Judges 21:25 - Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

In those days there was no king in Israel There were elders, (Judges 21:16,) who had some authority, and there was a high-priest, (Judges 20:28,) but there was no supreme governor, such as Moses and Joshua were, and after them the judges, and none that had power sufficient to punish public wrongs, whoredoms, and idolatries, and thereby check the progress of vice and profanenness, and keep the people in order. “The sacred writer,” says Dr. Dodd, “no doubt, repeats this observation to account for the disorders and enormities mentioned in the four preceding Chapter s; which exhibit a most depraved state of things;” every man doing what was right in his own eyes Or, following his own corrupt passions and inclinations. “It is a natural inference from hence, that men ought to be extremely thankful for lawful authority: and, if they would preserve their felicity, ought to be zealous to support that authority, as well as to discourage all licentious approaches toward its dissolution. The Persians have a custom which justifies this reflection. When any of their kings die, they suffer the people to do as they please for five days, that by the disorders then committed, they may see the necessity of legal government, and learn submission to it. In general, the four Chapter s which finish this book show us to what a degree the Israelites were degenerated in the short space from the death of Caleb to the election of his younger brother to be their judge: we discover the true cause of the chastisements wherewith God punished them from time to time, though he delivered them from their enemies, under whose yoke they must infallibly have fallen, if God had not beheld them with compassion, and raised them up judges to save them from ruin. We just remark, in conclusion, that it would be unreasonable to draw any inference from the tumultuous and irregular actions of a tribe or people, to the lessening of the authority of the writer of any history. The writer of the present book ought rather to be admired for the impartiality with which he relates facts so little to the credit of his nation.”