3), and wanted “a king, so we can be like all the other nations” (8:20; compare with 8:5, where the leaders wanted a king to judge them like the other nations have a king who judges them, whereas the people wanted to be like the other nations, i.e. not needing to be righteous). [Based on the leaders’ request, Sh’muel took it as an affront, since they were asking for a better “judge,” while G-d responded based on the people’s request, that the request was based on their not wanting to have to serve Him.] Rather than reaffirming their commitment to G-d and clamping down on injustice without needing a central authority to do so, the people exercised their option to ask for a king, making it necessary to appoint one even though they could have avoided it.

It was this turning point, being at the level where it now became preferable to have a king, which raised G-d’s ire. He had known that this point would eventually be reached, and therefore commanded (or allowed) the people to appoint a king – when it became necessary. But just because this transition was now necessary doesn’t mean it had to have become necessary. Asking for a king when they didn’t really need a one yet was a major factor in their actually needing one, so the people were rebuked for the request itself. Once it became necessary to have a king, though, even after they understood the problem with requesting a king (Shmuel I 12:19), G-d told Sh’muel to appoint one.