The Political Economy of the Book of Judges

The famous phrase in judges is:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes (judges 21:25).

I have yet to hear a single sermon describing this phrase as anything other than a moral phrase – that is, interpreters have taken the phrase as making a moral statement about the hearts of men at the time – that they were particularly wicked, selfish or sinful.

This always struck me as problematic.

Theologically, we know that man is inherently sinful. He is not more or less sinful based on particular deeds he does or because of circumstances around him. But rather, sin comes from within a man as part of his natural condition. In this sense, Judges cannot be telling us that man was particularly sinful – as though sin were judged in shades of grey – rather than black and white, as scripture tells us. There is sin, and then there is holiness. There is no in-between.

But I think if we also take the bible at face value, we have to consider the context of the phrase, and the words surrounding it. Namely, that “there was no King in Israel.”

This statement is the qualifier of “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” In other words, this phrase is a political one, not describing men’s hearts, but describing the fact that man did not have secular authority over him. Man did not have a king bossing him around, so he could do what was right in his own eyes.

The bible does not make a moral statement about the anarchy during the period of the judges – it just says, this is how it was. And, ironically, man’s hearts were no different than was Israel had kings – they wavered back and forth between following God and indulging in sin. In other words, political anarchy had no bearing on the natural moral rebellion of man.

Part of my inspiration to address this comes from this article over at the Mises Institute, which, though theologically questionable, does a good job dealing with the political economy of this portion of scripture:

It was a conservative society; adherence to proven principles was the only way by which the pursuit of happiness could be furthered. That which was “right” in the tribesman’s eyes was “right” by custom, tradition and the laws of Yahweh, to the enumeration of which the Old Testament, before the Book of Joshua, devoted much space. Freedom is not license.

Nor was there lack of leadership before the coming of the kings. Someone had to plan strategy and improvise tactics for the wars the tribesmen engaged in during their march to the Promised Land, and someone had to adjudicate disputes so as to prevent the chaos of internecine struggles. So came the judges, men and women esteemed for their wisdom and integrity, the leaders provided by nature for the instruction of the rank and file.

The evidence leads to the conclusion that these judges ruled by natural selection and common consent, much like the chiefs of American Indian tribes. It was agreed that the authority of the judges was sanctified by God, but the proof of their anointment was the manner in which they exercised authority. They were leaders by virtue of their proven gift of leadership.

The important thing about the rule of the judges is that their office was not endowed with the power of coercion. “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” meant that no man was compelled to do otherwise; and, since “in those days there was no king in Israel,” it must be presumed that there was no constabulary to enforce rules of behavior. The sole enforcement agency upon which the authority of the judges rested was public opinion. “So said Yahweh” had the force of “so say we all.”

For man’s earliest beginnings, he has attempted to form secular authority on the model of pure, holy and all-knowing authority of God. This leads to the dangerous (both politically and theologically) thinking that Government should be obeyed as God is obeyed – that somehow such structures are always God-appointed and that advocating limits on government or even its abolition is something demonic and anti-God.

But, as Judges and the kingdom afterwards demonstrates, man will make an idol out of authority. God’s people, in their impatience to see order, justice and rightness in this life, attempt to help God out by making rulers to do good. But only God is good.

You may also be interested in:

1. Why I Am Not An Anarchist
2. Donald Miller’s Prayer at the DNC
3. Libertarian Infighting Dooms It As A Political Movement
4. Thinking About The Economy
5. Some Important Questions On The NT Canon