Why Do We Even Need a King?
Emanuel Elstein, a yeshiva Torah Mitzion shaliach in Washington (2003-2004) and Avrech, Memphis (2010-2012) is currently Executive Director of Yeshivat Tekoa.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is considered one of the fathers of modern political philosophy. In his book Leviathan he explained the rationale for the existence of the state. In the 17th century, in a world that no longer believed in the divine right of kings to rule, and at the same time began to develop the idea of innate human rights, there was a need to explain the justification for a governmental mechanism that imposes itself on citizens and infringes upon their rights.
One of his most famous quotes about life without a state describes human existence as: “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man—solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Or in the words of the Sages: “Were it not for the fear of government, each man would swallow his neighbor alive.”
We can see the necessity of a strong state with the ability to enforce order, capable of creating a more just and moral society. Citizens accept upon themselves a “social contract,” in which they relinquish part of their rights in exchange for internal security (police) and external security (army). This perception still underlies the justification for the authority of the state to legislate and enforce laws, collect taxes, and at times even imprison citizens.
The Torah, too, addressed the need to appoint a king in order to establish a “normal” state, like the other nations. However, unlike what was common in the ancient world, the commandments relating to the king focus precisely on limiting his power, on mechanisms that prevent him from amassing too much authority. In fact, appointing a king is presented as an option—not as an absolute necessity.
Moses offered a different model for social repair, a revolutionary and far more demanding one: the Torah rejects the assumption that an external coercive power is required in order to achieve a just society. Instead, it establishes an intricate system of mitzvot between man and his fellow, all of which lead to fairness, justice, and social repair. The driving force is not fear of the monarchy—but fear of God.
In the ideal model set by the Torah there is an almost impossible demand and expectation for personal responsibility from every individual—both on a personal and communal level. Consequently, there is no need for a king to maintain social order; every Jew fulfills the commandments out of his personal commitment to serve God. In this sense, the model of the Book of Judges can be seen as the preferred form of governance in the Torah. This is also how Gideon explained his refusal to rule over Israel: “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you—the Lord shall rule over you.”
The difference between these conceptions of governance stems from different outlooks on human nature. Hobbes, who grew up during a bloody civil war in England, viewed man as an inherently selfish, violent, and irreparably competitive being. Therefore, we will always need a state framework that compels us to behave for the benefit of the collective. The Torah, on the other hand, recognizes man’s evil inclination and weaknesses, but also believes in our ability to repair ourselves as individuals and to repair society as a whole.
However, the historical experience of the Book of Judges failed. Within a few generations the situation deteriorated to the point of: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.” In practice, we did not succeed in creating the model society we aspired to. Both our external enemies and internal power-seekers exploited the absence of central government for their own benefit.
In the end, against the will of the prophet Samuel, and with a very ambivalent perspective from God, the first king was anointed. One of the king’s roles was to enforce social order and advance us toward the creation of a society of kindness and compassion. Thus, temporarily, we “had to” appoint a king—and later developed additional forms of government, until arriving at democracy, which also fulfills that same function.
Nevertheless, we must not give up on the utopian aspiration to return to direct rule by God. The vision has not disappeared, and the goal remains intact. Alongside the commandment to appoint a king, there was also hinted the option of redemption—of a moral and just society, without the need for external coercion, in which “each man shall help his fellow, and to his brother he shall say: Be strong.”
For comments: manager@yeshivatekoa.org