# Deborah



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

What are people's views on what the story of Deborah (Judges 4) teaches about the propriety of having women in leadership roles, such as in the government or elsewhere?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2005)

Deborah is the rare case of Gods theocratic anointing upon a woman. There were at the time, no men who would step up to the plate; Even Barak was a whimp. As afr as government is concerned, can we apply this case to gvernments of this age. Israel at the time was more than a secular government.

[Edited on 1-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 18, 2005)

John Knox's response to the Deborah objection noted in the _First Blast of the Trumpet_ address this issue well:

http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> What are people's views on what the story of Deborah (Judges 4) teaches about the propriety of having women in leadership roles, such as in the government or elsewhere?



There are no exceptions to God's law. If it is God's law that a woman may never have civil authority over a man, then he broke his own law by anointing Deborah's leadership. God cannot break his own law, therefore, it cannot be God's law that a woman may never have civil authority over a man.

I do believe, however, that women in government should not be the norm.

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 18, 2005)

Interesting Evie...though I go with Scott a little more. I'll enjoy seeing this thread play out.

Question also to consider...Deborah's age. Was she perhaps an older woman? Could that have also played a factor in others willingly accepting her position?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 18, 2005)

As John Knox said, one can't argue the rule from extraordinary exceptions. Polygamy was lawful in the OT, but not lawful now. Likewise, Deborah was raised up in an extraordinary manner, but this is no warrant for women magistrates today.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> As John Knox said, one can't argue the rule from extraordinary exceptions. Polygamy was lawful in the OT, but not lawful now. Likewise, Deborah was raised up in an extraordinary manner, but this is no warrant for women magistrates today.



Did God ever actually anoint polygamy in the same sense that he anointed Deborah's leadership? It seems to me that polygamy was tolerated, not instated by God like Deborah's authority. I don't think the situations are parallel. If God had actually called David, Solomon, or Jacob to marry multiple women and then "changed his mind" on the matter and decided that it was no longer tolerable, you might have a parallel. However, these men decided on their own to marry multiple women, against, we can all agree, God's ideal plan for marriage. The Deborah situation is quite different in that it is initiated by God, not merely tolerated by him. To state that women, without any exceptions whatsoever, should never be in any government leadership position today, we have to appeal to the absolute standard of God's law. However, if it were the absolute standard of God's law, he would never have violated it by anointed a female in a leadership position.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Interesting Evie...though I go with Scott a little more. I'll enjoy seeing this thread play out.
> 
> Question also to consider...Deborah's age. Was she perhaps an older woman? Could that have also played a factor in others willingly accepting her position?



I've always imagined that she was an older woman, though I don't know if there is a scriptural warrant for this conclusion. Well, it seems that she would almost have had to be, doesn't it? 

John Knox, though I respect and admire him, bases much of his reasoning on the presupposition that women are inherently foolish. I agree that we are, but then, so are men! Women need guidance in theological matters to a greater degree, but they are never depicted in the Bible as lacking all wisdom. Proverbs actually personifies wisdom as a woman, the words of King Lemuel in Proverbs 31 are "an oracle his mother taught him," and the excellent wife in Proverbs 31 "opens her mouth with wisdom." Knox, on the other hand, states:



> Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.



I'm not arguing for egalitarianism here, but I don't see the Biblical basis for these kinds of generalizations. _Some_ women are like this. The Bible seems to give us examples of women who, by the grace of God, were not.

"Hear, my son, your father's instruction,
and forsake not your mother's teaching" - Proverbs 1:8

If women are so feeble and foolish and Knox seems to think, why should the young man listen to his mother?

Granted, the fact that women may have wisdom does not automatically mean they should be in the civil magistrate. For that, we have to look to the rest of scripture, and I've already stated my thoughts on that.

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. If I have incorrect biases on this issue, I know this will help me identify them. In the meantime, I have no plans to run for office.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2005)

I don't have my John Knox bios with me so I will be firing secondary sources off the top of my head. If any dispute my quotes, I will just assume I am right until I go home and get my biblios. Calvin disagreed with Knox on this issue, didn't he? 

Moving on..
Scott Bushey wrote


> As afr as government is concerned, can we apply this case to gvernments of this age.



Given the same circumstances available, why not? Give me a courageous woman than a relevant incrementalist man any day. I believe that one can make the case that the conditions are available today. 

Andrew wrote:


> As John Knox said, one can't argue the rule from extraordinary exceptions. Polygamy was lawful in the OT, but not lawful now. Likewise, Deborah was raised up in an extraordinary manner, but this is no warrant for women magistrates today.


Alright Andrew, let's sharpen iron...
The first part I agree with--we need to be wary of absolutizing singular events. Not to say it is wrong, though. For example one could make the case that John the Baptizer was regenerate from the womb, but we would be hesitant to make that the norm. Nonetheless, I do not think the analogy between polygamy and female leadership is valid. One can argue (rightly, I think) that polygamy was a violation of the marriage bond in Genesis. You would have to show me from the scriptures that female leadership is a violation of God's decrees.

I would argue that it is not the norm for women leadership today. Let's see how this works out...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 18, 2005)

It also sounds like she dealt more with the secular issues than actually "teaching" in a spiritual sense.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2005)

Perhaps, Colleen, perhaps,

moving on...
You cannot make a positive decree from a single example, but a single example sufficies to negatively refute the idea that a decree exists against something, if that single example shows God approving something. 

Andrew,
just for clarification, are you holding to a position that it is wrong, without exception, for a woman to hold office in the civil magistrate today. If you do think it is wrong without exception, then that is holding it as an absolute decree. If you hold it as an absolute decree, then you back God into the position of violating his own absolute decree, and that's when we have a God who isn't bound to his own law. We know that isn't the case. We have a covenantal God whose law is a reflection of his own character.

I know you don't hold to a double-standard with God, but how do you explain your previous comments in lieu of it?

Thanks for interacting

[Edited on 1--19-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## turmeric (Jan 18, 2005)

John Knox had a rather obnoxious Roman Catholic queen to deal with - actually two queens, I think. It might have given anyone a bias!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2005)

Let me clarify,
This is also the basis for the excuse of women in church government... "Well, there just aren't any men stepping up to the plate." Women in church government is wrong NO MATTER WHAT. But if Deborah was put in the civil magistrate and it was okay only because there were no men stepping up to the plate, why can't we, analogously, say that it's okay for a woman to be a pastor if the men refuse to lead?

[Edited on 1--19-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> John Knox had a rather obnoxious Roman Catholic queen to deal with - actually two queens, I think. It might have given anyone a bias!



I think he was right to call them tyrants! He's right on when he says that if you want to defend their rule by using the example of Deborah, you have to show that they are as godly and wise and Deborah. He's absolutely correct in his attack on the rule of those particularly women!


----------



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

Interesting quote from Calvin:




> "Two years ago, John Knox in a private conversation, asked my opinion respecting female government. I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature, it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights just like slavery-that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them, and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God, either because He willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men, or thus show more distinctly His own glory. I here instanced Huldah and Deborah." John Calvin, "Letter DXXXVIII to William Cecil" in



Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge & Jules Bonnet, vol. 7, (Philadelphia, 1860), p. 46.


----------



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

I think a couple points of observation are worth noting.

[1] Israel was in a state of sin and moral degradation when Deborah ruled. "After Ehud died, the Israelites once again did evil in the eyes of the LORD . 2 So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. . . 4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [a] Israel at that time." 

It is interesting that when male judges ruled, the land was in a state of peace. See Judges 2:16-19. 

[2] It is not suprising that a woman was leading when Israel was when Israel was in a state of sin. Having women rulers is a sign of God's judgment. See Isa. 3:12: "Youths oppress my people, women rule over them."

[3] Deborah was wise and godly. Israel was blessed to have her, in spite of female rulership.

[4] The men of Israel, at least as represented by Barak were weak. Barak refused to go into battle unless a woman came with him. He was punished by having his glory go to a woman, Jael. 

In other words, I see Deborah as an extraordinary example. This would mean that there is not a per se prohibition on female rulers.


----------



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

BTW, I deny that women are characterized by foolishness. Wisdom is personified as a woman in the Proverbs.


----------



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

The PCA position paper on women in combat has allot of good stuff. It is here:

I also thought this short summary of Deborah's story was helpful:
http://www.pcanet.org/history/pca/01-278.html



> In an effeminate age, it is this aspect of the text which must be driven home lest we miss the forest for the trees: God commanded a man (Hebrew 'ish )[98] to lead other men to battle in defense of their nation; that man then asked a woman to come to battle with him; that woman reproved that man for his cowardice; and under God's authority, that woman also decreed that the man's cowardice would be punished by the glory of victory going to a woman.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2005)

In response,

1) America is in a state of sin as well.


> It is interesting that when male judges ruled, the land was in a state of peace


Male judges, or godly male judges?

2)


> It is not suprising that a woman was leading when Israel was when Israel was in a state of sin. Having women rulers is a sign of God's judgment. See Isa. 3:12: "Youths oppress my people, women rule over them



Very well, was God wrong? Did Deborah rise up on her own or did God rise her up? Please respond to the above post.

3)


> Deborah was wise and godly. Israel was blessed to have her, in spite of female rulership.


Israel was blessed to have a stabilizing influence in their social order regardless of the gender.


> The men of Israel, at least as represented by Barak were weak. Barak refused to go into battle unless a woman came with him. He was punished by having his glory go to a woman, Jael.
> 
> In other words, I see Deborah as an extraordinary example. This would mean that there is not a per se prohibition on female rulers.



Agreed.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> [2] It is not suprising that a woman was leading when Israel was when Israel was in a state of sin. Having women rulers is a sign of God's judgment. See Isa. 3:12: "Youths oppress my people, women rule over them."
> 
> In other words, I see Deborah as an extraordinary example. This would mean that there is not a per se prohibition on female rulers.





I definitely think that male leadership is the norm. The real question to me is whether or not it is sinful for these women to serve as leaders. I think everyone would agree that if God has really called them to this position, it cannot be a sin. Deborah is an extraordinary example, but because such an example exists, we can't rule out the possibility of other exceptions. 

I agree with you when you say that female leadership is a judgment on the people. It is a reflection of a society where the basic order of things is not operating properly. However, as you pointed out, it is not a reflection of the sinfulness of the women that God chooses to put in office. The point is not that women are incapable of serving in the civil government or even that it is sinful for women to serve in the civil government, but simply that women generally have tendencies in other directions and other duties to take care of. (And insofar as many women are power-hungry, this is a sinful desire, not a genuine drive for public service.)

Here's a side issue: While we agree that for a country to be actually _ruled_ by women shows that it is under judgment by God, what about women in lower levels of government, such as serving on a town council? Or, to take it further, under what conditions would it be acceptable (not sinful) for a Christian woman to pursue or accept an office of public service?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2005)

I will respond to a number of points so bear with me if I fail to address a particular point that has been raised. 

First, this issue has been debated previously:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5693

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7192

Second, I want to cite another article that is more current than Knox's by William Einwechter (2004): 

http://www.visionforumministries.org/sections/hotcon/ht/ballotbox/2004-07-08_einwechter.asp

Third, just to clarify, it is not of any personal slight or disregard towards women in general or any women in particular that I hold the view that women should not serve as civil magistrates today. On the contrary, godly women who are wise are a blessing to all mankind. It is a true saying that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

Nevertheless, we can see the headship principle instituted in the Garden of Eden. Paul refers to it in I Cor. 11 when he requires headcoverings for women in worship and he refers to it again in 1 Timothy when addressing the authority of women:



> Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
> 
> I Timothy 2.11-15



This passage is not limited to only ecclesiastical authority. It is rooted in the creation ordinance and covers all of male-female society.

Yet, there are certainly exceptions. A queen or princess may lawfully rule over men under the extension of the king's authority. The Lady of the House, in Proverbs 31 fashion, may govern male servants. Etc., etc. 

But I am unable to find a single instance in Scripture of a woman being promoted to rule over men in affairs of state which does not involve judgment upon the society in question. 

Deborah was a godly woman. God raised her up. She did nothing wrong. Barak did not rise to the occasion before him as he should have. 

That being said, Deborah's case is extraordinary and not an example which women today should aspire to. She had divine sanction which no woman today can claim. If a woman today wants to follow in Deborah's footsteps, let her claim divine sanction for her particular case. 

John Knox wrote his treatise under particular conditions and was certainly prone to use strong language. I do not think, however, that he meant to say that women can never be wise. Obviously, they can. The Proverbs 31 woman is an example of this and the fact that wisdom in Proverbs 8 is personified by a woman is significant. Yet, let's not forget that the wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8 is certainly meant to be Christ. God created man in his image, male and female he created them. Godly men and godly women are characterized by wisdom. There is no disputing that. But nevertheless, women are the "weaker vessel" and Scripture has defined roles for men and women and instituted what we call the "headship principle." 

It is true that Calvin and Knox disagreed on the propriety of Knox's treatise. This happens to be one of a small handful of instances where I disagree with Calvin. I believe the pupil was more faithful to his principles than the mentor in this matter. It is important to remember that England had just witnessed the reign of Bloody Mary and was on the cusp of Elizabeth's reign which showed promise of turning England back towards a more thorough Reformation, a promise that was never fully realized. Calvin was near the end of his life and Knox was as bold a man as one could ever imagine. I think Calvin compromised here in the interests of encouraging reform. He had written letters to other godly women of royalty and seen great results and did not want to turn Elizabeth off from the Reformation. Knox simply did not hold back. Perhaps a middle course of prudence would have been wiser, but I find nothing in Knox's treatise that is Biblically incorrect. And Calvin's position was far from any modern feminist perspective on this issue (not that anyone on this board is of that persuasion). 

It is suggested that if it is wrong by nature for women to rule that God must have sinned by raising up Deborah. Knox answers this argument thus: 



> And what greater force, I pray you, has the former argument: Deborah did rule Israel, and Huldah spoke prophecy in Judah; ergo, it is lawful for women to reign above realms and nations, or to teach in the presence of men. The consequent is vain, and of none effect. [110]For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law; but we are always bound to the written law, and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God forbids no less that any woman reign over man, than it forbids man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder, or to lie. If any of these has been transgressed, and yet God has not imputed the same, it makes not the like fact or deed lawful unto us. For God (being free) may, for such causes as are approved by his inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigour of his law, and may use his creatures at his pleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom he has made subject to his law, and not to the examples of fathers. And this I think sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirits.



His point in referring to God's sanction of certain practices in the OT as not giving warrant for policies today is, I think, quite valid. I mentioned polygamy because it was lawful in the OT and it is not lawful now. Did God sin in sanctioning polygamy then? No. Is God inconsistent in forbidding it now? No. God was free to prohibit it then, and with hindsight (illuminated by the Scriptures) we can see that God permitted it (along with the corresponding divorces which are not lawful today) because of the "hardness of their hearts." Likewise, God raised up Deborah as a judgment upon men. There was no sin in Deborah in doing what she did, nor did the Patriarchs sin in taking multiple wives. But these actions were born in the context of sin and yet God is not the author or condoner thereof. 

Note that what Knox said is consistent with this statement in the Confession, Chap. V: 



> III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,[10] yet is free to work without,[11] above,[12] and against them,[13] at His pleasure.



God instituted the natural order, but if he chooses to make exceptions to that in rare extraordinary occasions, that is no warrant for us to attempt to do the same. 

Women in authority over men are always in Scripture a judgment. God providentially raises up women in judgment over men today too. That does not give us warrant to desire that women should rule over us or for women to aspire to rule over men. Women have a natural desire to usurp authority over men, and men have a natural desire to yield it, but those desires should not be justified. 

One of the major objections I have to the US constitution is the 19th Amendment (1920) which gave women the right to vote. Voting, I believe, is an excercise of authority. That authority is not given to women by Scripture. Since 1920, women have asserted more and more political power. I think in our lifetimes we will see a female US president. When that day comes, we should mourn, not rejoice.

I grant that Margaret Thatcher was a better prime minister for Great Britain than Tony Blair. But I don't grant that a female prime minister isn't a judgment upon that society. Deborah, Margaret and Elizabeth were merciful judgments; Bloody Mary and Athaliah were fierce judgments. Hillary Clinton would be too!

Bottom line: men and women should aspire to the roles that God has instituted for them. Deborah was a godly women, but her example in ruling the state for a time is not warrant for women in our day without divine sanction to do the same.

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## satz (Jan 19, 2005)

well, i am pretty new to the reformed view on this issue, so i was hoping to clarify some points.




> Yet, there are certainly exceptions. A queen or princess may lawfully rule over men under the extension of the king's authority. The Lady of the House, in Proverbs 31 fashion, may govern male servants. Etc., etc.



Andrew, does this mean a woman who was single or widowed would be unable to employ servants, as she would have no man to legitimize her authority over them?


Also, the discussion on this thread has so far focused on women in roles of civil authority. I am wondering if there is any difference in the area of work?
eg, a woman working in an office setting. Is it a sin for her to be promoted to a position where she would have male subordinates?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Andrew, does this mean a woman who was single or widowed would be unable to employ servants, as she would have no man to legitimize her authority over them?
> 
> 
> ...



No, I would not say that there is anything unlawful about a widow or single woman having male servants _per se_. (Seventh Commandment issues could come into play, but I'm setting that aside for purposes of addressing the overall principle.)

I think my comments strayed a little from the original scope of the issue which was focused on a women's role with respect to civil affairs of state. In terms of women having male servants at home, Scripture does have much to say about master-servant relationships in general, and William Gouge's book _Of Domesticall Duties_ eludicates those principles quite well. 

http://www.kamglobal.org/WilliamGouge/domesticalduties.html

I am not going to categorically say that women in the work force and being promoted over men is sinful. However, it is very far from the Biblical norm. In general, a women's place is at home. This is the Biblical teaching. 

However, there are exceptions such as that found in Proverbs 31 where the godly woman delivers her wares to the merchants. I recall Ruth also working in the fields under Boaz. And there were the Hebrew midwives of Moses' time. I can think of plenty of other exceptions too. 

Men working under women in today's workforce, though, has created numerous problems for both men and women. Sexual harrassment (on both sides), family leave issues, gender role reversals, etc., are some of the issues. 

But to hearken back to the original scope of this thread relating to civil government, I note that in Proverbs 31 it is not the woman but her husband who is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2005)

Thanks Andrew,
I have class in a few minutes so it will be a while to respond. But I will keep them in mind.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I am not going to categorically say that women in the work force and being promoted over men is sinful. However, it is very far from the Biblical norm. In general, a women's place is at home. This is the Biblical teaching.





I think there isn't really a great deal of difference in what I think about this. My view on it is to take issues like women in the workplace and women in government and say that this is not the general principle. The general principle is that women manage the affairs of the home, and leave the workplace and the government to the men (except in extraordinary cases). But I think you are correct in saying that we cannot state categorically that it is sinful for women to work outside the home. Honestly, I think the majority of women would prefer to stay at home if they had the opportunity, but our society is structured in such a way that it isn't possible for most. Similarly, it isn't sinful for women to be in the government, per se, but it isn't in accordance with the general principle. All I have a problem with is making this a categorical moral law, like the prohibition we have against female church leadership. It can be an important issue to think through, because if I believe it is always sinful, no matter what, for women to participate in the civil government, one would be sinning by voting for any female candidate. I do not think, however, that it is sinful to vote for a female candidate who will better uphold God's law over a completely immoral male candidate.


----------



## Scott (Jan 19, 2005)

Andrew: I think we are pretty much in agreement. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that a new Deborah must have an immediate call from God. I think the PCA position paper on Women in Combat makes an interesting analogy about a mother or women being a last line of defense. 

I also agree that female rulers indicate judgment, as is the case in ISa. 3. Now, having Deborah as judge is, as you said, a merciful judgment. While Deborah was wise, there was still an inversion of the natural order and her prominence suggests the supineness of the men of the day.


----------

