In the verses previous to those of our present text, the extravagance and indulgence of Ahasuerus is manifested. His excessive feasting speaks much about his true character. Just as we might find glimpses of our own true character if we examine the areas of excess and indulgence in our life. In the verses now before us, we shall see the consummation of the grand feasts.

“On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on.”
(Esther 1:10-11)

On this last day, Ahasuerus sends for the queen. The record does not say why he was calling her. He had been showing all his glory and the greatness of his kingdom and apparently, his wife, the queen, was one that he prized greatly because of her physical beauty. He felt she was his prized possession and cherished trophy. Since he had been displaying everything else in his kingdom, he was going to display her also.

He sends for her and makes it something of a procession. He sends all the chamberlains after her to bring her. He seems to be making a parade, continuing with the pomp and circumstance that marked these feasts. He wanted her decked out in royal apparel and the crown on her head. We recall here that the feasting was done in separate places. One was for the men and one for the women. He sends for her to come into the place where the men have been feasting and partying.

“But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him”
(Esther 1:12)

Many women would applaud Vashti for making this choice and standing up for her “rights.” She was not going to come to be put on display and made a show of for her husband and his friends. Most would say that it was an awful thing for the king to ask, and I certainly agree it was. However, those that would applaud are not likely applauding her virtue or modesty as much as her descent from her husband’s authority.

Ironically, many who congratulate her virtue have no problem displaying their own bodies in sinful ways. Many love to keep up with the modern fashions, as if a consensus is all that is needed to deviate from Scripture. Most of today’s clothing and fashion is designed to show off the body and to accentuate certain areas. In keeping with modern fashion, many women are guilty of doing what the queen was here refusing to do.

God, in His Word says, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Timothy 2:9-10). For women to adorn themselves with good works seems to be the thrust of what the Apostle Paul is here saying. Shamefacedness is something that we do not see a lot of in the world today. As time goes on, people are wearing less and less in public places. The question is, What are we trying to accomplish with the things we are wearing and the way we are conducting ourselves? Are we displaying or making an advertisement of ourselves, or do we want to dress as to exude holiness? Vashti here at least refused to come and display herself. We oftentimes want for such modesty today.

The record indicates that Ahasuerus was not so pleased with her modesty. “Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.” He was upset that she would refuse to do this thing. This strong statement signifies that he was full of wrath and hot headed. He was not merely annoyed or irritated. “His anger burned in him.” We could not expect less than that one so ruled by his passions would react passionately to any challenge or descent from his commands.

“Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times, (for so was the king’s manner toward all that knew law and judgment: And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face and which sat the first in the kingdom;). What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?”
(Esther 1:13-15)

He also shows wisdom in making his appeal to the law. When he questioned the wise men he asked, “What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?” As an absolute monarch, it was within his power to do whatever he wanted to do; however, he stops and seeks counsel from his wise men about the legal course.

It is a sign of woe to any nation when they are ruled by the whim, fancy, mood and temper of their absolute monarch. If you are governed by fixed laws, even if those laws are not good, you at least know what to expect and what is expected of you. However, if you are governed by the caprice of some man that could be in any mood, life can be miserable. We see this style of government in many different countries of the world.

We also encounter this flaw in businessmen. Sometimes the top man will run the business according to his mood or temper not necessarily according to a fixed standard. His employees do not know from one day to the next how they will find him. He will make promises to reward them if the company does well. Unfortunately, the success that is spoken of is undefined and rests on his opinion at any given time. Usually in this system, the employees never see the promised reward because it is based more on the mood of the employer than the performance of the company. This sort of uncertainty makes for a miserable work experience.

Sometimes fathers are guilty of this unstable rule in their own homes among their families. They will deal with their families according to their mood or temper. If Dad has a bad day at work, he comes home in a fit and the family walks around anxiously trying to avoid him. These fathers at times deal harshly with their wife and children. This is contrary to the Scripture admonition, “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged” (Colossians 3:21). These fathers are not governing by a fixed standard and it makes for a miserable home life.

Ahasuerus was at least deferring to a fixed standard, though it was the corrupt laws of mortal man. You might ask, “What is the fixed standard by which we ought to be governing our homes and ourselves?” Our fixed standard is the Word of God. If we would meditate in this word “day and night,” it would impart wisdom to us. “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:20-21). Here is our certainty and our unchanging standard. God’s laws have never needed revision, nor has any change ever attended Jehovah’s will. Man’s laws are fickle and quickly pass out of relevance. However, God’s Word is an unchanging standard to which we must resort. I wish that we would be as devoted to God’s law as Ahasuerus was to the laws of the Persian kingdom.

“And Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus. For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king’s princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath”
(Esther 1:16-18)

The old saying is, “A great man cannot commit a small sin.” Many times our actions are somewhat relative to the position that we hold. The queen cannot act just any way she wants and think that she is not affecting others. However, this is what is taught in our society today. We are taught for everyone to do what feels good or is right for them, but we are to be governed by the fixed standard of God’s Word and must also realize that we do have an affect on others.

People will watch you. If you claim to be a Baptist, you are a little peculiar. If you claim to be a Sovereign Grace, Landmark Baptist, you are very peculiar. When you make those kinds of claims, the world will expect something from you. Paul touched on this in his epistles to the Corinthians. He said, “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more” (1 Corinthians 9:19). He said, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Paul lived to a higher standard denying himself some things that were lawful but “not expedient.” He did not want to allow any occasion to bring reproach upon Christ.

Memucan is saying that the queen must be a model wife and mother. She is in a high position where many women are looking up to her and she must be exemplary. He feels that the queen’s present actions are going to cause a great chaos.

“If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. And when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small”
(Esther 1:19-20)

He is taking a risk in offering this advice. This seems an extreme measure to take. The king’s first request was unreasonable. Vashti was unreasonable in refusing his command. Now, Memucan is further being unreasonable in taking things to this extreme extent. He is taking a risk by suggesting to the king that he divorce and expel the wife for which he has much affection.

“And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan: For he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people”
(Esther 1:21-22)

The king’s pride would be redeemed. He is enabled to say, “You can’t do that to me. I’ll divorce you and put you out on the street.” He gets revenge. His temper is satisfied with some sort of retaliation.

He sent this letter all over the kingdom and made sure everyone could understand what had happened. He does this to save face to all ends of the kingdom. He makes a great show of his power and therefore feels he has gained the respect, or at least the fear, of his people.

CONCLUSION

I wish to mark three notable providential events in our text. The first is the king’s notion to display the queen before the princes and nobles. The thought that came to the king and the timing are very interesting. Why did the king think of such a thing at this time? He was no doubt emboldened by the strong drink of this excessive feast. Seeing his glory on such display and hearing the flattery of the attendants served to make him feel near invincible. He felt he could make any command and none would dare refuse.

It is likely that the women were as well drunk as the men. Vashti would also feel bolder to refuse the king. Solomon wrote, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging” (Proverbs 20:1). Outside of that influence, she may not have refused the king’s request even though she disagreed with it. The circumstance that facilitated Ahasuerus’ bold request was the same circumstance that facilitated Vashti’s refusal.

Additionally, had this been a smaller affair it may not have been quite as great of an insult. However, they had been feasting for 187 days. All the important people were there and even the common people were present these last seven days. For her to refuse his command at this time was a great insult.

The second notable event is Vashti’s refusal to follow the command of an absolute monarch. Here is a man that rules the kingdom. He can cast into prison with a single word. He can execute at will. He certainly has the power to reduce her from riches to rags. Why would she refuse at this particular time?

Her virtue is unknown, but her bold refusal does not seem to be in her best self-interest. Think of all the things the king could do to her. Most usually, people are motivated by fear. She could have gone along with the request, even though she did not agree, just to keep the peace and keep her riches. She chose to refuse at a time when it would cause the greatest insult to the king.

The third event is the counselors that counsel the king to divorce the queen and banish her out of his palace. The counselors run the real risk of incurring the king’s displeasure. The king is enraged and very upset, but also it is apparent that the king has a great affection for his queen. Even though he might be very upset, their advice could backfire on them. They could incur the king’s wrath.

Counselors of imminent positions like these are usually worm-tongued flatterers. They stick their fingers in the air trying to see which way the wind is blowing and that is the way they advise the king. The only principle they know to act from is the principle of “the survival of the fittest” or maybe “every man for himself.” They are certainly not going to do anything that will put them in jeopardy. If they make this suggestion to the king and he is offended at the very thought, he might banish or execute them. In reality, the counselors act contrary to the nature of normal counselors in this situation. They have a peculiar bold streak.

All of these things have happened together and effected the removal of the queen. We see here God’s hand ruling, governing, restraining and overruling to bring about His purposes, because His people are in great danger and He is going to bring them out and deliver them through the means of Esther. In order for her to do so, she has to be advanced to the position of queen. This meant that the queen Vashti had to be removed. This train of providential events led to that very removal that opened up the position for Esther to be advanced. This is wonderful evidence of the providence of God working in the affairs of the world.

The previous article was an introduction to the Book of Esther. This book is remarkable in teaching the providence of God. We noted there are no extraordinary miracles or supernatural events. Rather, this book sets forth the glory of God in the mundane. As we study this book, we want to be careful to pay attention to the details and seeming incidentals. In this article, we wish to begin looking at the verses of the first chapter.

“Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:)”
(Esther 1:1)

This verse gives us an idea about why there were so many Jews in Babylon, even though they had been released from their captivity and could have returned to their homeland. Many had chosen to enjoy the prosperity and the success they had and the lifestyle they enjoyed in the kingdom of Persia around Babylon rather than to return to their homeland. Their homeland of Palestine and Jerusalem lay mostly in ruins at this time. Even though the temple had been rebuilt, the wall was not yet rebuilt and to leave Babylon where they had homes and businesses, friends and family, would have been a pretty hard journey.

Here the Persian empire was growing, succeeding, and flourishing on its way to the pinnacle of power. It was very prosperous and a good place to live as far as your pocketbook was concerned. The Jews had chosen to stay rather than to go to Palestine, though they were free to go.

“That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace, In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him”
(Esther 1:2-3)

“When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even an hundred and fourscore days”
(Esther 1:4)

Excess and indulgence are likewise national sins of the United States of America today. It can be seen all around us. We want bigger, faster, more, etc. God’s Word says: “All the days of the afflicted are evil: but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast. Better is little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble therewith” (Proverbs 15:15-16). Our society pursues fleshly gratification in all the means provided in this day. But the Bible says “He that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast.” Sin never satisfies but he that has found enjoyment and true happiness in God, “hath a continual feast.”

There was no real enjoyment at Ahasuerus’s feast, proving the proverb, “Better is little with the fear of the Lord than great treasure and trouble therewith.” It is better to have little with joy in God than to have a lavish feast of mere earthly things for many days. It is better to have a meager supply and fear God than it is to fare sumptuously every day.

The Bible tells us about the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus sat begging for bread with the stray dogs, competing with them for dinner. But, “the rich man fared sumptuously everyday.” However, now he is “tormented” and Lazarus is “comforted.” That is still true today. That rich man is still tormented in that flame. He besought father Abraham that he would send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and cool his tongue. He is still wanting a drop of water. He has found no relief. Lazarus is still comforted today. He is still feasting today. True enjoyment comes from God and can only be had from Him.

Solomon said, “Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled. Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding” (Proverbs 9:4-6). The Persians were known for mingling their wine and strong drink and coming up with various concoctions of drinks that were heavily intoxicating. Here the wisdom of God says, “Come, eat of my bread.” Come and eat of My table and “drink of the wine that I have mingled.” True enjoyment is found through the enjoyment of God rather than the pursuit of fleshly gratification. We might find some things that for a time make us a little more comfortable, but we know that they perish with the using. The things of God are always satisfying and he that has a “merry heart” with God has a “continual feast,” rather than the party of Ahasuerus that was actually unsatisfying to its attendants.

“And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace; Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble. And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king”
(Esther 1:5-7)

This sort of display is common even for men today. If they have a nice home or car, they want to display and show-off these things to others. If a young man is gifted with some athletic abilities, he wants to show-off what he can do. This king was doing this on a much larger scale. Feasting for 187 days is excessive and sinful.

“And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure”
(Esther 1:8)

The world may set no limits, but the Word of God certainly does. The kingdom allowed the men to drink until their hearts were content but this is not acceptable for the child of God. “He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls” (Proverbs 25:28). If a city is “broken down, and without walls,” anyone that comes along, that is strong enough, will rule the city. They are going to overrun it. It has no means of defense and no protection. Whoever wants to set up government is going to do it; there is no resistance.

We are exhorted to exercise self-control. “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). Consider the word underlying the translation “sound mind,” it means “self-control.” The Bible talks about soberness, temperance and self-control. A Christian is to rule his own spirit and bring his body into subjection. We should not be “tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,” nor with every invitation of indulgence.

“Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus”
(Esther 1:9)

CONCLUSION

Note His operation in ordinary agencies. Solomon said, “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4). God can and does use even the wicked devices of the world to bring about His purpose and His plan. Here we have a very wicked man, King Ahasuerus. This king is all about self, indulgence and success. He is a very wicked man. However, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithsoever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). God did not intervene in any miraculous way to change the course of events here but God is working through the normal progression of events. He is working all the time to bring about His will, purpose, good, and blessings on His people. We see His operation of providence in ordinary agencies working through Ahasuerus, the princes, the queen, and on all sides.

Lastly, there are two notable contrasts that I wish to draw from these verses. First, King Ahasuerus is the earthly king searching his own glory. He is going to great extents to be celebrated, congratulated and praised by men. Contrast that with the Heavenly King making Himself of “no reputation.” The earthly king did everything in his power to make a display and a show. The Lord Jesus Christ, the King of all kings, came to earth and He humbled Himself, was made in the fashion of a man, took upon Himself the form of a servant, and made Himself of no reputation. He did work some miracles and wondrous things. However, when He had a great feast He had the people sit down in the grass and He fed them with barley loaves and with fish. Later, at another feast, He washed the feet of the disciples.

The second contrast we see is the earthly king doing according to the state of the king (vs. 7). He is exercising all of his power and authority. He is wanting to do things to make a show. Contrast that with the heavenly King content behind the veil, working out His will all the time. It is amazing that some have stumbled at this book because God’s name does not appear in it. I believe that makes it more remarkable. What greater contrast does that set between this earthly king, who was doing everything for the promotion of his name. But God can simply let His name remain silent from these pages though He is seen all the time working, and exercising His will. Here we see a restraint on the part of God. He does not need to make a great show of Himself. He is content to work His own purpose behind the scenes. “Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known” (Psalm 77:19).

The Bible talks in many places about God’s wrath being “slow.” In fact, the Bible says, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11). We see that God’s wrath at many times is perceived as slow, but it is always sure. John Gill described it as a great, vast wheel that turned ever so slowly but always surely, moving on and forward. God has seen fit to conceal His name from this book and thereby make a greater statement, contrasting Himself against the earthly king and content to work out His will and purpose without some great show of power or intervention of Divine agency. “This is the LORD’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:23).

The book of Esther is named for its primary character. Esther was an orphan, Jewish girl raised by her uncle Mordecai who rose to fame and prominence through some rather unusual means. She is really the main focus of the book. The Hebrew name of Esther is Hadassah which means myrtle. The name “Esther” is a derivation of the Persian word for star. It is commonly referred to as the volume of Esther by the Jews.

TIME

The time of the events of this book is sometime after the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity. This was during the time it was permitted for them to return to their homeland, although a good number of them determined not to return to Jerusalem but stay in the Persian kingdom in and around Babylon.The time was after the temple was rebuilt between 536 and 516 BC. It was sometime after that in 444 BC that the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt. So, the book of Esther comes in between the rebuilding of the temple and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. During that time, the Persian empire permitted the Jews to leave, if they wanted, and go back and rebuild their city and homeland. The events of this book cover about twelve years and come in between these two major events in the history of Israel.If Ahasuerus is indeed the King Xerxes, then the book of Esther comes in between the sixth and seventh chapters of the book of Ezra. This would give reason for the ardent faith of Ezra recorded in Ezra 8:22,

For I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way: because we had spoken unto the king, saying, The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him: but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him.

The Jewish people had been delivered by a great deliverance in the book of Esther, without the help of extraordinary agency. And Ezra, thinking about or wishing to go rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in his time, made this statement. It is evidence of the faith of Ezra, which is substantiated in book of Esther.

The people had come to the very brink of ruin. They were almost exterminated as a people from the face of the earth. However, God saves and delivers them. Ezra would certainly be emboldened by this great deliverance and he said, “I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers.” He said, “I could not go to the king and to the rulers of the world and seek help for the Lord’s work,” and, “The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him: but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him.” So, if Ezra had been preaching that God had his hand upon his people and was going to protect and deliver them and also that God was going to turn away their enemies, then it would seem that Ezra would have a lack of faith if he sought worldly help as far as the work of the Lord was concerned.

AUTHOR

AUTHENTICITY

Though His name may not be spoken exactly in this book, there is no doubt His name is near because His wondrous works are found here. David declared, “The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands” (Psalm 9:16). One of the points about the book of Esther is that God does execute judgment upon Israel’s, and therefore His, enemies even though they would seek out many different avenues in order to persecute. They really wanted to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth, but we see that God effected a great deliverance and He did execute judgment upon the enemies of His people.

We can also see that God, and Christ in particular, is ever the Deliverer of His people in all ages. In Acts 7, the sermon that Stephen preached before the Sanhedrin council, we see how Stephen began before Israel was a nation and showed the development, or the greater revelation that God gave of Himself to them, all the way up until the time of the revealing of His Son in the flesh. We also see that he is showing how that Christ was ever the Deliverer of His people and especially in type through Moses and David and so on, in all ages.

We see in the book a deliverance brought to the people of Israel. Can we expect that it comes from any other source than from the Christ of Israel, the Messiah, the Hope, the Blessed One? I do not have any reason to expect that their deliverance came from any other means, than directly from God. Again, we see that this is brought out in the book of Esther and makes it very plain that God is all throughout this work.

Purpose

I want to note two quotes from Alexander Carson regarding the purpose of the book of Esther in teaching the providence of God. Alexander Carson was one who understood something of the providence of God. I know my understanding of God’s providence has been helped by the understanding that Alexander Carson had of God’s providence. He said,

The great design of this portion of the Holy Scriptures is to display the wisdom, providence, and power of God, in the preservation of His people, and in the destruction of their enemies. (Confidence in God, p. 3)

He said further about the book of Esther,

In it we see the people of God providentially brought to the very brink of ruin, and delivered without a single miracle. The means employed to effect their destruction are by Providence employed as the means of their exaltation and glory. (The History of Providence, pp. 176-177)

Here the very means the enemies of Israel used to try to effect their destruction, God used to effect their deliverance. We are given a view of the providence of God.

The Jews nationally, as they would look at the book of Esther, have reason here to take confidence in God concerning the promises of the restoration, the promises that pertain to the nation of Israel. Hosea prophesied, “Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God” (Hosea 1:9). This is a prophecy, and there are others, that God was going to set aside the nation of Israel. God was going to permit their dispersion, their scattering, throughout the nations of the earth for a time. Paul believed this and wrote in his epistle to the Romans,

“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Romans 11:25-27).

Paul said in the first verse of this chapter, “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?” He answers in verse 2, “God hath not cast away his people.” So, the promise to the nation of Israel is that they shall be regathered and restored. There is to be a literal restoration of Israel. They shall be brought again, although in the book of Hosea, he said they shall be called “Loammi” which means “not my people” because I am not their God.

The current situation with the nation of Israel is that they have been scattered among the nations of the earth and they have somewhat returned unto their homeland but there is a time of a future restoration when God is going to gather Israel out of the four corners of the earth. The book of Esther provides reason for confidence and reason for hope in this promise because if God would still, even though He would be in the shadows and it looks like a hands-off approach, know His people even though they were in Persia and not in their homeland and not observing the true religion and not worshiping God. God still had His eye on His people here in the book of Esther and God did not forsake them nor allow them to be destroyed from the face of the earth. If God has done this, then God will still watch over and care for His people though they be scattered. His eye is still upon them.

This book applies to all of God’s people. This book could strengthen our faith and trust in Him that is mighty to restrain the wrath of men. Asaph writes from experience, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain” (Psalm 76:10). It is hard for us to understand that God can direct and be praised by the wicked acts of men. We certainly see the wickedness of men in the book of Esther. We certainly see that manifested in Haman and all of his devious plots. So God overrules the wickedness of the earth to restrain the wrath of man. The wrath of man that God does permit, praises God and works to His glory. God uses it to bring about His purposes. We look at times when we have a global conflict or times of uncertainty and we do not understand how someone could be so evil and depraved to do the things that terrorists have done recently and have been doing for many years. But the Bible says, “the wrath of man shall praise thee.” God will indeed restrain the remainder of that wrath. This should strengthen our faith to really believe and trust in God who is able to overrule all the wickedness of men in order for His glory and our ultimate good as He did in Esther.

We see also that God uses the general, natural course of things to effect his purposes. God does not always work through some great sign or wonder or some great mysterious happening. We see that most often God works through the natural course of things He established when He created this earth. He “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). We might think very little of the rain or the sun. But the book of Esther is one that shows God working in the most trivial of matters on this earth to bring about His purposes. We can look at the sun and the rain as coming from God and being used by God to accomplish His purpose on this earth.

God has His way in the “whirlwind and in the storm” (Nahum 1:3). He rebukes the sea and makes it dry. The mountains quake at Him. Even in the normal course and patterns of weather that we experience on this earth God is still in control of all these things and is working through all these things in order to effect His purpose.

Once again, America and the world have been given an awesome reminder of the power of God’s creation. This power is so great that many men without faith stop to ponder its magnitude and come to the inevitable conclusion that the creation is mightier than they are. Incredibly though, they fail to see God who created such power and come then to the sound grasp of the infinite power of the Almighty who created and directs all things. “By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened. Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud: And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth” (Job 37:10-12).

Some have erroneously supposed that God began the processes of evolution and then held Himself aloof while they ran their own course. They do not see God conducting the affairs of the earth. But, they are amiss for, “He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly. He giveth snow like wool: he scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes. He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow” (Psalm 147:15-18). They can easily see a major storm as nature run amok. However, not only is the storm not beyond His control, but it actually comes from God and accomplishes His purpose. “The LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet” (Nahum 1:3).

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, numerous theological lessons beg to be drawn out of the rubble and that which was, and is, and is to come. Undoubtedly, many will rise to that challenge and bless us with observations likely dominated by the morbid and morose. However, let us not take up the form of the strictly theological, but rather consider some biblical worldview and Christian commentary on current events—a sort of cultural exegesis.

THE SENSATIONALISTS

When evacuation orders were given to the Gulf Coast, thousands of people complied. They fled for refuge north, east, and west. There were also thousands of people who did not leave, but planned on riding the storm out. Those staying behind included some who simply had no means to leave or were physically unable to do so. No doubt, some stayed for the thrill of it all. I heard a report of at least one bar in New Orleans that had some people in it who were going to ride out the storm and booze it up. One guy was quoted as saying something to this effect, “If I’m goin’ to die, I want to do it with my best buddies and a beer in my hand.”

However, a number of people who could have left clearly chose not to leave. So, here is the question: Why did people remain in target areas when they were informed of the imminent danger from the storm and they had the wherewithal to leave? From many of those folks’ own statements, they just did not believe the reports nor that the storm would be that bad. Their disbelief is at least in part a reflection of the lack of credibility of the news media in general. They have heard these sorts of warnings many times before, only to find the media’s predictions exaggerated and their facts askew. Why would this time be any different? It is somewhat understandable that people did not believe the report, though it turned out to be valid, because the message had its feet cut off according to the true proverb (Proverbs 26:6).

The news media is full of sensationalists who seldom let the facts stand in the way of a good story. Their reports often tend toward morbidity and shock—a fact that is evident merely in their selection of what to report. Sensationalism sells media and makes gains of power, prestige, and payola. When the ball starts rolling on a story like this, there is a frenzy of competition to stay ahead and gain the audience. The lust for gloom has also been manifest in the wake of the storm. Adding much unneeded stress, reporters have hammered away at government officials for fatality statistics in the midst of massive search and rescue operations, disorder, flooded cities, and time-critical needs—a thing that common decency winces at.

I suppose also, the fact that this stuff sells, is a statement about our culture today. There is not a lot of value put on plain honesty. And, the news media is not looked to as purveyors of such honesty. When was the last time you heard a person who is dependable and honest being characterized as being as right as a reporter? Here the Christian faith stands in direct opposition to the culture. We are responsible to “Provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Romans 12:17). It is our highest business to deal in truth. Let us be trustworthy in disseminating the facts of Scripture as well as life. Let us be right from the pulpit, the press, the street corner, the grocery store, the living room, and everywhere else. Let this faith permeate us that we might shine as honest lights in the midst of a deceptive generation.

THE OPPORTUNISTS

The criticism continued to be leveled against the U. S. for backing out of the Kyoto Protocol. The liberal par excellence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., came to the fore when he published a piece that pulled no punches and directly blamed Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour for the storm that wrecked the Gulf Coast. He chided the Governor for supporting energy policy as opposed to environmental policy, in his words. With a virtual finger in Barbour’s face, Kennedy said the Governor is reaping what he sowed because of his opposition to Kyoto. One has to question the timing as much as the substance of these charges. This whole pile-on reeks as much of bad manners as it does of bad science, as Douglas Wilson so ably put it.

Sadly, it is quite common in our culture for people to seize opportunities to advance their personal interest or receive the self-satisfaction of “I told you so.” Capitalizing on the bad circumstances of others for braggadocio is completely anti-Christian. Christ, the Messiah, was given “the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary” (Isaiah 50:4). Solomon wisely observed that there was a proper time for everything and he proclaimed, “A word spoken in due season, how good is it!” (Proverbs 15:23). The tongue is powerful and can be used to pull down, pluck up, and destroy. But, it can also be used to lift up, to help up, and to build. We do not shrink back from having to deal honestly with hard things, but our “speech” is to “be always with grace” (Colossians 4:6).

THE LAWLESS

I know what the mantra is with the liberals: Don’t pass judgment on people in desperation. I am certain there are people who are seeking desperately for basic sustenance and are likely availing themselves of whatever essentials they find in the open. I am not commenting about them one way or the other. I am referring to those I have seen on internet video feeds who are wading through water that daily becomes more toxic, carrying televisions, stereos, computers, bicycles, etc. These can hardly be considered life-saving necessities.

In all of this, the irrationality of covetousness is clearly seen. God called the man a fool who had joy in his possessions and was about to die. There is no electricity to run these things. There is no place to take these things. What consolation will a stolen 54” plasma television be to one who dies of starvation, thirst, or disease? In these kinds of scenes, there is no community, only a radical individualism, every man doing “that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 16:6).

Law and proper authority are needed to maintain civil society. Paul told us that the law is made “for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons” (1 Timothy 1:9-10). The law restrains the wickedness of man, but the law of God stands whether there is a presence of human authority or not. The Christian faith prays imprecations for the lawless as well as intercessions for the helpless.

THE PETULANT

Is this a sanctified whining? Should Christians join in the chorus singing, “Woe to the World”? First, let me say that I am not commenting on whether other countries should or should not help us at this time. Neither am I contending that we as a nation have not done anything to help other countries. What I am considering is whether it is Christian to join the popular sentiment of bashing these other countries this way. Frankly, these complaints come from a presupposition that runs afoul of what the Bible teaches concerning giving and charity; it makes no difference that it is on an international scale, and it actually betrays an attitude of unthankfulness.

It is decidedly anti-Christian to congratulate oneself for acts of charity. This is unprofitable self-flattery. Paul said, “Though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3). He stated clearly that charity “vaunteth not itself” and “seeketh not her own” (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). To vaunt our own actions in order to receive credit and praise is to play the hypocrite to be seen of men. Christ taught, “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know that thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly” (Matthew 6:3-4). This precept is violated when we tout our own giving to shame others for their lack of giving and failure to measure up to our standard.

Furthermore, the Christian does not give in order to get a reciprocal gift. Christ taught, “But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:13-14). Faith does not give in order to get and neither does faith give in the hopes of getting. Faith’s standard is much higher: “And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:34-36). When kindness is returned, we are thankful. But, faith is not quenched even when evil is returned for good. Faith gives because faith has been given to. Faith gives because Christ is the motivation. Faith gives because “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

THE BENEFICENT

This storm has made some children fatherless and some spouses widowed. To extend the hand of charity is to bring God to these people—to bring them “A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows” (Psalm 68:5). Faith does not consist merely in a set of abstract principles. Real faith lives and works in the real world and does not omit the things that are important in life. Jesus said to the abstract religionists, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matthew 23:23). Judgment, mercy, and faith have to do with loving our neighbor as ourselves, as demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I certainly pray that many good Samaritans will relieve the distress of the hurricane victims.

Another example of the right response was the effort of the Elliot Baptist Church in Elliot, MS. This independent church planned and executed a massive relief work that is frankly unbelievable. They began by immediately housing and feeding evacuees in their church facility. With prayerful support and some financial assistance from local churches across the country, Pastor Cecil Fayard and the church launched a relief effort taking food and various necessary supplies to the coast. They responsibly distributed to those in need. They helped in large cleanup and rebuilding efforts. I stand back in awe of the grace of God flowing through His people and out to others.

THE SUMMARY

I am also sure that despite the scenes of the many who are hopeless while they look to their god—the government, there are many whose faith will not lead them to despair while they faithfully look to the God who made the universe. They will not sorrow as others and they will not murmur. They are suffering a trial that I have not endured, neither can I understand, but I pray for them and seek ways to help. I am sure that the pagans mock them and say, “Where is thy God?” (Psalm 42:10). But, faith looks into the pagan brow and replies, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15). I am also sure that “Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies” (Psalm 60:12).

As Christian citizens, we sometimes wonder what the extent of our involvement with the civil government of our country should be. Usually, election time sparks a renewed interest in this issue. In this article I would like to consider especially one aspect of civil involvement—voting. Voting is one means by which we may be involved and help to elect leaders that will cause “the people” to “rejoice.”

Our text makes it obvious that we have a certain interest in the government of our land. The people can be made to “rejoice” or “mourn” by those in authority. Our government can affect us positively or negatively. In fact, our leaders have a profound power to impact our lives morally, socially, and economically. They can affect us as citizens, as churches, and as families. The government can encroach on our freedoms through expansive government, complex regulations, and burdensome taxes, or we may enjoy more liberty with a small, limited government that stays within its proper jurisdiction.

In America, we have a representative republic. The magistrates are elected to office by the citizenry of this country. This means that every adult citizen has the privilege of voting in elections. In light of our text, it would be foolish not to vote because of apathy or irresponsibility.

Perhaps, some do not make use of this privilege because voting can seem to be such an overwhelming endeavor. There are so many candidates and offices and it is hard to find reliable information. We can simplify things somewhat when we consider that each voter elects roughly about sixteen key candidates to public office on the national, state, and local levels combined. The overall number may vary given a person’s exact location, e.g. if a person lives outside of an incorporated city, he will not vote for a mayor, city councilman, etc.

We can elect five candidates on the national level—a president, a vice president, two senators, and a congressman. We can elect about five candidates on the state level—a governor, a lieutenant governor, an attorney general, a senator, and one or more representatives. Depending on the place of residence, we may elect about six candidates on the local level—a mayor, a city councilman, a city attorney, the school board, a county supervisor, and a sheriff.

These are the key public office holders that we may vote for. We elect them and pay their salaries with our taxes. They are supposed to be servants of the public and representative of their constituency. They should especially represent us morally.

When we consider the number of offices that we are responsible for, it is not such a large task to be informed of this small number of people. This brings us to the question of how we are to determine a candidate’s suitability for office. Is there some reliable guide by which we can make determinations of how fit a candidate is for the office he seeks? Yes, there is such a guide; the Bible is the best Christian voter’s guide.

Let us now look into our guide and see if we can find help for the voting dilemma. Let us consider two main questions and as we proceed, I will also try to address some common questions and difficulties we meet with as Christians trying to vote with a clear conscience.

HOW MAY WE DETERMINE A CANDIDATE’S SUITABILITY FOR OFFICE?

Moses prepared the people of Israel for the time when they would occupy the land of Canaan. He instructed them, “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:18). Moses taught the people that they would be responsible for choosing their civil officers. Their form of government made the people responsible to make their own judges and officers.

This was not always the case in Israel’s varied history, nor is it the case in all the world today. In some countries, the citizens cannot elect their officials in free elections. So, I suppose that Christians in those countries do not have to face this issue of voting. However, in the United States, we still can vote and we should. Considering our text, it would be foolish, at best, not to vote. If all Christians would quit voting, our country would move from a moral decline to a free-fall.

When Israel was self-governed, they were responsible to choose their leaders. Along with this charge, they were also given guidelines as to the type of men they should choose. There are two primary texts that bear on this subject, from which, we will note seven marks of qualified candidates. There are actually many verses that seem to speak to us on this subject, but we will stick with the two primary passages in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13.

After Israel was delivered from Egypt, they had grown to a very large multitude. Moses was the chief magistrate of the civil government of the nation. He was the only judge, and the people would come to him for judgment from morning until night. Moses’ father-in-law was concerned that Moses was going to wear himself out and the people too. He wisely advised that lesser judges should be chosen to help in governing the people.

Jethro also told him what types of men were fit to be civil officers. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens” (Exodus 18:21). The first qualification mentioned is that they should be “able men.” “Able” refers to strength and especially strength of character. This speaks of men of ability, integrity, virtue, and courage. These must be men who will act from principle, even in the face of opposition.

He next says that these men should “fear God.” They must have a reverence for God and His Word. They would not be atheist or agnostic. They would not advocate the removal of God’s Word from all public life, nor would they advocate the transcendence of man’s law to God’s law. They must “fear God” for “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7).

Next, they should be “men of truth.” They should love truth and hate falsehood. They should not be perpetual prevaricators or supporters of those who are. They must love truth and seek it even when it is not convenient.

These should also be men “hating covetousness.” They should not be greedy for unjust gain. They should not seek to use their office for enriching themselves or their friends. They would also not allow others to use the government for getting unjust gain through frivolous lawsuits and massive redistribution of wealth programs. These four qualifications are given in this passage.

We find three additional qualifications in Deuteronomy 1:13: “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.” In this passage, Moses referred to the time in Exodus 18 when, forty years prior, Jethro counseled him to have other judges to help him. Notice that Moses told Israel they were to “take,” or choose, the men fit for these offices, and he would “make them rulers over you.”

The fifth mark of those fit for office is they should be “wise men.” This means they should be skillful and intelligent. This speaks of a natural ability and a wisdom that is gained through experience. No fools need apply.

Next, they should be “understanding” men. This does not refer to some sappy sentimentalism, rather they should be able to deal wisely and discern. They must be able to make proper moral and ethical decisions. By the nature of their position they must make tough decisions, decide on legislation, etc. A fit candidate should be able to give a definite answer concerning issues such as abortion, sodomite marriages, etc.

The seventh qualification given is that they should be “known among your tribes.” This indicates that these men had proven themselves among the people. They have a track record in their homes, church, community, and business. These would not be novices, but men who have earned respect in other spheres of life and labor. This probably eliminates the carpetbagger from consideration for office.

Though these verses deal with the nation of Israel, the passages are relevant for us today. The authority for all civil government comes from God, whether in Israel, Rome, or the United States. God defines the purpose and responsibility of the government. Regardless of whether they acknowledge Him or not, they will be held accountable by God for how they fulfilled their responsibility.

Consider the passage in Romans 13:1-6. There we have the purpose of the civil government defined and the Apostle was talking about the Roman government at that time. If we compare this and other New Testament passages with Old Testament passages related to Israel, we find that the purpose of the government is the same. We can safely conclude that if the civil government authority is the same, the purpose is the same, and the jurisdiction is the same, then the qualifications for officers in the government are also the same. Therefore, we must use these guidelines to determine the suitability of candidates today and tomorrow in the US as well as any other country.

SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE FOR A WOMAN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE?

In America, this has been a reality since the 19th century. Susanna Medora Salter was the first woman in the history of this country to be elected to a public office. She was elected mayor of Argonia, KS in 1887. Different women had run for office before this time, but she was the first to win an election and hold a public office. Since that time, we have been used to women as mayors, governors, senators, representatives, judges, and eventually even president.

For conscientious Christians, voting for a woman can be a dilemma when it appears that a woman is the most fit candidate for the office. We cannot deny that this is the case at different times. A woman may be running unopposed or she may just simply be the most conservative and moral candidate by far. However, this question must be brought first of all to the Scripture. Before we even consider a woman’s qualifications, i.e. her ability, wisdom, integrity, moral and spiritual condition, we must find out if a woman can hold public office according to God’s Word. If she is not permitted by the Word, her suitability for office is irrelevant. If she is permitted, then we must determine her suitability by Scripture just as we would for a man.

The answer to this question in brief is that the Bible does not permit women to bear rule over men in any sphere. They are not permitted to rule over the man in the home, in the church, or in the public arena. It is not a question of her abilities, nor is it a question of history where a woman has held a public office and done well, or even where women have done good things for the country by their office. When the question is put to the Scriptures alone, the position of authority over men is not given to women by God.

Let us now consider some reasons for this conclusion from the Word. If we go back to the qualification passages referenced earlier, we can see that these verses have men in view. The word “men” is these verses is gender specific, meaning the male gender as opposed to the female gender. The context will also bear this out that men were to be selected for positions of civil leadership.

Women holding public office would also violate the doctrine of headship taught throughout the Bible—from beginning to end. The order of authority given by God is God-Christ-man-woman (1 Corinthians 11:3). We have no authority to change the chain of command established in ante-antiquity by the eternal God. This order is seen in the first three chapters of Genesis, the second chapter of I Timothy, Ephesians chapter five, and other passages. This order is never overturned by any precept in the Bible.

Paul taught Timothy that women should “learn in silence with all subjection” and they should not “teach,” neither should they “usurp authority over the man” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). He went on to support this saying, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). He goes right back to the beginning and sets forth the order not to be violated: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

We have been so conditioned by our society of humanist/feminist rebellion against God that to say these things is shocking. However, the question is not one to be determined by our feelings, opinions, preferences, etc. The question is rather: What does God require? The Bible tells us plainly that God requires men to take leadership in all spheres. He requires men to be men, not the whining, whimpering, in touch with his inner child or feminine side, feminized pretty boy of our day. Biblical manliness has been lost today in a quagmire of touchy-feely, spineless manhood that is subject to political sensitivity and correctness. The question that should perplex us is where are the men, the real men?

We do not deny that women have been in positions of authority over men at different times in history, and even in Bible times. This fact should not surprise us, for men, women, and children have been violating God’s Word since Adam and Eve did so in the Garden of Eden. In the Bible when women were ruling over men, rather than condoning or commending it, the words are plain that it was an error and even a curse. We have this lament in Isaiah 3:12, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” This was a sad situation, even an error. It was also a judgment against the men of that day who abdicated their God given responsibility.

Notice also that ambition for public office was unknown to the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31. In this chapter, we have the inspired description of a godly and virtuous woman. It is a beautiful description of biblical womanhood.

An examination of this chapter reveals, “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land” (Proverbs 31:23). In ancient times, “the gates” was the place where the elders and judges would sit and conduct official public business. It would be similar to speak of the courthouse, capitol building, town hall, or some other municipal building where the affairs of civil government are handled. It was this woman’s “husband” who was known and sat “among the elders of the land.” She had no thought or desire of taking his place.

The virtuous woman is the central focus of this passage, and we see that her interests and work were centered in her home (v. 27). She was industrious (vv. 13, 16-19). She worked to feed her household (vv. 14-15). She labored to clothe her household (vv. 21-22). She performed important community service (v. 20). She excelled in her God-given opportunity so much that her works praised “her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:31), but she never sat there in a public office.

She was a manifold blessing to others, using well her opportunity as a wife and mother (v. 26). Her husband dealt with matters of civil government and was blessed to have her as his most trusted counselor (vv. 11-12). This woman is styled as one who “feareth the LORD” (Pro. 31:30). She was not misguided by seeking the deceitful favor or vain beauty of a powerful “public woman.” Additionally, the virtuous woman is not unfulfilled or unproductive and unhappy because she is not contributing to society in a meaningful way by living her life as a man. On the contrary, she is strong and honorable (v. 25), wise and kind (v. 26), happy and fulfilled (v. 25), well respected and honored (vv. 28-31). This woman was not trying to find herself; rather she found God and great joy in serving Him and others through her home.

I am sure that by this time, someone is ready to protest, But, what about Deborah? The conventional wisdom is that she was a judge in Israel and certainly, this must be an argument for women holding public office. Let us now consider Deborah and see if her case is such that would commend the practice of women running for and holding offices in the civil government.

What we know of Deborah, we read in Judges Chapters 4 and 5. At this period of time, Israel was in a state of civil confusion. They were passing in and out of enemy occupation. The “judges” that Israel had at this time were more military leaders than they were judicial bench sitters. These men were warriors who led the people into battle and delivered them from the strong hands of their enemies. This forms the context for when Deborah came on the scene.

We are introduced to Deborah in the fourth chapter of Judges. “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment” (Judges 4:4-5). We learn that she was “a prophetess” and that “she judged Israel.” The Hebrew word shaphat is here rendered “judged.” Shaphat is a verb that means primarily to judge or decide. The word itself in its primary meaning and usage does not necessarily indicate judging in an official sense. The word refers to a third party who sits over two parties at odds with one another, hears their side of the story or complaints, and then gives a judgment or a decision. The word does not require that this is an authoritative or official judgment.

We may think of it this way. A man has two neighbors who have a squabble over something and they both respect and trust this man. So, they both come and spread the matter before him and he gives them his opinion (judgment) in the matter. His opinion is not legally binding because he is not acting in any official capacity, but he has judged his neighbors. Just so, the language of the verses in Judges 4 does not require that she was an official judge in Israel.

The context of these two chapters in Judges is actually against the idea that she was a judge in the official sense as Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, etc. During Deborah’s time, there was a man named Barak who was the leader of Israel. Consider the heroes mentioned in Hebrews 11. Not all judges are mentioned, but the writer does say, “And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets” (Hebrews 11:32). He mentions four judges from the book of Judges in a group—Gedeon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthae. It is not Deborah that is foisted to the spotlight here but Barak, who led Israel to victory at the time when Deborah was a prophetess.

We come to the fifth chapter and read, “Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day” (Judges 5:1). Deborah and Barak sang a song of victory after Israel was delivered from victory. This was a song of praise to God for His mercy and deliverance in battle. This song also contains some words that do not support the idea that Deborah was an official judge.

By her own declaration, Deborah “arose a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7). It is significant that she called herself a mother and not a father. The father is the head of the home and the Hebrews knew that very well. She considered herself a mother who has a very important role in the home but it is supportive and subordinate to the father. This is consistent with her being a “prophetess.”

She spoke of, but did not number herself among, “the governors of Israel” (Judges 5:9). These governors were lawgivers and the term refers to the elders and rulers of the tribes. This reinforces the idea that the judges of this period were more military leaders than civil magistrates. Deborah was outside of this group.

The roles of Deborah and Barak at this time were spoken of clearly in Judges 5:12: “Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.” Deborah was called on to “awake” and “utter a song.” Barak was called on to “arise . . . and lead.” Barak was the official judge and Deborah’s role was supportive.

A casual reading of verse 13 may suggest to us that Deborah was bearing rule in some way. “Then he made him that remaineth have dominion over the nobles among the people: the LORD made me have dominion over the mighty” (Judges 5:13). Does the last phrase of this verse teach that Deborah had dominion, or was a public office holder? First of all, we must remember that this song was sang by both Deborah and Barak (Judges 5:1). So, it is not clear that Deborah speaks this personally of herself. Secondly, in light of the context, this passage refers to their victory in battle.

I am not saying that Deborah had no role; she certainly did have a role. She was a prophetess. She encouraged Barak to go up to battle saying, “the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand” (Judges 4:14). We also find that another woman had a hand in Israel’s deliverance. Her name was Jael. It was by her hand that the mighty Sisera was slain (Judges 4:21-22).

What we understand about Deborah is that she was a prophetess. She was more like Miriam who was a leader of women in her day (Exodus 15:20-21). Miriam’s role was supportive and when she tried to lead men (Aaron), she was punished (Numbers 12:10, 14-15). We have no such stain on Deborah’s record though. She was a godly woman and the people of Israel sought her wisdom. This is a commendation of her and a condemnation of the low state of the men of Israel at this time. She was not appointed a civil judge over Israel and her case is certainly not an argument for going against plain Scripture and having women rulers.

CONCLUSION

Using the Bible as the Christian voter’s guide does eliminate some candidates from consideration. The amoral humanists, for example, would be eliminated. These are the evolutionists, feminists, sodomites, abortionists, etc. The Christian could not vote for such candidates according to their voting guide—the Bible.

We may also eliminate any woman from our consideration, because they are not permitted by the Bible to hold public offices. This certainly does not equate all women with amoral humanists. In fact, this does not take into account their morals or abilities at all. We cannot help elect them simply because the Bible forbids women from ruling over men.

At this point, the pickin’s are beginning to look mighty slim. There are only a few candidates that we could vote for, if this is going to be our policy. I certainly agree that our current selection is whittled down greatly. The lack of suitable candidates is a situation that is not helped by Christians who will not vote for a reasonable candidate when he does run. Usually, we will not vote for him because we think there is no way he can win. He will not be backed by the liberal media or morally bankrupt politicians already in office. He will not gain widespread popularity among the special interest groups that seem to be driving our modern public thought and he will be at a distinct disadvantage financially. We figure this would just be a wasted vote.

This brings us to consider the common philosophy of the day. There are two prevailing thoughts about voting in our day that we hear repeatedly. For all practical purposes in our day, we have a two party system in this country. And, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart. So, we really only see two candidates in the race for an office. Essentially, in these two, we have the bad and the worse. We have the candidate that we do not want and the candidate that we really do not want.

The first common thought is this: To vote for a candidate other than the two mainliners is to vote for the candidate that we really do not want. In other words, say the two mainliners are candidates A and B. We are not thrilled with candidate A, but we are terrified at the thought of having candidate B. The common thought is that to vote for a candidate C, who is not a member of the main two parties, is really a vote for candidate B—our worst nightmare.

I cannot understand this logic. As an individual citizen, I have one vote. If I cast that one vote for candidate C, then I voted for C and not A or B. When the votes are tabulated, my vote is put in the column for candidate C and not B. I suppose that we are assuming that we are taking a vote away from candidate A and thereby giving candidate B a better chance of winning.

What does God require of us as Christian citizens? Are we responsible to become pollsters, political strategists, or statisticians? Are we to calculate the odds and try to play them? Are we in some way responsible for what everyone else does and therefore we have to try to counteract their vote with ours? This is all a hopeless game that we cannot win. We are responsible to God for our thoughts and actions. We are responsible to take His Word as the final rule of all faith and practice. We are responsible to follow His Word and to have a clear conscience before Him. When we vote for a candidate, we are voting for that candidate and not for someone else.

The next common thought is also based on the presupposition that only one of the two main party candidates has any hope of winning. We reason that since only one of the two main candidates has any chance at winning, we have to pick the lesser of two evils to keep the worst candidate from being elected. This logic admits that we are not voting for a suitable candidate. In order to mollify our conscience, we reason, “The man is going to get in office that God puts there anyway, so I’ll just pick the lesser of two evils and hope everything turns out all right.” We justify voting for an unsuitable candidate by appealing to the sovereignty of God. When we boil it all down, we just vote for whomever we want because of the party and our belief in the greatest economic benefit through them. So, we basically choose our candidate based on some personal preference—whatever pet issue we have—and then figure everything is all right because of God’s sovereignty.

This whole line of thinking ends with God’s sovereignty, when God’s sovereignty should be at the beginning of our thoughts. Let me explain what I mean by that. God is absolutely sovereign and “doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth” (Daniel 4:35). He reigns in the affairs of men and even in the civil governments of the nations. We are told that God “changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (Daniel 2:21). “For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another” (Psalm 75:6-7).

Beginning with a proper view of God’s almighty power, we have no need to play games or strategize. Through faith, we may look to Him and follow His Word to vote for qualified men and leave the disposing of the whole matter in His hands (Proverbs 16:33). We may take our stand with the Apostle Paul who said, “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men” (Acts 24:16). Let us vote for a suitable candidate with a clear conscience and where we cannot vote with a clear conscience, let us refrain from voting and “mourn” unto the Lord that He will work for us that we may rejoice “When the righteous are in authority.”