Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post Reply
User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by jaydam » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:25 pm

I am having a discussion with my seminary class related to the use of this phrase in Judges. I am the sole believer in my understanding of this phrase, while the professor and students disagree with me. I will not post the entire discussion here, but a single post where I summed up most of my thought. The post is not well worded, but I believe I support my point well. Am I crazy in my understanding? The class thinks I am.

Here is a post of mine from the seminary discussion:
My primary point would be that doing what is right in one's own eyes cannot be proven from the Bible to be meant as an inherently negative statement, and is likely positive.

Deut 12:8-9 talks about it as the method they lived by up to the invasion. Further, it says they must stop living that way for a time as they invade (Deut 11:31), not because it was bad, but because they had not yet come into their inheritance.

Pr 16:2 and 21:2 does not say God has any problem with such living. His problem is the heart.

In Judges, we insinuate that it is a negative thing. However, no explicit statement of the wrongness of such living can be found, and Deut 12:8 seems the strongest case that it is ok.

This is my basic case: Deut 12:8-9 looks to the time every man can do right in his own eyes, because they have come into their inheritance. Joshua 21:43-44 tells us that the Deuteronomy 12:9 issue was fulfilled. The author of Judges is then making a statement related to the era the people were living in - not a negative statement, but a descriptive statement. They were living pre-king, but in the time Deut 12:8 was looking forward to where they could do right by their own eyes having come into their rest and inheritance.

To say doing right in their own eyes is a bad thing, is to at least make a neutral statement a negative one by bringing our own inflection into it. This is exactly what exegetical teaching warns us about.

I do not have my case eloquently stated yet, but I believe it is exegetically airtight.

In other words: First, the phrase is at least a neutral statement. Second, the phrase is likely a positive statement because it is tied by Deut 12:9 to living at rest and in their inheritance. In fact, Judges 21:24-25 further supports this positive understanding as the book ends on a positive note, and ties the phrase under consideration in with the positive ending - an ending that leaves us with all Israel settled in their inheritance.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by TheEditor » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:12 pm

Hi Jaydam,

I tend to agree with you. Not because this statement about "doing what was right in their own eyes" is necessarily reflective of their having made good decisions with that freedom, but rather that that period of time of the Judges was God's arrangement, and the nation's desire for a King was contrary to God's will and a rejection of Him as expressed in 1 Samuel chapter 8. It's worthy of note that in the period of the Kings which spans 510 years, of forty-three kings in that time, only six had a decent enough record with God that it was written "they did what was right in the eyes of the Lord".

In the period of the Judges there were long stretches of peace. (Judges 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28) and only one prophetess (Deborah) needed to be sent to Israel.

So, the way each one "did what was right in his own eyes" may not have been proper, but the arrangement for allowing that freedom and sending a Judge when neccesary was God's preferred method of dealing with Israel.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by jaydam » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:51 pm

Thanks Brenden! I'm glad to know others might see it close to my opinion.

I agree that it does not mean they acted correctly, but I do believe the phrase reflects upon a level of self-governance which God wanted people to have. Something they gave up to have a king.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by TheEditor » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:09 pm

I suppose one could also view it merely as a post-script for those who might ask why the King didn't do something about certain matters going on; There was no king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by Singalphile » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:32 pm

If your class is saying that it is necessarily and inherently sinful to do "what is right in one's own eyes", then I would disagree. Is it necessarily a sin to do what you think is right? Obviously not.

On the other hand, if your class is saying that society is necessarily disorganized and disorderly when every individual is doing "what is right in his own eyes", then I can agree with that.

So I would say that it's a morally neutral figure of speech, but it probably does indicate a lack of even a basic level of social or political order. In that sense, I think the phrase is probably always meant to describe a less-than-ideal situation.

... then again, it could just be purely descriptive. Hard to say.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by mattrose » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:44 pm

I think the setup (theocracy as opposed to monarchy) was ideal

But I think the author of Judges meant it negatively, b/c (due to the sinfulness of the people during that time) the results were very evil.

When Steve visited my area a couple years ago we actually debated this a bit.

dizerner

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by dizerner » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:20 pm

I agree with those who say it was merely a neutral statement of fact, recorded history. Whether it's a good thing or bad thing is a different question, but I think Scripture indicates godly leaders are a good thing.

User avatar
willowtree
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:56 pm
Location: Sooke BC Canada

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by willowtree » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:54 pm

Singalphile wrote:If your class is saying that it is necessarily and inherently sinful to do "what is right in one's own eyes", then I would disagree. Is it necessarily a sin to do what you think is right? Obviously not.

On the other hand, if your class is saying that society is necessarily disorganized and disorderly when every individual is doing "what is right in his own eyes", then I can agree with that.

So I would say that it's a morally neutral figure of speech, but it probably does indicate a lack of even a basic level of social or political order. In that sense, I think the phrase is probably always meant to describe a less-than-ideal situation.

... then again, it could just be purely descriptive. Hard to say.
I have always understood the last verse of Judges to be a sad commentary on the period of the judges, and indicative of a turning away from that which God had hoped and longed for in his people. This verse contrasts with one of the last verses in Joshua where it says 'Israel served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who had outlived him and who had experienced everything the Lord had done for Israel". Joshua 24:31. The book of Judges tells a different story.

So I am inclined to favour the class's position on this.

There is, to me a vast difference between "doing what is right", and "doing what is right in their own eyes." God had high hopes for this emerging nation, promising that they would be his people and He would be their God. That His people were doing what was right in their own eyes is a report that God was not (no longer) central to their governance and national development.

Graeme
If you find yourself between a rock and a hard place, always head for the rock. Ps 62..

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by steve » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:56 pm

I'm with Jaydam on this. It is hard to see, if the writer wished to portray a morally bad system, why he would not have described the people as doing what was "evil in their own eyes" (or at least "evil in the sight of the Lord"), rather than what was "right" in their own eyes. What's wrong with pursuing what one thinks is good—especially when they have God's laws to inform their national consciences? Doesn't Paul recommend this very policy for Christians: "Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom.14:5)?

In Judges, the statement that everyone did what was right in his own eyes is not contrasted with doing what is right in God's eyes. If it were, it would suggest something bad. It is contrasted, instead with Israel's having a king. Doing "what is right in one's own eyes" seems to be presented as the only alternative to having a monarchy (in which everyone is required to do what is right in the king's eyes). The repeated phrase was not a commentary on whether the people were doing right things or wrong things. It tells us whose conscience—that of the individual, or that of a government agent—people were required to follow. Having everyone follow his own conscience did not guarantee ideal behavior, but it was clearly superior to the later arrangement, under which the kings led the nation into apostasy.

During the period of the judges, in addition to the periodical, brief backslidings, there were (actually, much longer) seasons of idyllic piety—as depicted in the book of Ruth. There is no indication in Judges or Ruth, that it was worse for people to do what was right in their own eyes than later, when they were required to do what was right in the eyes of an Ahab or a Manesseh.

There were actually more years of Israel's obedience to God (that is, intolerance of idolatry) during the period of the judges than there were during the period of the monarchy.

The period of the judges saw many more years of peace and righteousness than of disobedience. The reverse was true of the monarchy.

We read of certain evils done during the period of the judges, it is true—since people tended to briefly lapse (usually after forty or eighty years of general obedience)—but the northern kingdom, under the monarchy, was perpetually lapsed—as was the southern kingdom, with a few interruptions.

In a monarchy, leadership is a matter of hereditary succession (except in cases of military coops). This means that a good king will normally be succeeded by his son, even if his son is a fool. Solomon bemoaned this fact (with good cause!) in Ecclesiastes.

After the conquest of Canaan, instead of establishing a monarchy, God set Israel up as a loosely-affiliated tribal league (sometimes called an Amphictyony), under one religion—having no central government, no standing armies, no police, and no laws other than the Mosaic Code to which the people were subjected.

Israel tried to transform itself into a monarchy under Gideon, but Gideon objected to it upon principle: "I shall not reign over you...The Lord shall reign over you" (Judges 8:22-23). God saw the later establishment of a monarchy as the people's rejecting Him, that He should not rule over them (1 Sam.8:7). Though God gave them a king, as they asked, He was angry with them when He did so (Hos.13:11).

Think of it. Moses left Joshua as his successor in leadership, but God provided no successor to Joshua (nor to any of the subsequent judges). Instead of a hereditary (institutional) leadership, God raised up ad hoc charismatic (Spirit-filled) leadership, as necessary. I personally believe that this is also the way God set up the church.

The apostles were Christ's earthly "successors," but there were no successors to the apostles. God intended that the church would consist of people who willingly submit to and follow Christ, led by such charismatic (spiritually gifted) leaders as He might provide, as needed. Shortly after the deaths of the apostles, the church had institutionalized itself under monarchial bishops—leading to its own corruption under the influence of an institutional/political (not spiritual) leadership.

Under the tribal league, God governed Israel as a nation collectively, and the citizens individually, through His laws and their consciences. Each individual was expected to follow the law, where it spoke, and to follow his conscience, where no law applied. This meant that no dictator could bring the whole nation into rebellion against God (as Ahab and Manesseh later did). Some individuals might rebel against God, but they could not force their neighbors, or the whole nation, to do so. On occasions when most of the nation drifted from God, God (their King) brought discipline upon them to bring them back to Him—and back they came! It was a system that worked well, until they sinfully abandoned it.

dizerner

Re: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes

Post by dizerner » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:09 pm

willowtree wrote:There is, to me a vast difference between "doing what is right", and "doing what is right in their own eyes."
I like this. I'm reminded of the continuous metaphor in Scripture of "sheep without a shepherd."

Post Reply

Return to “History”