Deborah the Prophetess - Judges 4:1-10

When I was a kid, we had an activity in my primary class where we had to dress up like a prophet and I didn’t want to dress up like a boy prophet but I was told that girls can’t be prophets, so I had to pick a boy. Well, I persisted and finally someone came up with a girl prophet that I could dress up as, Deborah. I wore a bath robe and most of the old primary teachers clutched their pearls because girls cannot be prophets, and I was being rebellious. Anyway, I always wanted to learn more about Deborah and today is my chance so I’m excited. After Ehud died, Israel quickly turned again to wickedness and became indentured to “Jabin the king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera,” for 20 years. Jabin had 900 iron chariots which Israel was scared of and used those chariots as a reason why they couldn’t deliver themselves. Deborah, “A prophetess… judged Israel at that time.” The IM asks, “How was it that a woman, Deborah, led Israel?” The initial reason given is because Israel was lacking in leadership at the time and that the “priesthood leadership was not in effect because the covenant had ben broken.” This answer kind of bugs me because it implies that a woman can only be a spiritual leader when the men aren’t doing their jobs. I know that’s probably not what it meant but that’s what is says and it’s kind of irritating.

But the IM continues, “Deborah did not direct Israel in any official sense; she was a prophetess who possessed the spirit of prophecy, one of the gifts of the Spirit. She was blessed with spiritual insight and leadership qualities that were not being put to use by any man… No special ordination in the Priesthood is essential to man’s receiving the gift of prophecy; bearers of the Melchizedek Priesthood, Adam, Noah, Moses, and a multitude of others were prophets, but not more truly so than others who were specifically called to the Aaronic order, as exemplified in the instance of John the Baptist. The ministrations of Miriam and Deborah show that this gift may be possessed by women also.” TB also notes that a woman named Hulda will also be called a prophet later on, so that’s 3 women named.

Deborah sat “under a palm tree” in Ephraim “and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” So while she might not have held an official title over all of Israel, they at least respected her judgment enough to ask her to make judicial type decisions. TB suggested that this was because she was known as being very wise and also that these tribes and clans would have had their own courts and ways to make decisions but that there would be times when it was necessary to consult with disinterested third parties for impartiality and that was one of the roles that she served. One day she sends for Barak and the way that the KJV words their conversation makes it sound like she’s asking him basically “didn’t the Lord command you to…” but in the Complete Jewish Bible, how I heard it was that she commanded him, “the Lord wants you to…” which I think are two different situations. The first is where Deborah is aware of the command God gave Barak either through the Spirit to himself or from someone else, the second instance is Deborah giving the command to Barak herself because she received it directly from the Lord. TB goes with that Deborah received through prophecy that Barak was supposed to do this thing but the KJV seems to just be her reminding him of what he was supposed to do.

Either way, she tells Barak that he is supposed to take 10,000 men from Naphtali and Zebulon and “draw toward mount Tabor… and I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera… with his chariots and his multitude and I will deliver him into thine hand.” TB notes the use of the word “draw” used here, saying “In verse 6 the Lord instructs Barak not to ‘march’ his men to Mt Tabor… but to “mashak” to t Tabor. Mashak means ‘to draw’, to influence his men to come. Barak’s leadership and courage then would be the influential spark that would cause the downtrodden Israelites (downtrodden under years of Canaanite oppression) to rise up, follow him, and have hope for liberty put into action.” Barak isn’t to just command his soldiers to go fight the enemy, he is to inspire them, to give them hope, and strengthen their faith that God can deliver them. It is an interesting commentary on leadership.

Conversely, God says he will “draw” Sisera to the river. This is similar to when God somehow convinced the other Canaanite kings that they should leave their heavily fortified cities to come against Israel in the fields. Similarly, TB analyzes the terrain and concludes, “We Christians like to say to one another that the Lord never overrides a man’s free will; but in fact we see something similar to it all the time in the bible when the Lord determines to do so. We saw the Lord harden Pharoah’s heart thus causing him to make destructive decisions that he would to have normally done. We see here that from a strategic standpoint Sisera would do battle with a large force of Israelites who held the high ground, Mt. Tabor, usually a situation that is avoided militarily (even in today’s high tech military) if at all possible. And then later in Revelation we’ll se God draw Israel’s enemies from the north to this very same place to be annihilated by the Saints of the Lord as led by our Warrior/King Messiah Yeshua at the battle of Armageddon. And in between all these passages we’ll find many places where the Lord CAUSES, influences, draws a man to do something that he would not ordinarily do.”

This is a very interesting concept that I’ve been thinking about recently and I don’t have any hard opinions about it. I do not think that God ever overrides our free will, that ultimately we are all accountable for our own choices. HOWEVER, as the master psychologist, I think that situations can be arranged so that people are more persuaded to make one choice over another, even if it goes against their nature or their behavioral patterns. In the Bible, if one of the promises is that God will cause confusion and distress in our enemies, how is that not inducing a state of being that is more likely to make a certain type of decision. I was just watching a tv show tonight and there was a character on there who was a real stand up, good, moral person but by the end of the episode he had turned evil and watching the way that it happened was a good illustration that shows we are never so good that we can’t be led step by step down a road of poor choices. In that same vein, the opposite must also be true, no one is ever so bad that they can’t be influenced to do or become good, I see it all the time, I mean, I AM that. Previous to the last year or so, I was very much a believer that “God didn’t harden Pharoah’s heart, that’s a mistranslation, He never makes us do what we don’t want to do,” and while I still do hold that belief overall, I think it’s a lot more nuanced than that, people are persuaded to do things or to hold beliefs, and I guess it’s just a balance between maintaining agency and free will and God’s will. I mean think about it, how many people would instantly change their spiritual beliefs if they could see through the veil for just a minute? Or if they saw a major miracle? Or if they had Jesus Christ appear to them personally? Or angels? Or if they were drowned in the Spirit? Like what would change? And how much of that has to do with their agency? It’s a complicated balance. And if we couldn’t be persuaded in any way, then what’s the point of all the trials and life lessons? Is that not just another method of persuading someone’s beliefs and actions? Anyway, it’s a complicated but interesting topic to think about.

Deborah tells Barak that he’s supposed to inspire an army to go fight Sisera and the chariots, “and I will deliver him into thine hand.” Barak’s answer is “If thou wilt go with me then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.” Interesting, and perhaps unexpected, answer. TB points out that we shouldn’t take this to be a cowardly answer, because Barak was definitely not a coward. It’s probably just that Barak recognized the improbability of Sisera falling for a battle in which he was at a strategic disadvantage, and Barak wanted to make sure that God’s presence was with him, and Deborah was that presence. Deborah answers, and I’m interpreting here because it’s kind of hard to understand, “I will gladly go with you but just know that if I do go then you won’t get the glory for this victory because God will give Sisera into the hands of a woman.” When I first read this, I assumed that this meant that Deborah would get the glory of victory and most likely Barak and Deborah herself thought that same thing. Barak apparently decides that those terms are fine, he’s fine with not having the glory and they go together to gather the troops.