This verse is pivotal as it concludes 17.1-5 and sets the scene for what follows. It is more than a historical note, since it evaluates and condemns the entire period of the judges. All or part of this verse is repeated three more times, most prominently as the final verse of the book (see verse 18.1a; verse 19.1a; verse 21.25). It is the key thematic statement of this book.

In those days refers to the time when the judges lived, a time that is also mentioned in the book of Ruth (Ruth 1.1). More specifically in this context, those days could refer to the time period of 17.1-5, when one Israelite defied God’s Law by setting up his own shrine in his home and appointing his own priest. Here, as elsewhere, the noun days refers to a period of time, rather than to a specific date or day. We might say “At that time” or “During that period.”

There was no king in Israel: This comment looks back to the period of the judges from a time when kings were known in Israel. Though the book of Judges mentions kings (see, for example, verse 1.7; verse 3.8; verse 4.2), the Israelites did not have this form of government at that point in their history. The underlying message here is that kingship is good, and that the time without kings was one of chaos. For king see verse 1.7. Many cultures do not have kings, and some do not even have chiefs. If so, king may be rendered “great leader” or “big man.” However, translators must be careful to find two distinct words, one for king and one for “judge.” In this context Israel refers to the whole country of Israel, not just the northern kingdom. We might say “kings did not yet rule in Israel” or “the people of Israel were not yet ruled by kings.” Contemporary English Version says “This was before kings ruled in Israel.” But this does not seem an appropriate rendering of the thematic statement here.

Every man did what was right in his own eyes: This sentence criticizes what the Israelites did during the time of the judges. Every man is literally “a man,” which refers not just to males, but to all human beings, so we might say “each person,” “each one,” or “everyone.” The Hebrew verb rendered did can mean “do” or “make.” Here it introduces how each person behaved. What was right in his own eyes tells how each individual acted during this time period. The Hebrew adjective for right (yashar) can also mean “straight” (Ezek 1.7) or even “pleasing” (see verse 14.3, where its verbal form is rendered “pleases … well”). Here it has a moral sense. Each individual in Israel did what he thought was right. In his own eyes refers to a person’s conscience, his own standard. This whole sentence gives a negative assessment, saying that each individual did what he himself judged to be proper behavior. This implies there was no general law, no overriding system or standard, and people did not follow the law established by Moses. People misused their freedom to do evil acts. A similar expression occurs in Deut 12.8, showing the important link between these two books and their common approach to Israel’s history. Years after the period of the judges, kings and priests made a number of reforms and restricted worship to one central sanctuary in Jerusalem. From this viewpoint, Micah’s acts would have been vehemently condemned.

Translators should express the tone of this verse. It is a solemn condemnation of the time of the judges. Good News Translation says “There was no king in Israel at that time; everyone did whatever they wanted.” This rendering seems too broad and lacks the proper tone. A better model is:

• At that time there were no kings to rule Israel, and each person did whatever he thought was right.

Whatever wording is chosen, the expressions should remain the same, each time they appear in this book. This will preserve the literary flavor of the overriding theme here.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .