Deborah as Leader Over Israel

Deborah was a prophet and a judge, and unlike other judges, was the undisputed leader of Israel (Judges 4:4). Thomas Schreiner contends that Deborah was a special case because (a) she was the only judge who was not a military leader,  (b) she only prophesied privately, and (c) there is no explicit reference to her having been “raise up by the Lord,” as with most of the other judges.¹ Others dismiss Deborah as only an exception to the rule of male headship by pointing to a vacuum of male leadership in Israel at this time.  In other words, Deborah was leader only because there weren’t any men who wanted to do it. Schreiner focuses on what Deborah didn’t do, compared to the other judges.  The judges were each very unique. If we applied that same approach to each of the judges we would have a long list of differences.

First, Schreiner characterizes Deborah as different from the male judges in that she was not a military commander.  There is no doubt that Deborah worked in tandem with Barak, her military captain.  However, the narrative is clear that Deborah was Barak’s leader (Judges 4:6, 14), and her leadership was a matter of public knowledge. Deborah, in fact, seemed to act more as a combination military general and prophet, creating strategy, giving orders to her military commander, Barak, and making prophetic announcements.  Moses, David, and Elijah all acted in the same way at one time or another.  Moses is never recorded as directly leading armies into battle, yet his leadership and authority are never questioned.

Deborah’s leadership over Barak is clear, and her orders being carried out by someone else no more diminishes her authority or leadership than it did for David, Moses, or Solomon when they did the same.  On another note, Deborah is shown to be a capable prophet when she predicted that the enemy would be handed over to a woman, and in short order her prophecy was fulfilled (Judges 4:9, 21).

Scheiner further argues that Deborah’s leadership was different from the men because there is no explicit reference to her being “raised up” by the Lord.  However, the Scripture is clear that the phrase “raised up by the Lord” applied to all the judges.  The narrator reported that whenever there was a crisis the Lord would “raise up” a judge who would deliver the people from the crisis (Judges 2:16, 18).  Deborah certainly fits this description.  

Schreiner also fails to note that several of the other judges are not explicitly introduced with the phrase “raised up by the Lord.”  Shamgar, Abimelech (who seems to have been self-appointed), Jair, Jephthah, and Samson, to name a few, are not characterized directly as having been “raised up by the Lord.”  The evidence is overwhelming that the absence of that particular appellation does not in any way indicate a differentiated leader.  It is simply used with some, implied with others, and not used at all with still others. It could also be argued that Judges 5:7 used the same terminology (raised up) to imply that Deborah did “arise” as a Judge commissioned by God. 

Schreiner also bases his case on the claim that Deborah did not prophecy in public, but rather “her prophetic role seem to be limited to private and individual instruction.”² He uses Judges 4:5 as a proof text.  Yet, it was obviously public knowledge that Deborah was ruling from her position in Ephraim. How else would all “the sons of Israel” know to go there in order for her to pronounce her rulings (Judges 4:5)?  It is erroneous to characterize the palm tree under which Deborah sat, as a private consultation, when (a) everyone in Israel knew about it; and (b) it was outdoors in plain view!  Clearly, the men of Israel saw Deborah as their leader and judge. That’s why they travelled from afar to see her.  How can that possibly be seen as a private endeavor?

In fact, the portrait of Deborah judging under the palm tree as all of “the sons of Israel” came to her is akin to that of Moses.  Moses also ruled (the same word – judge – is used of Moses and Deborah) as all the people of Israel came to him so that he could hear their cases (Exodus 18:13-16).  Deborah was operating like Moses, the greatest and most authoritative prophet in Hebrew history. 

Other scholars point to a vacuum in male leadership during the time of Deborah. There is simply no biblical evidence for this. There is nothing in the text that indicates a lack of male leadership. Some would point to the wickedness of the land during this time. After the death of Ehud, the people turned away from God. But this in no way indicates an abdication on the part of men to lead Israel. This scenario is repeated throughout the history of Israel, and never indicates a lack of male leadership. In fact, in most other cases, a male leader does arise to lead Israel out of the moral morass.  To imply that there was no such leadership available at the time of Deborah is to make a groundless assumption. It is a circular argument that goes something like this – God calls only men to lead. Deborah was a woman. God called Deborah to lead. Therefore, there must not have been any men willing to lead. The argument only works, with the faulty a priori assumption. And it has no basis in the Scripture text.

Others would point to the abdication of responsibility on the part of Barak. He refused to go into battle without the presence of Deborah, thus indicating his refusal to lead. This, some would point out, was representative of the state of male leadership in general in Israel at this time. Again, this is a circular argument, at best. I believe it is also a misinterpretation of Barak’s action. Barak was not abdicating his responsibility or role as a military leader. He was facing an impossible battle. He was outnumbered and out manned, against a technologically superior force. He was simply following in the steps of Joshua who wanted the prophet of God (in that case, Moses) at the battle with him. As long as Moses was present the Israelites would win the battle.  Deborah was Barak’s “Moses.”  He wanted her close by in the battle, as she represented the presence of God. 

Deborah did not chastise Barak for abdicating his responsibility. She chastised him for his lack of trust in her word, and in the word of the Lord.  Because of his lack of trust, Sisera would be handed over to a woman. 

Schreiner admits that the leadership of Deborah poses the most difficulty for the case of male headship.  In the end, his argument that “she exercised her prophetic ministry in a way that did not obstruct male headship,”³ seems like wishful thinking and is not supported by the most natural reading of the narrative.  Although she had no desire to emasculate her male subordinates, she was clearly their leader, and everyone knew it.