Judges 4: Deborah

Yet again, the children of Israel had disobeyed the Lord. At this point in time, they had been under the yoke of Jabin, a Canaanite king, for twenty years. He had nine hundred chariots of iron, and was apparently very powerful.

The Lord raised up Deborah, a prophetess, to free the Israelites from oppression under Jabin. The text says that she would pass judgements for the children of Israel while she sat under the palm tree of Deborah.

Deborah summoned Barak, an army officer, and told him to go with ten thousand men from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun to fight King Jabin’s armies. Barak said he would only go if Deborah went as well, so she agreed to join him. Deborah then prophesied that Sisera, the enemy commander, would be defeated by a woman.

The two armies clashed at by the River Kishon, and all of Sisera’s men were killed. Sisera then fled to the tent of Heber, an Israelite who was on peaceful terms with King Jabin. Jael, Heber’s wife, invited Sisera to come in with the comforting words, “fear not”. She covered him with a blanket, gave him milk to drink, and let him sleep there.

Then Jael quietly took a tent peg and drove it into Sisera’s temple using a hammer, so that the peg stuck in the earth. When Barak came to the tent, pursuing Sisera, Jael went out to tell him, “come, and I will show you the man you seek.” And she showed him Sisera, dead, with a peg through his temple.

So Jabin’s army was defeated that day, and Israel grew stronger until their oppression under Jabin came to an end.

*****

Deborah is an especially significant character in the Bible, because she was the only female judge of Israel. It was very unusual for a woman in those times to rise to power, yet she truly earned the respect of her people. Deborah, as a woman, stands for the nurturing power of the Word to strengthen us during regeneration. Her name means ‘a bee’, but this comes from a word meaning ‘to speak’ – here, to speak the Word. Bees make honey; honey is nutritious; God’s word is our nourishment (see Swedenborg’s work, Arcana Caelestia 3424[2]).

The fact that Deborah judged from under a palm tree may seem like a passing detail, but even this contributes to the spiritual meaning of the story. Palm trees stand for the divine truths of the Word, which means that Deborah was judging the people from her understanding of the Lord’s truths.

King Jabin’s nine hundred iron chariots represent the apparent power of false beliefs, thoughts and persuasions over us. The number ‘nine’ stands for something which is complete, and ‘iron’ here stands for either natural truths or falsities. A ‘chariot’, being pulled by a horse, always stands for a set of teachings or doctrine. These three symbols add to the picture of a very powerful enemy: false ideas and views that can weaken and overwhelm us (Arcana Caelestia 4720[2]).

The spiritual meaning of the complex arrangement between Barak and Deborah is that we can only deal with our spiritual conflicts if we take the Word’s power (Deborah) with us. Barak, a man, represents the power of truth, but Deborah says a woman will gain victory over Sisera. The feminine stands for the power of love: our charity, our affection for good, and our wish to be useful. These qualities are always essential in our spiritual life (see Swedenborg’s work, Apocalypse Explained 1120[2]).

The story about Jael and Sisera is really about actively resisting the temptations of evil in our lives. Jael, a woman, stands for the power of good to overcome what is false in our mind. Driving the tent peg through Sisera’s head stands for the complete destruction of what is false. Driving it right through and into the ground stands for the power of good in our life and in our regeneration, because the ground represents our actions (Arcana Caelestia 268).

When Barak and Jael meet, it stands for the unity between good (Jael, a woman) and truth (Barak, a man). This unity of good and truth appears again at the start of the next chapter, in which Deborah and Barak sing of Israel’s victory.

4720. 'And the man said, They have travelled on from here, for I heard them saying, Let us go to Dothan' means that they moved on from the general aspects to the specific details of doctrine. This is clear from the meaning of 'travelled on' as moving on; from the meaning of 'from Shechem', to which 'from here' refers here, as from the general aspects of doctrine, 4707, 4716; and from the meaning of 'Dothan' as the specific details of doctrine. This meaning of 'Dothan' - the specific details of doctrine - cannot be easily demonstrated from other places in the Word because no other mention is made of it apart from that in 2 Kings 6:13, where the narrative states that the king of Syria sent chariots and horsemen and a large army to Dothan to seize Elisha, and that they were struck with blindness and were led by Elisha to Samaria.

[2] Since all historical details in the Word are representative of the celestial and spiritual things of the Lord's kingdom, so too are these. 'The king of Syria' represents people who possess cognitions of truth, 1232, 1234, 3249, 3664, 3680, 4112, though at this point in the contrary sense he represents those who possess cognitions which have no connection with truth. 'Elisha' represents the Word of the Lord, 2762. 'Dothan' means matters of doctrine drawn from the Word. 'Chariots and horsemen and the large army which the king of Syria sent' means falsities of doctrine. 'The mountain full of horses and chariots of fire surrounding Elisha that were seen by his servant' means goods and truths taught by doctrine drawn from the Word, 2762. 'The blindness' with which those were struck whom the king of Syria sent there means utter falsities, 2383. 'Their being led by Elisha to Samaria', where their eyes were opened, means instruction given through the Word. These are the kinds of things implied in the historical narrative here, 'Dothan', where Elisha was, meaning matters of doctrine drawn from the Word concerning goodness and truth. The historical details here in Genesis are much the same in meaning, for specific details of doctrine are not anything different. Yet at this particular point the specific details of false assumptions are meant, for the subject is a Church which begins with faith and so right from the start separates it from charity. Matters of doctrine which are formulated after that all smack of the general assumption made initially, and so of faith devoid of charity. Consequently those matters of doctrine are falsities which are the specific details belonging to false assumptions.

[3] When it first begins every Church knows only the general aspects of doctrine, for at that time it is in a state of simplicity and so to speak in childhood. With the passage of time it adds particular aspects, which in part are confirmations of general aspects, in part are additions which do not however conflict with what is general, and also explanations which resolve manifest contradictions but do not in any way offend the dictates of common sense. But in the present instance all the specific details belong to false assumptions, for all aspects of any kind of doctrine are interrelated like members within a community, and are linked to one another as in blood relationships and relationships by marriage, acknowledging a general assumption made initially as their father. From this it is evident that everything smacks of falsity when the general assumption made initially is false.