Question 1

What information does the phrase “in those days” add to the narrator’s comment?

Accepted Answer

“In those days” places the story in a remembered earlier period rather than the narrator’s present. It does not name a date, but it signals distance: the narrator is looking back on an era with recognizable features. In this verse, that feature is the lack of a king in Israel. The phrase therefore works like a heading over the coming narrative, telling readers to interpret the events against the background of a different social-political setting than a later, monarchic period. The focus is less on chronology precision and more on characterizing the kind of time it was.

Question 2

What two conditions does the narrator connect in Judges 17:6?

Accepted Answer

The verse links (1) the absence of a king in Israel and (2) the pattern that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The narrator presents these as connected features of the same period. The relationship is not argued in detail, but it is implied: without centralized leadership, people defaulted to personal judgment as their guide. Importantly, the verse states these as broad conditions, not as exceptions or localized problems. It frames the social atmosphere that will make the later actions in Judges 17–18 more understandable within the book’s storyline.

Question 3

In what way is “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” a summary statement rather than a report about one person?

Accepted Answer

The wording is generalized: “everyone” (literally, each man/person) and “in his own eyes” describes a pattern across society. That makes it a narrator’s summary of decision-making norms rather than a psychological report about an individual’s motives. The statement does not specify which issues people were deciding (civil disputes, worship, ethics), but it signals that the standard for “right” was individualized. As a framing line, it prepares readers to see the coming episodes as representative examples of a wider condition rather than as unusual one-off behavior.

Question 4

What does “no king in Israel” explicitly say—and what does it leave unstated?

Accepted Answer

Explicitly, it says that Israel did not have a king during the period being described. It leaves unstated several things: whether some other leadership structures existed (local elders, clan heads, temporary deliverers), whether the lack of a king is being presented as the main cause of disorder, and whether the narrator thinks a king would solve the problem. The verse is concise and interpretive, but it does not spell out a full political theory. Readers infer more only by observing how similar refrains function elsewhere in Judges and how the stories unfold.

Question 5

How does Judges 17:6 guide a reader’s expectations for Judges 17–18?

Accepted Answer

It acts as a lens. Before any specific events are narrated, the reader is told the setting is one of weak national unity (“no king”) and individualized standards (“right in his own eyes”). That primes the reader to expect uneven practices and messy outcomes, especially in situations where shared rules or enforcement would normally matter. Since Judges 17–18 deals with private religious arrangements and tribal action, the verse encourages reading those actions as part of a broader environment of fragmentation. The line functions more like an interpretive headline than a plot detail.

Question 6

What evidence in the verse suggests it is narrator commentary rather than dialogue or a character’s viewpoint?

Accepted Answer

The verse is delivered as an all-encompassing description of the era: “in those days,” “there was no king in Israel,” “everyone did…” This kind of sweeping perspective is typical of narrator commentary, not of a character speaking from a limited location and experience. Nothing in the line is tied to a named speaker, setting, or immediate conversation; it stands above the action. Its purpose is to orient and interpret, providing a framework for the reader. That function matches how similar refrains appear at key points later in Judges.

Question 7

Does the verse present the people’s behavior as connected to external standards or internal standards? How can you tell?

Accepted Answer

It presents behavior as governed by internal, personal standards: “what was right in his own eyes.” The phrase itself contrasts with guidance coming from outside the individual—such as a shared authority, enforced law, or commonly recognized norm. The verse does not specify what that external standard would be, but it clearly describes the criterion as personal perception (“in his own eyes”). Combined with “no king,” the narrator paints a picture where shared direction is weak and each person’s judgment becomes decisive. Whether this is primarily critique or description is inferred, but the internal standard is explicit.

Judges 17:6

Scripture