The Failure of Democracy
Judges 21:25
The last verse of the Book of Judges is a summary, the
bottom line, of the entire book. It
reminds us of the repeated pattern for the previous 21 chapters. Israel kept
sinning against God. But what was their
problem? Why did Israel go wrong? And what does the Book of Judges, and this
verse in particular, have to tell us about God’s ideal civil government – and
America today?
By comparing Scripture with Scripture, one comes to the
following conclusion: God’s ideal civil government is what may be called “the
Righteous Republic.” It is a
republic. That is a civil system of
limited government. A republic is not a
monarchy nor anarchy. Israel had been
granted such a government by the direct grant of God. But Israel strayed, and their republic degenerated into a kind of
anarchy that was wide open for the rise of a monarchy.
More importantly, Israel’s republic was no longer a righteous republic. It was not righteous because the vast majority of Israelites followed their own inclinations and opinions rather that the Word of God. And when that happens, a republic cannot stand.
The text tells us, first, that Israel had no king at this
time: “In those days, there was no king
in Israel.” Samuel told us this before
in Judges 18:1 and 19:1, and the entire verse’s wording is repeated nearly
verbatim for 17:6. Whatever else Israel
was or was not, it certainly was not a monarchy. True, they had been conquered by external monarchies, but those
were not Israelite governments. And,
also true, there were a couple of times in which certain wicked power-hungry
Israelites attempted to establish a monarchy.
Abimelech, you will recall, attempted that in Judges 9.
Someone will ask, “But were not the judges such as Samson
and Gideon kings?” No, they were
judges, not kings. Judges were
temporary and had limited power. Kings
were permanent and had far greater power.
The judges were raised up by God for awhile, but left no dynasty. Kings, on the other hand, left their
children as heirs to the throne.
God’s ideal for Israel was that she be ruled by God as her
king. The judges and elders would only
serve as vice-regents, as it were. God
was the King, and therefore the ideal was that there would be no human king. And yet, when God gave laws and instructions
to Israel in the five Books of Moses on how to live as a nation, God saw the
day coming when Israel would want a human king. Very well, then, said the Lord.
If that is the case, then he must fit certain qualifications. Those qualifications and limitations are
given in Deut. 17:14-20.
That God allowed for a monarchy under certain conditions tells us something vital for our study: it is not so much the size of a government that matters so much as its relationship to God and His Laws. For example, God later blessed some Israelite monarchs. In fact, some of Israel’s kings were quite righteous and blessed – David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah, to name a few. And, on the other hand, God cursed Israel at times when it had no monarch but was very unrighteous, such as during the time of the Judges. The principle we can learn from that is this: a godly monarchy is better than an ungodly democracy, republic or whatever else a nation may have as its system of government. What really matters is not the size of a government, but its righteousness.
Our text goes on to say, “everyone did what was right in his
own eyes.” Is this a commendation or a
condemnation? Many people, especially
those who favor complete religious pluralism and democracy, consider this a
high accolade. What greater praise of a
system can there be than this: no tyranny, but complete freedom?
But this is no congratulations; it is a condemnation. The phrase is repeated elsewhere in Holy
Scripture with God’s obvious condemnation.
For instance, Deut. 12:8 says, “You shall not do what we are doing here
today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes.” Then there is Pro. 21:2, “Every man’s way is
right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.” Virtually the same words occur also in Pro.
16:2. And then there are other verses
in Proverbs which paraphrase the idea, such as 14:12, “There is a way that
seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
Earlier we saw a form of this phrase in the Book of
Judges. When Samson saw the woman in
Timnah, he lusted after her. He forsook
God’s righteousness and turned to mere sexual desire. 14:3 says that he loved her because “she looks good to me.” The Hebrew literally reads, “She is right in
my eyes.” Samson was acting just like
any other Israelite at that time.
You may recall another recurring phrase in the Book of
Judges: “Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord” (2:11, 3:7, 3:12, 4:1,
6:1, 10:6, 13:1). This is no
coincidence. Samuel, the inspired
author of the Book of Judges, is intentionally telling us something in these
phrases, and it is this: When a man does what is right in his own eyes, it is
necessarily evil in the eyes of the Lord.
This follows what the Bible teaches about the relationship
of our natures, our minds and our wills.
This has perhaps best been explored and explained by the great Jonathan
Edwards. Edwards showed that according
to Biblical psychology, a man’s will always follows his mind, and his mind
always follows his nature. Hence, men
are born in sin and have sinful natures; they therefore always see things
according to that nature; and consequently, their wills always follow their sinful
minds. When God saves a man, he must
change his nature – that is what we call regeneration, or the new birth. As a result, we have the mind of Christ, or
what Scripture calls the renewing of enlightening of our minds. As a result, our wills agree and trust what
the mind now sees. Such and such a
thing is right in our eyes in the proper way, for we see as God sees
things. That is faith. But when there is no faith, there is only
sin. The Israelites did what they
wanted to by following the dictates of their fallen minds and natures. That being so, it was necessarily evil in
the sight of the Lord.
This phrase, “every man did what was right in his own eyes,”
can be summed up in a single word when it comes to a society: democracy. You will recall that I noted that many
sociologists and political scientists and politicians hail this verse as a
description of the ideal society – no monarchy, but complete freedom. But, as we have also shown, God’s estimation
is the exact opposite. It is a
condemnation, not a compliment. But
why?
One reason has to do with the historical origins of democracy. Most political historians trace the roots of
democracy to ancient Greece. Well
enough, but that does not make it good.
To be good, something must be Biblical, not merely ancient. Monarchism is also ancient, but not
necessarily good. Moreover, we would do
well to heed the several warnings in Scripture about Greek philosophy (such as
in I Cor. 1). The pinnacle of Greek
democracy was found in Plato’s Republic.
Actually, it was not entirely a democracy or a republic by today’s definitions. It was certainly an improvement on Egyptian
Pharaohism and other tyrannies of the ancient world. But Plato’s Republic did not qualify as the Righteous Republic
according to God’s Word. Why? Because it was founded on human reason and
not on divine revelation.
There is another way
of looking at the problem of democracy.
I grant that, to a certain extent, the verse before us describes
democracy – no king, only freedom. But
since it is a condemnation, then we cannot truthfully say that the Bible
teaches that democracy is the best kind of government for a society to have.
Before we go any further, it is necessary to remind you of
what you all learned in your high school civics class (or should have
learned). The terms “democracy” and
“republic” are not synonyms. A republic
is not a democracy. They are similar,
but not identical. A republic is a
limited government with a constitution that sets down specific principles. A democracy, on the other hand, is not
necessarily based on a constitution. A
democracy is based more on the will of the people. Thus, if the people so will, then that government may be
diminished or enlarged. If it is
diminished, it becomes a “pure democracy” and then anarchy. If it is enlarged, it becomes a monarchy or
a tyranny.
Of course, this is not to confuse the terms with the two
political parties associated with them.
Most Republicans are in fact advocates of democracy, not supporters of
the republic. Does it make a
difference? Yes. The writers of our national constitution nowhere
used the word “democracy,” but rather “republic.”
So far, this is not too controversial. But let me throw some gasoline on the
fire. Some years ago, the founder of a
leading conservative political organization became famous when he said, “I
don’t believe in democracy.” That
leader disagreed with democracy because he favored the idea of a republic. But he did not go far enough. I do not believe in democracy, but for a
different reason. Democracy is not the
ideal system, for it does not match God’s ideal, namely that of the Righteous
Republic. Those who advocate the idea
of a republic are closer to the truth than those who believe in democracy, but
they share that error when they fail to see what the Book of Judges
teaches. That lesson is this: a
republic is better than a democracy, but a godly democracy is better than an
ungodly republic. Righteousness is the
main thing.
But there is another important principle: a republic is more
conducive to true righteousness than a democracy is. Why? The answer is
simple. A democracy is based on the
principle of “vox populi,” or “the voice of the people.” If the people, for example, want to legalize
vice, then so be it. If 51% of the
people want to legalize immorality, then it must be right. If they want to legalize abortion, drugs,
homosexuality and other vices that God strictly condemns, well, then, we must
obey man rather than God. In a
democracy, “vox populi” is the same as “vox dei.” Democracy means that the voice of the people is the voice of God,
which really means that in democracy Man is God.
You see, democracy is wrong, not merely because it
inherently leads to either anarchism or tyranny, but because it rejects the
Biblical truth of the Righteous Republic.
Democracy necessarily rests upon the idea of religious pluralism. It simply cannot produce “one nation under
God,” but a nation under whichever god the people want. But the Righteous Republic is first, last
and always “One nation under God.” The
Bible says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psa. 33:12). But such is impossible under democracy.
Now, as soon as you speak of “the heresy of democracy,’ you
will be totally misunderstood. Those
who believe in democracy will go paranoid and jump to the erroneous conclusion
that you are advocating tyranny and totalitarianism. Nothing could be further from the truth; the reverse is more
accurate. Democracy rejects human
totalitarianism as the ideal, and in that it is right. But democracy necessarily also rejects divine
totalitarianism, and in that it is wrong.
It simply cannot tolerate the notion of “One nation under the one God,”
ruled according to God’s Laws.
But this leads to other problems. Those who advocate the Righteous Republic are the strongest
opponents of human tyranny. Democracy
opposes tyranny, but if you examine history closely, you will find that
advocates of democracy would prefer a human tyrant to divine rulership. Such persons dread Communism and Nazism, but
they fear and hate the idea of a Righteous Republic far more. Why?
Because by nature, man wishes to be his own god and his own ruler. If his democracy fails, then he would accept
a totalitarian state if it is a human totalitarianism and not a divine one.
We see this in history.
Men prefer anything to the Righteous Republic. That is what the Book of Judges is all about. Israel tried again and again all sorts of
alternatives to God’s Righteous Republic.
They turned to foreign tyrannies, they turned to anarchy, they turned to
democracy. But they turned to God only
when God sent judges and revival.
Sinful men do not turn to God, but naturally turn away from God. That, friends, is why democracy appeals to
the natural man more than the Righteous Republic does. Man would rather be ruled by a Stalin or a
Hitler or other dictators than by God.
The favorite word in a Righteous Republic is just that,
“righteousness.” The key verse to this
system is Pro. 14:34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to
any people.” It is “one nation under
God.” It is all different in a
democracy. In a democracy, Man is what
matters, not God. It is “one nation
under Man.” In a system where the
majority rules, and that majority follows the dictates of the fallen heart, the
resulting dictum becomes: “Sin exalts a nation, but righteousness is a disgrace
to any nation.” We need not look far
for examples of this. Here in
democratic America, righteousness is going down the drains, and the sewers of
immoral unrighteousness are being opened like floodgates. The only “disgrace” in America is Biblical
righteousness. In democracy, all vice
becomes virtue, and virtue becomes vice.
Why? Because in democracy, every
man does what is right in his own eyes.
Related to the heresy of democracy is the problem of
freedom. In a Righteous Republic, there
is freedom to worship, but in a democracy there is the worship of freedom. In the one, there is freedom to worship God
according to the Bible, and unbiblical and pagan religions are suppressed. In the other, freedom itself is worshipped,
and eventually the true worship of God is suppressed.
There is a sense in which ”freedom” is a good thing. The Bible says so. But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for
freedom’s sake. The freedom God
approves of is freedom from sin and freedom to worship and obey Him. God freed Israel from Egypt, not so the Jews
could sin all they wanted to, but so they could worship and obey God rather
than Pharaoh. The same is true in
personal salvation: God saves us and frees us, not so that we can serve sin
(which is slavery) but so that we can serve Christ (which is true
freedom). See how it works?
“Freedom” in a democracy, however, has a different meaning
altogether from freedom in a Righteous Republic. Democratic freedom is what is shown in Judges 21:25, “Everyone
did what was right in his eyes.” Such
freedom means freedom to “do your own thing,” regardless of what God or the
Bible says. Democratic freedom means
freedom to sin, not freedom to worship God in God’s way.
Most of us would agree that tyranny, such as Marxism, is
against the idea of freedom of worship.
That is only partly true. Human
tyranny believes in a sort of freedom of worship – the freedom to worship Man,
be he the Caesar, the Pharaoh, the Furher or the State, which is Man
collectivized. Human tyranny does not
recognize the freedom to worship God, for such is a false religion which must
be suppressed.
Most see that in tyranny.
Bur I suggest that the same is true in democracy, at least as it differs
from the Righteous Republic. Granted, Christians may enjoy the freedom to
worship God for awhile; many do. But in
principle, democracy is antithetical to true worship of God. It is schizophrenic – it is pressed between
righteousness and unrighteousness, between God and Man. And it always gives in to Man and
unrighteousness. Eventually, democracy
becomes an opponent of the Righteous Republic, and opens the door to one of two
things.
Democracy may lead directly to what some call “pure
democracy,” which is another word for anarchism. It usually does this by means of that system known as
Libertarianism. How does this
happen? Well, it happens like
this. Those who advocate freedom always
want more, like a narcotic. Soon, they
worship freedom for freedoms’ sake.
Their god becomes a trinity known as “Libertas, fraternitas, aequalitas”
– liberty, fratenity, equality. Maybe
you have heard that those were the three great words of the French Revolution:
“Liberte, fraternite, egalite!":
And perhaps you know that the French revolutionaries were consistent in
their democracy. First it led to a kind
of anarchism. Then the worship of
Man. Then the tyranny of Man over Man.
Some liberty! And essential to such a
system was the vehement opposition to the Righteous Republic.
Democracy, then, can easily lead to anarchy. But not for long.
Israel was in a sort of anarchy that waffled in and out of
democracy at this time. But then it
called out for a change, as in the French Revolution. In I Sam. 8, we read of Israel crying out to the last of the
judges, Samuel. They cried out for a
king. Imagine that. They went from democracy to anarchy to
tyranny. The pendulum swung
completely. The middle of the Righteous
Republic was rejected, so the pendulum swung and wouldn’t stop until it became
a monarchy. My point is, a democracy
always follows this path. It cannot
simply stay a democracy. It tends to
lead to lawlessness (“freedom”), and this produces the call for law and order –
Man’s law, not God’s. And that means
monarchy. And if not a righteous
monarchy, then an unrighteous monarchy, or what we call tyranny.
Democracy rarely leads to the Righteous Republic. Usually it leads away from it. In fact, democracy is usually the door
through which a nation passes when it departs from being a Righteous Republic.
Take America. We
have two sets of “Founding Fathers.”
The first Founding Fathers were the Pilgrims, who were Puritans. They believed in the Righteous
Republic. Their theological cousins
back in England helped set up the Puritan Commonwealth, which was directly
patterned after the Righteous Republic in the Bible. That system lasted only till 1662. The old monarchy came back.
And that same monarchy eventually went after the Puritan Republic in the
colonies. That produced the tyranny
against which the American colonialists revolted in the 1770’s. But what did they put in its place?
Here is where I disagree with the two leading theories of
our history. One theory says that this
second group of Founding Fathers were all Evangelical Christians who advocated
the Righteous Republic. I disagree. Franklin and Jefferson, among others, were
Deists (the grandfathers of Liberalism) and were no friends of either
Evangelicalism or the Righteous Republic.
On the other hand, I disagree with the theory that all these men were
Deists. Witherspoon and others
certainly were not Deists. Moreover,
many of these second Founding Fathers believed in the Righteous Republic.
The result? A
compromise. The new nation would be a
republic all right, but not quite so righteous as the Puritans once had. This was the fatal flaw. It has taken us some 200 years, but that
crack has become a Grand Canyon. The
flaw was that the republic allowed for religious pluralism and did not stress
that it would be “one nation under God” as the original Puritan Pilgrims had
envisaged. .
Now, the odd thing is that our republic became less and less
righteous, and concurrently it became increasingly democratic. This was no coincidence. Moreover, we have gone almost full
circle. Has it occurred to you that the
English monarchy against which our fathers rebelled was more righteous than
America is today? Sure, its tax system
was wrong, but look at ours. But
righteousness is not measured like that.
Just look where we are today – abortion, homosexuality, drugs, and so
on. Even the English monarchy of the
eighteenth century did not allow those vices.
So we have become worse than what we rebelled against. We have gone from the frying pan into the
flame. We are going full circle, too,
for our unrighteous democracy is leading to tyranny, just as it did in Israel.
It is a tyranny worse than King George's.
Back to our text, Israel was far from being a Righteous
Republic. Why? Because it had rejected God as its
king. It was no longer “one nation
under God.” It chose democracy over the
Righteous Republic: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Had Israel stayed with God and God’s system,
then the Book of Judges would have been totally different. It would have ended with these words: “In
those glorious days, God was King over Israel.
And every man did what was right in the eyes of God.”
In some senses, Israel was to be different from the
nations. It was not to follow other
gods, for example. Furthermore, its
laws were different, and in this respect: it had certain ceremonial and civic
laws that were not applicable to the Gentiles.
But those laws were temporary; they were abolished by Christ. But when Israel as a whole rejected the
Messiah, it forfeited its unique status as a special theocracy.
In other respects, Israel was not to be an exception, but an
example. If it properly used and obeyed
the Laws which God had given, then it would set the example for others. Others were not to follow its example in
those distinct ceremonial laws, but in the moral laws as they applied to
religion and government.
Conversely, when Israel rejected God and His blueprint for
society, it exemplified how all other nations turn away from God. Israel became like all the others. That is why Israel wanted a king – I Samuel
8 explicitly says this. Israel went
downhill. And so do all others who
start as a Righteous Republic and turn to humanistic democracy. As America’s history shows, when you reject
a Righteous Republic, you soon end up with a very unrighteous democracy and
then anarchy and then tyranny.
Let me state a few brief conclusions. First, all political and social systems are
good or bad depending on how they weigh up against what God says in the
Bible. A system is not good or bad
merely by how it measures up with “freedom,” much less economic success. A nation is good or bad by how it measures
up with God’s Word.
Second, no matter how good the system is at the start, it is
only as good as the people in it. You
know the famous quote from Alexis De Tocqueville: “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America
will cease to be great.” What makes a
people good is when they follow God’s Word.
Third, Israel had the best possible system, but failed. America began with a pretty good system –
not quite the Righteous Republic of the Puritans, but better than the French
Revolution and others. But look where
we have sunk to.
Lastly, what is God’s answer? God’s Word calls for national repentance and a return to His
Word. In the Book of Judges, we saw how
God sent judges to Israel. Israel
repented, and there were small revivals.
But there were also judgments.
When a nation rejects God and His Word for them as a people, then God
either sends men and women of God to revive them, or He sends cruel tyrants to
judge them. Since America has cashed in
its Righteous Republic for a mess of democratic humanism and religious
pluralism, it can be assured that God will send it either revival or judgment.