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.