Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Original Language Analysis
Cross References
Historical Context
The period of Judges (approximately 1375-1050 BC) was characterized by tribal confederation without centralized human government. After Joshua's death, Israel had no permanent national leader except Yahweh as their divine King. Judges were temporary, regional deliverers raised up during crises. This theocratic system worked only when Israel maintained covenant faithfulness, but required corporate obedience Israel proved unable to sustain.
The repeated cycle in Judges—apostasy, oppression, repentance, deliverance—demonstrates Israel's inability to maintain faithfulness without external accountability. The book's structure shows progressive moral decline. The phrase "no king in Israel" is ironic because Israel's lack of centralized authority wasn't the problem—their rejection of God's authority was. When they later demanded a king "like all the nations" (1 Samuel 8:5), Samuel warned that human monarchy would bring oppression. The subsequent history showed political solutions cannot solve spiritual problems.
Questions for Reflection
- How does contemporary culture's embrace of moral relativism reflect Israel's "every man did right in his own eyes" mentality?
- What specific areas tempt us to rely on personal intuition rather than God's revealed Word?
- How does this verse demonstrate that external religious structure cannot produce righteousness apart from heart transformation?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. This verse provides the theological diagnosis for all corruption in chapters 17-21. The phrase "no king in Israel" appears four times in Judges (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), functioning as historical observation and theological indictment. Israel's true King was Yahweh (Exodus 15:18), yet they rejected His kingship by disregarding His law. The absence of human monarchy didn't cause chaos—rejection of divine authority did.
The phrase "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" describes moral relativism and autonomous self-determination—the essence of sin since Eden. When Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit, they asserted their right to define good and evil independent of God's revealed will (Genesis 3:5-6). Proverbs 21:2 warns: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." From a Reformed perspective, this verse encapsulates the doctrine of total depravity and the necessity of external moral authority. The Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 149) states we need Scripture to define right and wrong, not human intuition or cultural consensus.