“Right in His Own Eyes”

Concerning the times of the judges of Israel, the comment of Scripture is, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”, Jud. 17. 6; 21. 25. Was this outlook approved or disapproved of by God? What may the believer learn today from this inspired remark?

Similar words are used by Moses; on the borders of the land, he gave instructions for the people who were about to possess Canaan. The joy, rest, peace and plenty of the land were for the people of God, Deut. 12. 1-12. Things were to be rather different from the discipline of the wilderness journey, where there was personal responsibility for actions, Deut. 12. 8-9, However, regulation of personal liberty seemingly awaited the establishment of the monarchy; under the judges there was every encouragement for each man to line up what God had shown to be right by law, ceremony, and priestly example, with his own standards of conscience. There was little coercion by society or government to do and be right. Here was a marvellous opportunity to be free to develop desires for holiness, and genuine worship and service. Undoubtedly there were many a Boaz whose godliness matured through personal exercise. And what a pleasure this deliberate personal dedication to righteousness would have brought to God! Yet this theocracy, with no one but God Himself as sovereign Lord over His people, was a time of individual and national failure, of idolatry, slavery, immorality and spiritual poverty. Human weakness was not equal to the wonderful opportunity of God’s ideal government for Israel.

The parallel with the Lord’s desires for each believer and every assembly today has often been drawn. But we are people who know the value of the Saviour’s blood, who love Him because He first loved us, who are the residences of the Holy Spirit, and who have the laws of God inscribed on our hearts. In his joyful liberty, the child of God has so much more reason than the Israelite for ensuring that doing everything that is right in his own eyes, accords with the pleasure of the Lord Jesus. In our inexcusable failures as individuals and assemblies to walk in this path, and with our dissatisfaction at the inevitable consequences of falling short, there is a natural temptation to resort to a human solution, just as the Israelites did.

The fact that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” was part and parcel with “In those days there was no king in Israel”, a situation which Gideon perpetuated: “I will not rule over you … the Lord shall rule over you”, Jud. 8. 23. Israel had resisted the example of Edom with its kings for many generations, 1 Chron. 1. 43, though Moses foresaw that his people would eventually fall to the temptation to copy the nations round about, Deut. 17. 14. Samuel was grieved with their evil desire for a king, 1 Sam. 8. 4-22. Whatever the final outcome through God’s overruling, the Lord was displeased, “they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”, v.7. The people were determined in their rebellion, despite the warnings of the inevitable consequences of vesting such power in a man. The next five centuries or so of

Israel’s history proved how accurate was Samuel’s description of an unscrupulous monarch. A man set over his fellows more often than not shows fallen nature in selfishness: “he will take …, take …, take …,” —Samuel repeated it six times over. They wanted a king to judge, lead and fight, but they would pay dearly for it by losing their liberties and the honour of personal responsibility to live righteously before their God. To Saul the people said, “Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee”, 1 Sam. 14. 36, 40, surrendering their own judgment and thus abrogating the dignity which should characterize the people of God.

Believers today may choose to make one of their number responsible for making decisions, for taking the lead, and for representing them to the world. However, this can so easily sap the individual vigour of the members of the assembly, but worse, it challenges the Lord’s own position in each life as well as over the company. Did not the Saviour Himself draw the line carefully between human institutions and the order amongst His own?, Luke 22. 25-26. He perceived the paradox of the benefits of human government merging with the aspirations of the rulers, lording it over their subjects. “But ye shall not be so”, said the Lord Jesus unequivocally to His disciples. His assembly will borrow nothing from human social systems. Quite the reverse; submission, so abhorred by the world, is to be the hallmark of every one of His followers as it was and will be of the Son of God Himself, Eph. 5. 22; 1 Cor. 15. 28.

If the change from judges to kings was so wicked that the heavens declared it, 1 Sam. 12. 16-20, why was the former regime (lasting more than four centuries, Acts 13. 20) so unsettled? Even Samuel’s own sons were no better than Eli’s and contributed to the dissatisfaction which led to the choice of Saul as king, 1 Sam. 8. 1-3. Samuel ought to have known that inheritance plays no part in the care of God’s flock; dynasties stand in contrast to the way in which God raises up spiritual shepherds. Samuel recounted the path of God with His people from the time of Moses to himself, 1 Sam. 12. 6-15. Though it was true that when Israel forsook God, “the hand of the Lord … was against your fathers”, time and again God through judges “delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and ye dwelled safe”. Then came another threat (from Nahash, king of the children of Ammon), and Israel demanded a human solution, a king to defend them. In every crisis in any age facing the people of God, His personal intervention ought rather to be sought than to appoint a human leader.

But did not Israel rise to greater heights socially and spiritually under the kings than under the judges (even if, led by her kings, she sunk to greater depths of depravity and ignominy)? Let us see that even if God’s people choose wrongly to rely on human government, God is still true to His covenant and He still requires that every man does what is “right in his own eyes”, responsible to conscience, the Word of God and the Spirit of God.

Moses gave instructions, Deut. 17. 14-20, for the conduct of the monarchy which God foresaw this wayward people would demand. The king was to be a man of God’s choice, and not a Gentile. The king would be steeped in the ways of God by copying, reading and learning the law. He should be humbly identified with his brethren. These instructions were a guard against all the pitfalls which human authority puts in a man’s way.

In the eventuality of men being discontented with the sole rule of God in heaven and wanting a human figurehead, the Lord provided all the precautions which would limit the damage and allow His people the greatest opportunity of walking with Him. In the trauma of the changeover from the judges to the kings, Samuel, the last judge, supported king Saul (representative of the “second best” way of governing Israel) after the victory of Jabesh Gilead, by saying, “Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there”, 1 Sam. 11. 14. He demonstrated the grace of God towards the new regime. His desire was above all that king and people should “continue following the Lord your God”; “turn not aside … but serve the Lord with all your heart”; “Only fear the Lord”, 1 Sam. 12. 14, 21, 24. Samuel, as a servant of the Lord will not cease to pray and “teach … the good and the right way”, and he expresses his confident knowledge of the heart of God towards a people who have made the error of shifting their God-ward responsibilities on to a king, “the Lord will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: because it hath pleased the Lord to make you his people”, 1 Sam. 12. 22, 23.

On the other side is the well-nigh impossible burden of responsibility which rests on those who assume the government over God’s people in any age, even although this is what the people want. These are the shepherds of Zechariah 11, and the hirelings of John 10. The Lord expects them to fulfil their role to His standards and will requite failure. And where do the God-appointed overseers in a New Testament assembly fit in? These are overseers of the flock, Acts 20. 28, ensamples to the flock, not “lords over God’s heritage”, 1 Pet. 5. 3. They must avoid any notion of usurping the place of the Chief Shepherd, v.4, and preserve every believer’s responsibility for personal righteousness. They correspond in some ways to the judges of ancient Israel, whilst shunning the kind of human authority which was accorded to the Hebrew kings.

Was Israel excused from the wrongness of their choice? They pre-empted God’s choice, the Lord Jesus, to sit on the throne of Israel. But God was gracious through a David, a Hezekiah and a Josiah. We must not condone attempts to set up human leaders in the church, yet we have an undeservedly faithful God who will perfect the Bride despite all our folly.