Another story about Bethlehem (Judges 19-20)

The story we will discuss in this post has been lurking in my awareness since I started working through the book of Judges. It is a kind of grand finale of horror for all those days when "Israel had no king and everyone did as he saw fit." Judges has not been gentle in its recounting of these wild days before the establishment of the monarchy, and it does not wrap things up encouragingly either. Still, when I consider the story of the concubine from Bethlehem, I think I can see a shadow of the story of Christ there.

What we learn about women:

• We see another example of a woman in the role of a victim of a crime which screams the guilt of the perpetrator.
• Women had so little status in this group that it seemed obvious to the men of the household that it would be better for this concubine to meet a terrible fate than for them to try to protect themselves all together.
• The outrage sparked by this crime, after the fact, was enough to bring the whole nation to war; but the obvious risk of the crime ahead of time wasn't enough to provoke anyone to help her in the moment in the moment of her need.

What I'm wondering:

• What spiritual harm comes generally to men in their relative strength which offers them so great an opportunity to oppress?
• What is the backstory of the woman having run away to her father's home, and then him encouraging her to return with her husband, but to stay with her family for an extended visit?
• The big one: what ultimate good or justice comes about through horrific suffering which God allows? How does Christ's suffering relate?

Here is a summary. A Levite travels to Bethlehem to convince his concubine, who has left him, to come back to Ephraim from her parents' house. After a week or so of feasting with her family, they depart Bethlehem late in the day, and pass by several non-Israelite towns which they reject as unsafe, before arriving in a Benjamite city, Gibeah. Since it's so late, they intend to stay the night in the square. But a local man takes them into his house, warning them not to stay outside there under any circumstance. When they are settled inside, men come banging on the door, intending to sexually assault the Levite man. To avoid this, the men in the house push the concubine outside to the mob. She is assaulted through the night, and released at daybreak. She makes it to the door of the home and collapses, dead. The Levite brings her back to his home, and decides he must let the rest of the nation know about the horrible thing that has been done to her. So he dismembers her body and sends part of it to each of the tribes of Israel. The national horror at this message is so great that all of Israel declares war on the tribe of Benjamin.

This is the kind of story which leaves you without words. It is absolutely horrifying. It seems clear that this is the effect which is intended by the author the narrative. All of Israel reacts with the reader in shock and desire for vengeance. The fact that this story is in the Bible evokes several pressing thoughts. In the first place, what are we to make of finding perhaps the worst possible kind of behavior documented among the people group who the Biblical narrative calls the special people of God? What does this say about the effectiveness of knowing God in producing virtue and goodness? In the second place, it is heartening to know that where this type of crime and abuse happens, it is not somehow outside the limits of what God is aware of. The woman who was abandoned to a violent mob to be raped and murdered was not unseen by God. In the third place, we have the perennial question: how could God see this and not intervene on her behalf?

Leaving these crucial questions to stand for a moment, we can also use the lens of the "female gaze" to focus even on a story like this and provide enlightening context. An important element in the story is that the Levite and his host seem to make the decision to offer the concubine to the men on the basis of gender, thinking that it would be worse for the men of Gibeah to commit homosexual sin. This calculation is made under the guise of a concern for righteousness, but it leads them to conclude that it would be better for someone else, weaker and under their authority, to suffer in their places. In the narrative, the rape and murder of the concubine is roundly condemned, but the decision by the Levite and his host to offer her up is not mentioned. Our judgment does not let them off the hook so easily. 

The general principle of the duty of the strong to use their power to support and protect the weak which I argue should underlie all social relations, particularly those between men and women, would make other demands on the men in authority here. Perhaps they would claim self defense to attempt to justify tossing someone else to the mob. But the behavior is about as justifiable as using a human shield in war. It leaves us with nearly as much shock and grief as the resulting rape and murder. An enduring bit of the reaction in Israel to this event is the astonishment that this kind of crime has happened, not among the pagan nations who surround them, but within one of their own tribes. Taking this same point of view and applying it within the smaller event, I find myself outraged that this poor woman was offered up by her family, not stolen away violently by those who did not care for her.

Putting together our general questions about this story's role in Scripture with the way gender-based power dynamics fit in, we are led to the overarching demand for justification for the suffering of the powerless. Here I think we can forge an interesting link between the suffering of the weak and the suffering of Christ. The archetype of one person suffering instead of the many in their place is an obvious fit for the archetype of a Christ figure. Of course, in this story there are large and important differences. This was not a willing self-sacrifice, it was a cowardly sacrifice of another to save someone's own skin. But I find myself wondering if we can almost read the archetype backwards in this situation. It seems one aspect of the meaning of Jesus's suffering was for him to identify with us as we experience inflicted suffering. In offering himself passively to the Romans, he took on the experience of enduring the suffering that others perpetrate. His resurrection declared that this kind of suffering is not the end of the story, but is seen and vindicated by God. The evil done by those who would hurt others stands in history as a lasting condemnation of their actions, but the Gospel tells us that the harm itself does not last into eternity. At first glance, it seems unfair that the lot of women is often to serve as symbols of suffering and victimhood which condemn the men who inflict it. But when we remember Christ, who filled this role par excellence, we see that those who suffer, as women or otherwise, are more closely united with him in some ways than those who do not. This gives us resources to interpret a story which is utterly confounding and depressing otherwise. 

Micah's mother shrugs and generations go astray (Judges 17-18)

Micah's mother has a short but intriguing story. She and her son are from the tribe of Ephraim. Her influence on him leads to the establishment of the worship of an idol, believed to represent the true God, which continues among the tribe of Dan from the time off the Judges, all the way through the monarchy, until Israel's exile. The way this comes about will leave us scratching our heads a bit. However there is something to learn from the story about the importance of a mother's spiritual and, even more importantly here, intellectual influence on her children.

What we learn about women

• Micah's mother blunderingly points him in the direction of idol worship, and he enthusiastically continues on the path.
• In raising children, both failures of omission and vagueness about truth have consequences.
• Regardless of the level of knowledge of God in the culture, mothers have a unique potential to influence what their children believe and do.

What I'm wondering

• How did this family gain such enthusiasm for God without knowing much about him? What does God think of enthusiasm like this?
• How did this idol gain such a a value that it was worthy of being stolen and used for worship by an entire tribe?
• Did the characters involved really identify the idol with Yahweh?

This story is punctuated a couple of times with that line the author of Judges uses to let us know he is shaking his head, "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes." So we are obviously not to take the reported behavior as endorsed by God. Here is the basic story. Micah tells his mother that the approximately 25 thousand dollars worth of silver she has been upset about missing is actually in his possession! What's more, that's because he was the one who had taken it in the first place. One might be surprised at the fact that she reacts with nothing but joy and thankfulness, and blesses her son. Even more surprising, to reward him, she devotes the silver to God and to her son, to be made into a cast image, an idol. Micah is extremely happy with this, and makes a special priestly ephod for his own son to wear, and commissions his son to be the priest for this idol. Let's stop here to comment.

The way she is described in the narrative, Micah's mother comes across as being both extremely quick to forgive, and surprisingly unfamiliar with the God she loves and worships. These do seem like faults, but they do not spring from a strategically diabolical nature. They just betray a lack of discipline and attention to detail when it comes to goodness and truth. Not so serious right? We can probably relate. 

Forgiveness is certainly a virtue. Offering compassion and mercy to a child who is confessing a sin is often the right tack to take. But for a parent, it should be accompanied by figuring out where consequences and learning should be administered, and that can be the hard part. Micah's mother does not seem to offer any critique to her son. And then she takes things in an even more questionable direction when she celebrates her son by having an idol made for him.

Again, all told it seems to me to be much more important to love God than to know correct theological doctrine. But love for God that knows absolutely nothing about him, like that the second thing on his list of commands is that his worshipers should not make idols of him, has to be questioned as to where it is actually directed. When a person says they love God but know nothing about him, is it really God, the specific person who created the universe, they are referring to? Are Micah and his mother in reality just very into sculptural art and the poetry of religious ritual? 

Micah's mother's lack of attention to theology and discipline seems more lazy than anything else. But even without her harboring ill intent, her failings will contribute to serious effects for her descendants. Of course as the story continues it doesn't seem like anyone in the vicinity has very accurate knowledge of God. We really don't know enough about Micah and his mom specifically to know how seriously to fault her for the looseness of her boundaries and theological understanding. Her role in the action is over as soon as the idol is cast, but events continue to unfold. 

A priest, an actual Levite, comes wandering up from the south and encounters the family. Micah is happy to be able to hire a real Levite priest to minister at the altar to his idol. The priest is happy to find a job. The Levite and the idol continue working for Micah until the army of the tribe of Dan comes around and, in an ironic twist, steals from Micah the very idol he got as a reward for returning what he had stolen. The leaders of the tribe of Dan set this false idol along with the kidnapped false priest and his descendants up as their official religious leaders permanently. And we are told that this continues until Israel is finally exiled several hundred years later. 

To expect that Micah's mother should have instructed her son more faithfully when her understanding is not bested by a Levite or the leaders of a whole tribe of Israel may be too much to ask. But we are able to see the outworking of the effects of this in-home episode, and we can imagine how things might have been different if Micah's mother had been able and willing to responsibly teach her son the truth about God and the behavior he loves. 

Delilah's most powerful tool: her sexuality or her persistent nagging? (Judges 16:4-20)

The next woman we encounter in Judges is the infamous Delilah. In the last post we saw how Samson's wife was pushed around by her kin until finally meeting a terrible end. His lover Delilah is also influenced by the Philistines to betray Samson, but she is not so hapless. In the end, Delilah gets the better of Samson, on purpose, for money. 

What we learn about women

• Delilah personifies the sexual manipulation women can exert over men which may cause them to lose all their strength and their sense.
• Delilah ultimately gets the upper hand over Samson by continuing to nag him.
• Nagging can only be done by those without authority, and for that reason it is often characterized as something that women do. Despite its association with lack of ability to compel, a continued request sometimes gets results.

What I'm wondering

• What is the role of "nagging" in relationships of authority?
• Does God want us to nag him? Does he sanction nagging in general?

There are some interesting parallels in the stories of the women in Samson's life. Both women are approached by Philistine leaders who pressure them to sabotage Samson. Both are described as tormenting Samson with nagging until he gives in and gives them information. But as noted above, there are huge differences between the women as well. Samson's wife, of course, was to enter into a legitimate, if politically and religiously unwise, marriage with him. There is no mention of marriage or family with Delilah. She does not pretend to ally herself with him. She entangles him with fairly open treachery--she is caught red-handed three times trying to offer him to his enemies before she finally succeeds. When she does, she is rewarded by the Philistines who come to capture him "with the money in their hands" for her. 

The most notable elements of Delilah's story are, first, her uncomplicated character as a femme fatale, second, the obviousness of this, even to Samson, and third, despite that, her success in bringing him down. It's a classic example of the bad guys winning. What are we to take away from observing her character? 

My hunch is that Delilah is portrayed in this way as an incarnation of the sexual temptation to which men are vulnerable and which causes them to be compromised in their strength, agendas, and good sense. Is this a complete picture of the real woman Delilah? Certainly not. But it is a caricaturized, you could even say mythologized (not in the sense of being untrue, but in the sense of capturing the nugget of a universal story or phenomena), look at what women can do to men with the power of sexual temptation. 

That said, I'd like to take a closer look at another element, the repeated descriptions of Samson's two main love interests "torment(ing) him with (their) nagging day after day until he was sick to death of it." Nagging is an interesting type of offense that is highly correlated with women in usage. Why is this so? I think it is because nagging can really only be done by someone who does not have the power to command. Nagging probably happens most often when a person agrees in principle to the request of someone who has no authority over them, (or in some sense allows that it would be right to do), but does not do it. Of course, a determined "nag" might continue to make requests even if she were outright refused. But in either case, it has historically often been women who are not in a power position to stand over a man and enforce his behavior, and therefore must resort to nagging or continuing to request. In contrast, if a man asks a woman or another man to do something, and then it is not done, the refusal comes across more like disobedience, and I think the man feels more permission to call to account without being accused of nagging. More generally, if a person in authority continues to request that someone under their authority do something without result, they will not be called a nag, but be seen as giving instructions or warnings that are being disregarded. You can only really nag if there is no way to enforce.

In the cases of Samson and his women, the nagging plays out in two different ways. In the first case, Samson doesn't agree to share the requested information with his wife, and she simply cries for days on end. Without the power to demand that he tell her the information, she simply continues her request, and in some sense keeps the conversation open, until he breaks down. In Delilah's case, we see what I think is the more classic scenario, where Samson does agree to tell her what she asks, but then he doesn't really tell her. "You still (still!) haven't told me" she says in verse 15, we could add, even though you said you would! Samson becomes "sick to death of it." So he finally tells her.

The irony of this is that nagging can only be done be someone without power to enforce . . . and yet it sometimes works to enforce! Perhaps this is why it is often met with an aggressive response, as the power of the continued request is felt. It even makes me think of Jesus's parable of the widow and the unjust judge. In this parable, a widow continually asks a judge, who is unjust and doesn't care about her, for justice. He eventually takes Samson's line: "this woman is driving me crazy. I'm going to see that she gets justice because she is wearing me out with her requests!" (Luke 18:5) Jesus says we are to learn from the story that we can continue to cry out to God day and night for justice, and he, unlike the unjust judge, will grant us justice quickly. Here the power dynamic inherent in nagging is hugely magnified when the relationship is between human beings and their God. We surely do not have the ability to enforce our will upon God, but there is power in continuing to request from him. I did not expect the result of this rabbit trail to be the idea that nagging is a God-ordained way to bring about justice! But here we are. : ) I suppose the application isn't perfect since these two Philistine gals were not seeking justice, but malice, with their nagging. Perhaps their fault was not in the nagging behavior but in the content of their requests. Much food for thought!

So was Delilah's real power over Samson due to her sexuality or her persistent nagging? I think it's hard to say. But before leaving this story let's take one final look at Delilah and the way she creates a foil for Samson's other major relationship partner, his first wife. Though their nagging in service of their countrymen is a parallel, the way their stories end could not be more different. If Samson deserves judgement for his abandonment of his first wife and the way he stokes tension with her people, he certainly gets it in this second story. Where his first wife is brutally murdered by her people, after failing in her relationship with Samson, Delilah laughs all the way to the bank after succeeding in hers. It does not bring any justice to Samson's wife, but it is in some way satisfying to see this other woman get the better of him in the same circumstances where his first wife was pushed around, abandoned, and terribly punished. Is that horrible and vindictive? Sometimes it's so hard to see what God is doing with these wild men he calls to greatness. 

This story with all of it's puzzles is certainly another example in Judges of women serving as foils to highlight the failings of men who should have done better for God. How sad that this role seems so common for women in our fallen world. 

 

Samson's wife: the worst wedding ever (Judges 14:1-15:8)

What we learn about women:

• Women, as weaker members in the world's power structure, can become the horrible incarnation of the suffering which is the inherent result of evil.
• We see an example of a woman faced with a choice between two bad options choose the worse one and suffer more than she might have otherwise.
• Beauty is not an unmitigated good. Though we see it as offering a measure of power to women who possess it, it can also be a magnet that draws attention from even more powerful people who want to exploit.

What I'm wondering: (If you aren't familiar with these stories, read below first to make sense of the questions.)

• Samson's wife appears to be a mere pawn in this story. Could she have used the little agency she had for a better outcome?
• Is there an echo of this kind of conflict in the current horrific events in Palestine? What are the women who are "pawns" under the authority and power of the violent men of Gaza to do? 

It's time to talk about Samson and the women in his life. If you grew up in church, you probably encountered Samson as some sort of a strongman superhero in Sunday school. But the passages in the book of Judges that tell his story are not so fun and kid-friendly. These passages do have two interesting female characters that will contribute to our project. One is Samson's wife, though his marriage is of no significant length due to the chaos and tragedy that typify Judges. The other is his lover, also implicated in dark drama. Both women are crucial for moving his story forward. Neither knows God. But we are told repeatedly that in the context of the untrustworthy women and evil events that characterize Samson's life, God's Spirit is with him and helping him. This post will focus on Samson's wife, the next one on the notorious Delilah.

I have to confess that on first reading, the horror of everything that Samson is involved with makes me want to shut the book. These chapters recount mass killing, deceit upon deceit, animal cruelty, and burning alive to name a few. I'm sticking with it to try to keep to this task of putting together the whole biblical picture of women in the Bible without avoiding inconvenient parts. I read Matthew Henry's commentary to get some additional perspective, and I was surprised to see that though he acknowledged plainly the evil inherent in much of the action, he was not as squeamish as I felt about the totality of the story. He focused in on the fact that many of the people who are doing and receiving evil in the story are self-designated enemies of God. (Samson excluded.) Henry is able to look at Samson as a super hero fighting bad guys who deserve it. I think that context is important to keep in mind for those of us who are accustomed to a post-Christ way of seeing everyone in the world as a possible redeemed child of God. That was still true back in the days of the Judges. But this story focuses more on the deliverance of the people of God from those who do not chose to be redeemed than the redemption and turning of God's enemies into friends. Maybe it shouldn't be so surprising to see God's judgment on display in a book entitled, "Judges."

Samson chooses for his wife a Philistine babe who "looked good to him." His parents warn him about marrying outside of God's people but he does not take their advice. From Matthew Henry's point of view, everything that follows results from the ungodly character of the Philistines with whom he will keep company for the rest of his story. 

Samson's wife, we've already noted, was lovely enough to draw Samson's eye from afar. She is unlucky in the rest of her circumstances, and one has to wonder if she would have even seen the beauty that drew Samson to her as luck in the end. At her wedding, Samson challenges his male Philistine companions to answer a riddle, with 30 outfits of clothing on the line. They can't do it. They force his fiance to get the answer out of him and tell it to them, or else they threaten to burn her and her father in their home. And with that, we start to see the mood of these stories play out. 

Samson's poor fiance has been put into a terrible position. She must betray her new husband, or else face a threat of horrific violence from the thugs she grew up with. What would have happened if she had allied herself with her super-hero husband? We don't have that story. But one does feel pity for her when she approaches Samson "in tears" and asks him to reveal his answer if he really loves her. This is the first part of a pattern that repeats with the other woman in his life Delilah later. They are both described as nagging him until he gives in and tells the information his enemies need to get the better of him. Then they both promptly give that information to his enemies. 

After the riddle ends in this way, Samson flies off in a rage to collect 30 outfits from 30 people in Ashkelon, by killing them. The Spirit of the Lord enables him to do this. We are to see it as a feat which helps to deliver Israel from its oppressors. But it sure does ruin the wedding. Everyone leaves, Samson and his bride go home. Her father figures the marriage is off and gives his daughter in marriage to the best man. But later Samson comes back to make up with her, and wants to visit her in her bedroom. This is now impossible. Samson is furious, and the situation escalates through the burning of Philistine fields, the burning of Samson's bride and her father in their house as previously threatened, a great slaughter executed by Samson on the Philistines in response, and then Samson going to live alone in a cave. The Philistines will continue to try to capture him unsuccessfully until they get in league with a true femme fatale, Delilah.

Samson's first wife is a simple tragic character. She's a beautiful pawn who is taken advantage of by her people, and meets a terrible end. What can we learn from her? For one thing, she is an example of how the power structure within which women exist can be used for evil. Women find ourselves weaker physically and socially often in the world. When there is no love, respect, or protection offered to the weak by the strong, they often become a horribly vivid incarnation of suffering and oppression. This testifies loudly to the appalling evil that is done when the strong exploit and abuse the weak. We hate to see and hear of these kind of events. Those who perpetrate them are clearly exposed in their inhumanity and demand to be judged.  

Second, in the question of how this woman might have used her limited agency, there is a call to those who find themselves in positions of weakness to look at what power for good and for influence they still have. No human being is a completely passive recipient, unless this has been their choice. When we find ourselves in impossible circumstances, what can we do? With whom should we ally ourselves for security? When we look to thugs and bullies rather than God and his people, we take the side of evil which opposes God and will ultimately be overcome by him. It is vital for human beings, whatever their level of power amongst their peers, to ally ourselves with the ultimate power for good. God can be trusted to work for goodness in the end, regardless of the intermediate timeline. He can also be trusted to work against those who oppose him. 

This story could apply to women when we are pushed and pulled by conflicting obligations with potentially terrible consequences attending whatever choice we make, and we do not have the ability to ensure a good result through our own power. When we have these choices to make, it is vital to ally ourselves with God and his work even if it comes with a large social cost. Letting the loudest and most familiar voices dictate her behavior led to disaster for Samson's wife. If she had been able to see that God was at work in the life of her new husband and taken his side instead of her old community, her story might have ended differently, and God's wrath might not have been poured out on so many others. That's the simpler way to look at this story. The other angle which could be taken is to throw up our hands and weep at the tragedy that was so typical of the time of the Judges, where there was so much violence and immorality and "Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes."

Manoah's wife hears it right (Judges 13:1-24)

What we learn about women:

• God often communicates with women about their children directly, especially their conceptions and births. They are privileged to be the first to know about the lives of their children, sometimes directly from the mouths of angels. 
• This kind of message is often personal, just for women, but sometimes God gives them the responsibility of sharing his messages with the men in their lives.
• God is very concerned with the birth of new people and the effects they will bring in the world as well as the lives of their mothers and families.

What I'm wondering: (If you aren't familiar with these stories, read below first to make sense of the questions.)

• Samson is called by God from before his birth to be holy and to rescue Israel. Why does God allow such chaos in the course of his life?
• What does this relationship between Samson's parents mean for how women should explain to the skeptical men in their lives what God is calling them to do? 

Samson is a familiar biblical hero, at least in the sense of "hero" appropriate to the mythological mood of the book of Judges. But a part of his story you may be less familiar with is the visit to his parents from an angel of the Lord who announces he will be born. Samson's mother, the wife of Manoa, is another woman in a long line of biblical women who can't conceive until their prayers are answered by God in a specific message, and not infrequently in a personal visit! 

An angel visits Manoah's wife and explains to her that she will have a son who is to be dedicated to God as a Nazirite. Because of this, she must not have any alcohol or forbidden food, and her son's hair must never be cut. And the angel promises that this son will deliver Israel from the Philistines. 

It's a bit unwieldy to keep typing "Manoah's wife," but she's unnamed, even though she has the primary role in this story. This irony is part of an underlying comic mood throughout the episode related to the dynamic between Manoah and his wife, where He is continually trying to catch up with her in understanding of what is going on. I think it counts as another example of women in Judges being cast in an honored position, specifically in contrast with their corresponding men. 

After the angel's visit, Manoah's wife runs to tell her husband what has happened. His reaction is to politely ask God if he could please send the angel again to tell them how to raise the boy. He is clearly wanting to get some confirmation about this, maybe not fully trusting what his wife has said. To be fair, many of us might feel the same. 

God does send the angel again, but again, the angel comes to Manoah's wife when she is not with her husband. This is funny. God answers Manoah's prayer, but in a way that reiterates that his message is for Manoah's wife herself. She goes running off to get him to come see the angel as well this time. The angel waits.

Manoah feels the need to confirm, "Are you the man who talked to my wife?" "I am." replies the angel. Manoah then asks, "What is to be the rule that governs the boy's life and work?" And the angel replies, basically: what I just told your wife. I just love how the angel is patient with Manoah, but continually affirms that his wife has correctly received a genuine message.

Manoah's next move is to invite the angel to stay for a meal. It makes me think of Peter wanting to build shelters for Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration. Since you're here, can we all hang out?? The angel says he will not eat, but they can make an offering to the Lord. Manoah continues to try to direct the encounter, asking the angel's name. "It is beyond understanding." Manoah is not getting it. But he finally realizes who he's talking to and what is going on when the angel ascends in the flames that consume the offering they have prepared. At this point, we might say, he freaks out. "We are doomed to die! We have seen God!" Manoah's wife, still more in touch with the situation, says in a tone of voice I can hear across the ages, "If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this." 

And then, Samson is born. "And the Lord blessed him as he grew up." Samson's parents continue to figure into the story of his life. We hear more about them regarding his troubled first marriage, and you can tell he must have a fairly close relationship with them. The text makes several mentions of things happening to Samson and the fact that "he didn't tell his father or mother about it," as if this were unusual. 

I'll have more to say about Samson in another post, but I love the story of his mother's visits from the angel. I think it reflects a familiar pattern in the world where God interacts deeply and intimately with mothers, whose experience of this can be written off as unrelated to the world of men where the important things happen, and can too often be doubted until sanctioned by men. This story is told to a larger degree from the other side, the feminine perspective. In this instance, God was willing to offer the appearance of an angel to substantiate that perspective, and it feels satisfying. Though this doesn't always happen, to say the least, it does make me think of another situation where an angel first appeared to women to give them a very important message about the salvation of Israel and the world, and then substantiated it with follow-up angelic testimony to men. This happened at the resurrection of Christ.  

Women and the pride of men: Abimelech, Jepthah, their mothers, a daughter, and a dangerous woman with a millstone (Judges 9-11)

In this post we will look at four female characters in the stories of two men: the judges Abimelech and Jephthah. Two women, their mothers, are on the far periphery of the action, and two others, a warrior and a daughter, are in minor supporting roles. But in interestingly parallel circumstances, they each affect the honor and pride of Abimelech and Jephthah deeply. We don't know much about the lives and experiences of these women themselves, (except for one), and we will have to look at them through the often male-focused biblical perspective. But for most of history it's been a man's world, and how women powerfully affect even a world that portrays them as side characters is an interesting thing to consider.

What we learn about women:

• Who your mother is is very important.
• Even when men look down on women, their pride and status is influenced by women in their lives. But true honor comes from their position in relation to God.
• The ideal of submission for women can cause trouble for men who are sinning, since it can prevent women from working against men's bad plans. (But I'd add, this is a problem for men to worry about, it's not on women to be responsible for keeping men in line.)
• Women are used by God to stop bad guys. He loves to use those who seem weak to overcome those who seem strong. 

What I'm wondering: (If you aren't familiar with these stories, read below first to make sense of the questions.)

• What ever became of Jotham? 
• What was Jephthah's relationship with God like? Why did God let him think he should sacrifice his daughter?
• What did the yearly remembrance of Jephthah's daughters look like? How did Israel interpret the event in hindsight?

Jephthah's daughter and her friends in the hills (wallhere image)

Of  Mothers, Massacres, and Millstones

An important parallel situation sets both Abimelech's and Jephthah's lives in motion: they are both illegitimate sons. Their two mothers are not wives of their fathers but a concubine and a prostitute. Nothing is revealed about these mothers other than their lack of status. We can be sure the women figured largely in the lives of their little boys, as all mothers do, at least in the early years. But the fact of their social positions, or rather lack thereof, in the family also had large consequences for Abimelech and Jephthah when they grew to be young men. First we'll summarize Abimelech's story.

Abimelech was a son of the heroic Gideon, who also had seventy other sons by his many wives. His mother was a concubine from Shechem. His illegitimacy, though no fault of his own, is a strike against him in competition with his many brothers for power. His lineage is part Hebrew, part pagan, and he chooses sides with his pagan uncles in Shechem to get an edge in the power struggle against his brothers. His bad character is made obvious by the horrible plan to seize power he carries out with his uncles: a massacre of all of his half-brothers. If Abimelech is evil, Gideon's other sons come across more wimpy than righteous, allowing themselves to be slaughtered one by one "on one stone" by the bunch of "reckless troublemakers" from Abimelech's hometown who follow him since he is their relative. Only the youngest son of Gideon, Jotham, survives. He escapes and delivers a long speech condemning and cursing Abimelech for his massacre, but that's his last recorded action. Abimelech goes on to solidify his power in Shechem for the next three years. 

A sidenote: this story is related to our earlier discussion of the life of Dinah, the sister of the 12 sons of Israel. This Shechem seems to be the same city of the ill-fated Shechem in Dinah's story, and now the town is named after him.  I found it interesting that here in Judges a man from Shechem commits an unjust massacre on Israelite leaders, after the prince of Israel has an illegimate relationship with a woman from there (who seems to be at least connected with a bunch of brothers who hold power there). It is not an exact reversal of Dinah and Shechem's story, but it does make you think of it, right? 

Eventually, Abimelech's rule is challenged, not by Jotham, but by the citizens of Shechem, who organize under one Gaal of Ebed. Abimelech cruelly crushes the rebellion, leveling the town, scattering salt on the ground, and burning the temple of Baal where the surviving citizens had taken refuge, with them trapped inside. Apparently on a tear, he continues to capture another town, Thebez, and is about to burn the tower there where the people are hiding, when another woman briefly but powerfully enters the action. She is another war hero, who drops a millstone on Abimelech, crushing his skull as he tries to set fire to the entrance. Millstones are heavy, no? The Israelite women in this period appear to have been extremely tough!! Abimelech is embarrassed that a woman will have (nearly) done him in, and he recruits his own armor bearer to finish the job so that no one can say a woman has killed him. With his death, his men disband and go home. The story ends commenting that Jotham's judgement and curse on Abimelech and the people of Shechem has been fulfilled by the events. 

Pride and Shame Delivered by Women

Though we've talked about women's generally low status in terms of political, community, and family power, we haven't considered much how the status of women affected the prestige of the men in their lives. For Abimelech, the fact that his mother was not a wife of Gideon was a problem for him. Her lack of status transferred to him, distinguishing him negatively from his father's other sons. This same pattern will affect Jephthah, whose story we will discuss next. 

These initial circumstances of parentage set Jephthah and Abimelech's lives off on contrasting courses. What might have happened if they had been born to wives of their fathers? Both might have risen to leadership through their military skills without the baggage of illegitimacy. This would be even more likely the case if their fathers had followed the good and highly practical pattern of monogamy instead of taking many wives and winding up with 70 sons vying for power. In that respect not only their mothers' "purity" but their fathers' caused them trouble. The difference between the purity of mothers and fathers is that fathers tend not to suffer in honor for their impurity, where as mothers bear impurity as shame. The mother's shame, rather than the father's honor, is then passed on to the children of the impure mother and father. Marriage, and monogamy, are a strong protection for both women and their children against the consequences of dishonor. 

Would it be better to just disregard the honor/dishonor piece completely here to level the playing field for families where women who are not married to the fathers of their children? No. Part of the reason the honor and dishonor come about is that women and their children need the protection and support of fathers. When a woman does not have this, she and her children are clearly vulnerable, and will be more likely to suffer from poverty and danger: inherently not circumstances to be praised or sought after in a person's life. A man who is impure will not reap these automatic physical consequences, so his honor is less likely to be compromised by his impurity. But the important thing is that if he is constantly inflicting bad circumstances on women and children, he is guilty of doing what is wrong, whatever his outwardly observable life circumstances are. 

The above really pertains more to Abimelech's father. But now to the affected son, Abimelech himself. The woman with the millstone brings up a different consideration of how how prestige and pride are related to relationships between women and men. Abimelech thought death would be more palatable if not served by a woman's hand. He seems to have felt that women couldn't be counted as strong warriors, and it would make him look weak to have been defeated by one. Notice that a question of pride is foremost in Abimelech's last thoughts! The text interprets the warrior's death as inflicted by God as judgment. But Abimelech in his misdirected pride, is more concerned that his death has been inflicted by a woman. When he shortly meets the Greatest and Strongest Warrior, the Lord of Heaven's Armies who has directed her, his focus will change. Despite the general pattern of power dynamics between male and female human beings, the most important thing to remember is who is in charge of it all. He makes the weak strong and the strong weak. 

A vow, a victory, a virgin

After Abimelech Israel has two more judges, with not very exciting stories, before we meet Jephthah. He is first and foremost introduced as a great warrior. His mother is a prostitute. His father is "Gilead" who I can't identify in the text. (There is a lot of talk about the land or region or towns or people of Gilead, but I don't see a person named Gilead, so I'm not sure whether he is a judge or what.) Jephthah and Abimelech are both disadvantaged by their illegitimacy. But unlike Abimelech, who snuck off to scheme against his legitimate half-brothers, Jephthah is driven away by his half-brothers to keep him from getting any inheritance from his father "for you are the son of a prostitute." Like Abimelech, after departing from his father's household, Jephthah soon has "a band of worthless rebels following him." But, again in contrast to Abimelech, Jephthah is called back to Gilead to help fight off the Ammonites who are causing the region of Gilead much trouble. If he will deliver the Israelites, the leaders of Gilead promise to make him their king. 

Do you see the pointed similarities and differences between him and Abimelech? Abimelech sneaks off to usurp power over his legitimate brothers, kills them, and is ultimately cursed to fail and lose power. Jephthah is run off by his legitimate brothers who want his power for themselves, then is called back to deliver them, and be made their ruler. The final contrasting parallel in the lives of Abimelech and Jephthah can be drawn between the roles of the only two women mentioned in their lives (other than their mothers). Abimelech's near military victory is crushed by the woman with the millstone who kills him; Jephthah's military victory in hand is turned sour, and he himself is "destroyed," by a woman he feels compelled to kill--his own daughter. 

After Jephthah agrees to lead the Israelites in battle against the Ammonite king, the Spirit of God comes upon him, enabling him to gather an army for the fight. At this time, he makes a vow to the Lord that really seems like it is provoking fate, or God. "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the Lord whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph, I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." So. What kinds of things might come out of a house to greet a person? Goats or other animals which would make good offerings? Food? Money? Probably more likely people. You have to wonder what he was thinking. When God does give him victory and he returns home, unsurprisingly but devastatingly, his only child, his daughter, comes out to greet him. 

Another sidenote: the whole book of Judges reminds me so much of Greek mythology, with mischievous heroes winning great battles and then being ruined by their own character failings. It's of course distinctly different in that the true God is ever-present as a judge and helper in these events. But the story of Jephthah and his daughter feels the very Greekest of them all to me. 

What is happening in this tragic moment where Jephthah becomes apparently obligated to sacrifice his daughter? Initially, God had come upon Jephthah to help him. At that time, Jephthah made a vow, offering in some sense to pay God back for a victory. Was that the wrong turn? What is God's part in all this? God was using Jephthah for his purpose and was even dwelling in him. (Or on him. Is that an important difference?) God certainly allowed Jephthah's daughter to come out of his house. What did he want Jephthah to do then? Jephthah felt bound to carry out his vow: "I cannot take it back." Surely this was the wrong decision. But Judges does not comment other than to report the tragedy. If he had asked me for advice, I would have encouraged him to repent of his foolish vow and offer himself as a living sacrifice, or dying one, in battle for the Lord, in her stead. But alas we weren't able to discuss.

Jephthah's daughter is a direct opposite of the warrior woman with the millstone who brought shame on Abimelech. She is as gentle and submissive as a lamb in her reaction. She encourages her father to fulfill his vow. She only wants to go roam the hills and weep with her friends for two months because she will die a virgin with no children. This is so dramatically heartbreaking and horrifying. It became such an affecting event in Israel that the text says every year thereafter the young Israelite women would go away to for four days to lament her fate. 

It is a distinctly feminine tragedy for a few reasons. First of all, it involves the loss of a child, and a girl. The Father is the main mourner, but this parent-child love has a huge relationship to child-bearing in general, a women's domain first. Second, the trusting and submissive response of Jephthah's daughter is definitely the ideal feminine attitude, almost to the point of caricature though. You want to tell them both, "Wait!!! Let's think this through a bit! Maybe the vow itself was wrong!" Third, the main thing that brings sadness to Jephthah's daughter and her friends is that she will not be able to become a wife and, especially, mother. Fourth, it is the young women of Israel who remember and lament her death each year. 

Jephthah is recorded as fulfilling his vow, and then his military career continues. This time he is involved in a civil war with men from Ephraim who are angry he didn't invite them to fight the Ammonites. Though he is successful in this conflict as well, he dies after six years of judging Israel, or less than six years after killing his daughter. 

Women and Men and Pride and Falls

Very different women in the stories of Jephthah and Abimelech, in both typical and atypical feminine roles, wound up "destroying" great warriors. Abimelech was in an obvious position of guilt demanding judgment meted out, shamefully in his eyes, by a woman. This fits the pattern of Judges where women, surprisingly to the audience, are used by God to accomplish his work in situations where men are failing. Jephthah's moral situation is not so clear. He has been used mightily by God to deliver God's people and seems to be thankful to God, however rash his expression of gratitude. When Jephthah first realizes what his vow entails, he exclaims to his daughter, "You have completely destroyed me! You've brought disaster on me!" How are we to understand his guilt and his "destruction" in terms of his daughter's sacrifice? I think his willingness to make the vow and to carry it our are both expressions of his pride. Having a submissive daughter in this case would in some sense seem to help his honor, as in his own assessment he is able to carry out his word, and even possibly pay God back, so as not to be indebted to him? But this pride, supported by a textbook submissive daughter, also winds up destroying him. Abimelech is destroyed in the shame of being killed by only a woman. Jephthah is destroyed preserving his honor at the expense of the life of a woman. 

But what makes this all make more sense is keeping in mind the difference between how God and people allocate honor and shame. From the human perspective, men do not lose much honor for impurity. From God's perspective, they are guilty and bear dishonor for doing wrong. The order built into the universe where the strong must help the weak, and the weak are blessed by trusting God for help, sets a complicated system in place. Women are inherently vulnerable, subject to human dishonor. But we are blessed by God as our need for him is more obvious. We are at times used mightily by him to crush powerful bad guys with millstones and tent pegs when they least suspect it. At other times, like Jephthah's daughter, we bear the suffering men inflict, trusting God's ultimate justice. Men are less likely to suffer from dishonor and more likely to be driven to destruction by pride and inability to obey and rely on God. Our circumstances are our circumstances, but our ultimate destiny regardless depends on our willingness to offer ourselves to God for his help and his power to do what he asks.

Women of War: Deborah and Jael (Judges 1-5)

Welcome to Judges!

Today, we begin looking at the book of Judges. Other than the story of Rahab, which we covered last time, there were only 2 more places in Joshua, our last book, where women are even mentioned, and both of those stories are also found in other books. One, the story of Zelophehad's daughters, we dealt with already when we were reading the Law. The other is here in Judges, and we'll look at it briefly in this post because it's pretty short and somewhat inscrutable. It's the story of how Othniel, the first judge of Israel found his wife. But the main part of this post will look at the lives of Deborah and Jael, such a treat for our study of women in the Bible! Deborah is always held up as an example of a biblical woman in a non-traditional role, so I am really looking forward to examining her story! Bound up with it is one that's perhaps even more fascinating, the story of Jael of the mighty tent-peg, who you may not have heard of unless you read your Bible quite diligently. 

One opening observation about the book of Judges: I said above that Joshua hardly speaks of women at all. They aren't even listed as existing in towns where wars are taking place, it is only Joshua and his men against the Canaanite men. But Judges is just full of female characters in roles large and small, tragic, and heroic. We are going to enjoy this book. 

What we learn about women

• In the three stories in this post, women are contrasted with men whom they outshine.

• Deborah was a prophet and a judge, but saw Barak's request for her accompanying presence in battle as detracting from his own military glory.

• Jael is honored for her decisive action in luring Sisera into her tent and then killing him.

• Deborah's song provides commentary that honors God for his action in giving victory to his people when they are a weaker military force. It also gives a strongly female perspective on the death of Sisera and the effect it has on his people.

What I'm wondering

• Is Deborah an example for all women to aspire to this kind of leadership? What do we make of her rebuke to Barak?

• What is Jael's back story? The text refers to "The days of Jael." It also says her family was allied with King Jabin, but she acts purposefully to kill Sisera, his commander.

• What was going on in Barak's mind through the story? We know as little about him and his thoughts as we often know about women in the male-dominated stories we've looked at.

Acsah and Othniel and the wedding gift

Let's begin with our first woman in the book of Judges, Acsah. She is the daughter of Caleb, who offers her hand in marriage to the person who captures the town of Kiriath-Sepher. Othniel, Caleb's nephew, is the one to achieve this and they get married. At the marriage, the text gives us this strange detail, all the information we really have about their marriage. "When Acsah married Othniel, she urged him [or he urged her] to ask her father for a field. As she got down off her donkey, Caleb asked her, 'what's the matter?' She said, 'Let me have another gift. You have already given me land in the Negev; now please give me springs of water, too.' So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs." 

This story is short but intriguing. So many questions: who was urging who to ask Caleb (translators can't tell whether Othniel urged her to ask for this gift or the reverse)? why are we told she was getting off her donkey? did they want a field or springs? I think we can at least guess that it was Acsah who wanted the springs. If Othniel wanted the field, Acsah could have changed the plan and asked for springs. If she wanted the field she probably wouldn't have then asked for springs instead. Right? The other place where this story is recorded word for word is in Joshua in the part where land distributions are recorded. So one guess is that it is there just to point out that those springs do in fact belong to Othniel's family. (Which is also Acsah's family anyway. . . ?) But is it also a foreshadowing of the way women frequently enter the narrative in Judges almost to shame men who are not doing what they ought to do. Here, the story introduces Othniel who will be the first Judge of Israel. If Othniel wanted the field, maybe he should have asked for it himself, and perhaps he would have gotten it instead of the springs? Maybe that's reading too much into it, but it loosely fits a pattern we'll keep seeing.

Continuing on in Judges, chapter 3 tells us that the Israelites have fallen completely into idolatry and intermarriage with foreigners. Because of God's anger over this, they have been "turned over" to King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram. They cry out to the Lord who raises Othniel up to bring about military victory over Aram for Israel, which leads to peace in the land for 40 years. Othniel is followed by Ehud, the assassin who kills the obese King Eglon. It's quite a colorful story complete with toilet humor and graphic descriptions of Eglon's large body. Ehud is succeeded by Shamgar, who is described with only one sentence, "He once killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad." What a legacy! But his story is almost skipped over--next, Deborah's story begins by saying that after Ehud's death (which was before Shamgar's time) "the Israelites again did evil in the Lord's sight." Because of this evil, God allowed them to be oppressed by King Jabin, and his fearsome army commander Sisera.

God's victory at the hands of Deborah and Jael

Verse 4 of chapter 4 introduces Deborah as the wife of Lappidoth, and as the prophet who was judging Israel at the time. She would hold court under the "Palm of Deborah" (what a fun visual) and people would come to see her for judgment. But as this story opens, Deborah actually is the one seeking out Barak from Naphtali with a message from the Lord. 

God's message for Barak is a command and a promise. He must call his 10,000 warriors from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun, and confront Sisera's army. God promises to give him victory in the battle. Barak's response to this commission is a little odd, "I will go, but only if you go with me." This army commander seems to want hand-holding from Deborah the prophet. What does he hope she will do? Is he looking for her to commit to her message and put her own life on the line? Deborah agrees to go with him but declares, "you will receive no honor in this venture, for the Lord's victory will be at the hands of a woman." This makes it sound like she will actually be leading the troops, but the text says that Barak calls the troops and leads the attack. Somehow Deborah's presence and moral support is enough to compromise his glory. This is an obvious episode of women in Judges serving to point out the failings of men.

Deborah, though, is fully confident and prophetic as she accompanies Barak and inspires him to lead the troops to victory. In accordance with her message from God, Sisera's army is thrown into complete confusion and panic during the attack, and they all flee. Sisera escapes on foot. The rest of the army is chased and slaughtered by Barak and his troops. Enter our second female heroine, who's story is even more intense than Deborah's and whose confidence is nearly equal.

Jael is related to Moses's father-in-law Jethro. Jethro's family is settled among the Israelites in the promised land, not far from the Kishon river where this battle takes place. After Sisera escapes the battle he runs straight to Jael's tent because her husband is on friendly terms with King Jabin. However, Jael's part in the story throws that detail into doubt. Jael welcomes Sisera into her tent, even telling him, "don't be afraid." She gives him milk and settles him comfortably to rest with a blanket. As I summarize it here, it strikes me as a lot of motherly imagery. But it's leading up to quite a twist. When he is asleep, Jael creeps up to him with a hammer and a tent peg, and hammers the peg right through his temple! This is a more familiar role than Deborah's for a woman, inside the tent, providing food and comfort. But her action is maybe even less what you might expect from a woman. Can you imagine the chutzpah necessary to plan and execute this killing by hammer and tent peg? I feel like even just using a hammer would be less intense. Phew!

Next, Barak arrives at Jael's tent in search of Sisera. Again he has lost his chance for battle glory to a woman. Jael says, "Come, and I will show you the man you are looking for." She has the situation under control, and Barak is a day late and a dollar short. Though I'm sure she was glad to have Sisera removed from her tent! 

Deborah's Song

This military victory is decisive, leading to Israel's eventual destruction of King Jabin's rule. We can find some more hints on how to process the great contributions of women to this conflict in Deborah's song, which runs the length of Chapter 5. Judges is full of long speeches and dialogue, but this is maybe the most spectacular example in the book. 

There are several things about Deborah's song that I want to point out. First of all, it gives us a window into Deborah's thoughts about this battle. She is completely focused on the Lord and his victory. She does point out her role, alongside Barak, as being used by God. She praises Barak for leading the troops, but is proud of her own actions as well. She describes how Israel was languishing under King Jabin and Sisera. "In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, and in the days of Jael, people avoided the main roads, and travelers stayed on winding pathways. There were few people left in the villages of Israel-- until Deborah arose as a mother for Israel." This passage is so interesting for a few reasons. First of all it mentions Shamgar, who as we said above is rather skipped over in the storyline of judges. It also talks in what seems to be a parallel construction about "the days of Jael." What does that mean?? Jael was not a judge. Is this implying she had some military power or prowess even before she killed Sisera? We've got to leave that one there. But what warms my heart is that Deborah sees herself as a mother for Israel. She is clearly in a high position with many roles: judge, prophet, you could even say general. But she sees her overall role as mothering her nation. And she sees mothering as delivering messages for God, serving as moral support in military action, and composing epic poetry. 

As her song continues, she praises bravery of those who volunteered and went out to war, marching as "the few" against "the mighty." Again and again she emphasizes that God is the one who delivered Israel in this battle. She even uses cosmic imagery, the stars were fighting against Sisera and the river swept his army away. She also casts blame on the people of Israel who did not come to help. 

The last eight verses of her 31-verse song are about the killing of Sisera by Jael. Deborah has high praise for her sister in arms. "Most blessed among women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. May she be blessed above all women who live in tents." If you have any kind of Catholic background, you'll notice that the first part of that blessing is remarkably close to a line from the Hail Mary prayer, which comes from the angel's visitation to Mary, "Blessed are you among women." This is clearly not referring to that, being long before it in time. And I doubt the angel had this on his mind when he was greeting Mary. But it makes for quite a contrast in our minds!

The next part of the song is a poetic retelling of the events in Jael's tent. It ends with the somewhat lost in translation verse, "He sank, he fell, he lay still at her feet. And where he sank, there he died." I've always thought it was kind of redundant to the point of being silly. But if you think of him first sinking in exhaustion, falling asleep, and then laying still, and while laying still, then dying, it makes more sense.

The last part of Deborah's song is so interesting. It gives a brilliantly female perspective that is rare in the Bible. Deborah paints a picture of Sisera's mother looking out the window waiting for her son to come home from battle, wondering why he hasn't arrived. Boy is this waiting for men to come home common in the world of women! She speaks with her wise women about her concerns and they reassure her that he must be dividing the plunder. They hope for "a woman or two for every man"--yikes!, and also, completely understandably "colorful robes for Sisera and embroidered robes for me." "Yes," she muses, "the plunder will include colorful robes embroidered on both sides." 

These details are so illustrative to me about the way the world of the Bible was so different and so similar to our own, especially for women. How can we possibly understand hoping for two captive women for each man in our community? How can we deny our full understanding of waiting for a son to come home from danger and trying to distract ourselves from worry by thinking about awesome clothes (ahem, retail therapy)? And the way we turn over a problem with our wise women and repeat their words of encouragement back to ourselves? Is this Deborah's genuine female take on the world coming through over thousands of years? Or a historically based song put in her mouth by an inspired author? Whoever wrote it was at least making a reasonable attempt to think from a woman's perspective. If you are thinking I have been hugely stereotyping what the female perspective is in this paragraph, that's true. But the point is that something this stereotypically female has rarely made its way into the Bible at all in our reading up to this point, even as a stereotype. The author of judges really saw women having a place in the action.

There is no resolution to the vivid dramatic irony in which Sisera's mother waits. In the next verse, the song finishes beautifully, "Lord, may all your enemies die like Sisera, but may all those who live you rise like the sun in all its power!" Then the story of Deborah, Barak, Jael and Sisera ends. "Then there was peace in the land for 40 years." Just like after Othniel's life.

So, does Deborah prove anything about women's roles and identity?

What can we file away for our main project of hunting for God's thoughts about women in the Bible from this often referenced important story of Deborah the Judge (and Jael the Warrior!)? In case you somehow missed my interpretive assumptions for all of this, I do think God has different callings for men and women based on our biology that lead to real outworkings in our vocations. You probably didn't miss that. ; ) So what I say here will reflect that. 

God certainly gave evidence of using Deborah to deliver his messages of prophecy and judgement. This is not such a new thing for biblical women--we have already learned that Miriam was called "the prophet" and held a leadership role alongside Moses and Aaron until her harsh rebuke from God. But Judges is so often frank about what is happening in Israel, recording even really evil deeds with no moral commentary other than, "In those days Israel had no king and everyone did as they saw fit." So we can't automatically say everything the main characters do should set an example. But that sentence doesn't appear in this story, where the main point is God's deliverance of Israel, using even women to accomplish this. The tone feels less like, "should women be allowed to lead?" and more like "wow, God can even work through women when he wants to!" It's unexpected and amazing. But the expectation for Barak was that he should have done this without so much help from Deborah, and later from Jael. A pattern is being broken, and it doesn't look good on Barak.

Specifically because of Deborah's message to Barak, delivered in the same tone of voice as her other messages from God for him, that he is missing out on glory intended for him when she joins him in battle, I don't think we'd be justified in saying, "See? God doesn't care if men or women are the leaders." But, I think we would be right to focus on God's action and the importance of joining his plan without focusing on particularly who must practically lead in specific circumstances. Deborah is happy to jump in in an unexpected role, that ultimately does support Barak as the military leader, and she is proud of what God has done through her. But she is really the most proud of God, not herself as an empowered female. Does Deborah's story serve as an example for women to try to level the playing field or get authority over men in leadership? No. This was not Deborah's goal--it would be more self-serving than God-serving for any of his followers to be primarily concerned with their own status. Does it give us encouragement to follow God wherever he leads when our leaders are failing us? Yes. But instead of focusing on which people get to be leaders, with Deborah and Barak we should be rejoicing over what our true overarching Leader has accomplished.