The monarchy is presented here as being the will of the nation wishing to imitate its neighbors. Despite this, generations of commentators debated whether the instruction ?you shall set a king over you? is a commandment or an instruction dependent on the will of the people. We will not determine who is correct in this debate, but let us examine the way the Torah treats the king, his reign, and his political power.
We find three restrictions placed upon the king in the Torah and each one has its own explanation.
First: ?he may not acquire many horses for himself? ? The king is restricted in his personal cavalry, something that every king in ancient times boasted about. The reason given is ?so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses.?
Second: ?he shall not take many wives for himself? ? The king cannot set up a royal harem. Having multiple wives was a known diplomatic practice in ancient times. Kings would forge diplomatic ties with other monarchies by marrying another king?s daughter. The reason given for this restriction – ?and his heart must not turn away.?
And the third: ?he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself? ? Rich kings are the way of the world, but a Jewish king is not supposed to accumulate great wealth. The reason being: ?so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers? ? Wealth leads to haughtiness and the king is commanded not to be arrogant despite his position.
Actually, the role of king in Israel, when carried out in accordance to the Torah?s instructions, is not that tempting. The fanciness, pleasures, and personal wealth were all forbidden, so what was left of the kingship? Mostly jobs and missions to accomplish.
So, what is the job of a king? We cannot learn this from history since most kings we know of took advantage of their status for their personal gain, or acted out of concern for their own respect. The three things forbidden a Jewish king ? ostentation, pleasures, and personal wealth ? were the central characteristics of monarchies throughout history. If Judaism took these away from the king, how does it view the role of king?
A chapter in Psalms is dedicated to this subject where we find the following verses:
For he will save a needy one who cries out, and a poor one who has no helper.
He will have pity on the poor and needy, and he will save the souls of the needy.
From blows and from robbery he will redeem their soul, and their blood will be dear in his eyes.
(Psalms 72, 12-14)
The job of the king is to be concerned about the welfare of the nation, in particular the weaker segments of society that cannot take care of themselves.
In actuality, when we think about it, it makes perfect sense for the king to be responsible for the welfare of his people. He is, after all, the person running the country with the ability to lead to prosperity in all facets of life. Who should concern himself with the prosperity of the nation and its welfare if not the king?
But, as we pointed out, history is full of examples of kings who did not act this way. The Torah recognizes this problem and deals with it by placing these restrictions on the king. If the king is forbidden from concerning himself with his own prosperity and cannot therefore become arrogant, the Torah leaves him to deal only with his moral obligations to his people.