And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, judged Israel at that time. And she lived under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim. And the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.
(Judges 4:4-5)

prophetess
H5031
neb-ee-yaw’
Feminine of H5030; a prophetess or (generally) inspired woman; by implication a poetess; by association a prophet’s wife: – prophetess.

judged
H8199
shaw-fat’
A primitive root; to judge, that is, pronounce sentence (for or against); by implication to vindicate or punish; by extension to govern; passively to litigate (literally or figuratively): – + avenge, X that condemn, contend, defend, execute (judgment), (be a) judge (-ment), X needs, plead, reason, rule.

judgement
H4941
mish-pawt’
From H8199; properly a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, especially a sentence or formal decree (human or (particularly) divine law, individual or collectively), including the act, the place, the suit, the crime, and the penalty; abstractly justice, including a particular right, or privilege (statutory or customary), or even a style: – + adversary, ceremony, charge, X crime, custom, desert, determination, discretion, disposing, due, fashion, form, to be judged, judgment, just (-ice, -ly), (manner of) law (-ful), manner, measure, (due) order, ordinance, right, sentence, usest, X worthy, + wrong.

Deborah, a prophetess, enjoyed a special relationship with God and served Him in a special capacity. He gave her the responsibility to judge both women and men. This seems in contradiction with

1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Her primary role, which was mentioned first, was as a prophetess. Her authority as a judge seems to spring from that, as did her later role as a military leader. So her authority (civil and spiritual) was God-ordained. The specific example of her authority and the respect she commanded is here:

And she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, Has not Jehovah, the God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men of the sons of Naphtali and of the sons of Zebulun? (Judges 4:6)

And Barak said to her, If you will go with me, then I will go. But if you will not go with me, I will not go. (Judges 4:8)

She sent for Barak and he came – whether he perceived himself as subordinate to her position as a civil authority or in recognition that she was God’s special servant and it was to his benefit to come. She clarifies that Jehovah is talking; this is not some whim of Deborah’s to send him out to battle. But Barak’s faith is weak. The word of God, delivered via Deborah, is not enough. He needs some hand-holding here, but he is at least willing to go. However, when we don’t do what God wants when He directs us to do it, consequences are inevitable – the blessing of being the instrument used to enact God’s will goes to someone else.

And she said, I will surely go with you. But the journey that you take shall not be for your honor, for Jehovah shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. (Judges 4:9)

(Barnes) Mark the unhesitating faith and courage of Deborah, and the rebuke to Barak’s timidity, “the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman” (Jael, Jdg_4:22). For a similar use of a weak instrument, that the excellency of the power might be of God, compare the history of Gideon and his 300, David and his sling, Shamgar and his ox-goad, Samson and the jawbone of the ass. (See 1Co_1:26, 1Co_1:31.)

You know the rest of the story – or if you don’t go read Judges 4 and 5. I have been mulling over this for a week about Deborah’s authoritative role in comparison with other edicts concerning the roles of men and women. Do I think women ought to be barefoot and pregnant and subservient to men? NO. But then that’s not God’s plan either. Women are not biblically restricted from having jobs or businesses, in fact the entrepreneurial spirit in women is specifically encouraged in several places in the bible. But where a woman enters into a marital contract and subsequently bears children, the bible insists that those obligations supercede all others except obligations to God. One thing I noticed is that Deborah apparently does not have children. Maybe that’s part of the answer. Husbands take some maintenance, but a lot less than kids. As to the teaching and exercising spiritual authority over man, I need to continue to study this, and hope to post again on it after I conclude something worth writing about.

And Moses called to all Israel and said to them, You have seen all that Jehovah did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and to all his servants, and to all his land. Your eyes have seen the great trials, the signs, and those great miracles. Yet Jehovah has not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, until today. (Deuteronomy 29:2-4)

Deu 29:4 – Yet the Lord – That is, you have perceived and seen them with the eyes of your body, but not with your minds and hearts; you have not yet learned rightly to understand the word and works of God, so as to know them for your good, and to make a right use of them, and to comply with them: which he expresseth thus, the Lord hath not given you, &c. not to excuse their wickedness, but to direct them to whom they must have recourse for a good understanding of God’s works; and to intimate that although the hearing ear, and the seeing eye, be the workmanship of God, yet their want of his grace was their own fault, and the just punishment of their former sins; their present case being like theirs in Isaiah’s time, who first shut their own eyes and ears that they might not see and hear, and would not understand, and then by the righteous judgment of God, had their eyes and ears closed that they should not see and hear, and understand. God’s readiness to do us good in other things, is a plain evidence, that if we have not grace, that best of gifts, ’tis our own fault and not his: he would have gathered us, and we would not.  (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes)

Predestination by inference.  We are so inherently evil that in the face of the great miracles God had done for the Israelites, we STILL do not seek God.  We just take, and take.  But in taking the material things (manna, etc.) at face value, we miss out on the best - the daily wonder of seeing God at work in our lives.

If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebels, who will not obey his father’s voice or his mother’s voice, even when they have chastened him he will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall lay hold on him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city, this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey our voice. He is a glutton and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones so that he dies. So shall you put evil away from you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

And He said, A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that is coming to me. And he divided his living to them. And not many days afterward, the younger son gathered all together and went away into a far country. And there he wasted his property, living dissolutely. (Luke 15:11-13)
And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. (Luke 15:20)

Jesus presented a radical departure from conventional wisdom of the day. I don’t know how many rebellious sons were actually killed – I doubt many, if at all, but you never know – people were certainly stoned and otherwise executed in those days. In the verses from Deuteronomy, the rebellious son is not given an opportunity to repent, or if he is, it doesn’t matter that he repented, it’s too late once the sin is committed. Or is it that a person in rebellion by definition will NOT repent so the point is moot? In Luke, the father is patient and kind, went above and beyond anything he ought to have done. The son was not entitled to anything, but the father gave without complaint, even though he must have known what was going to happen. The simple fact that this kid had the nerve to ask for his inheiritance shows his attitude and state of mind. I wondered if these two passages showed some kind of change on God’s part; then realized that this is not possible, God does not change.

“All that God is He has always been, and all that He has been and is He will ever be.” Nothing that God has ever said about Himself will be modified; nothing the inspired prophets and apostles have said about Him will be rescinded. His immutability guarantees this. A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy(New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1961), 50.

Justice vs. Mercy. So did God mellow out, having realized that He was going to have to kill us all if He didn’t? No. He knew that from the beginning. There is no dichotomy, any more than there is between predestination and free will. God has always been just and holy, and God has always been merciful. What seems like a change from a human perspective, when considered from an “eternal” perspective where God is on the throne is completely different. If He does not complete an illustration in our lifetime, that doesn’t make the lesson invalid. The more I read the Bible, I find that things that seem contradictory on the surface are not, when you look at it from the perspective that it’s all about God, always has been, always will be. We exist ONLY to glorify Him.

And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, Take the rod, and gather the assembly, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes. And it shall give forth its water, and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock. So you shall give the congregation and their animals drink. And Moses took the rod from before Jehovah as He commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear now you rebels. Must we bring water for you out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he struck the rock twice. And the water came out plentifully, and the congregation and their animals drank. And Jehovah spoke to Moses and Aaron, Because you did not believe Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.(Numbers 20:7-12)

And I begged Jehovah at that time saying, O, Jehovah God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, and Your mighty hand. For what God is there in heaven or in earth who can do according to Your works, and according to Your might? I pray you, let me go over and see the good land beyond Jordan, this good hill-country and Lebanon. But Jehovah was angry with me because of you and would not hear me. And Jehovah said to me, Let it be enough for you. Speak no more to Me of this matter. Go up into the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and behold it with your eyes. For you shall not go over this Jordan. (Deuteronomy 3:23-27)

This perplexed me a great deal, because it seems as if God would cut Moses a little slack – after all, God had given him a pretty big job to do, and most of the time, Moses did pretty well, right? Well, after reading carefully, I find it was a pretty big offense. 1. That same temper that caused him to kill the Egyptian so many years before was not completely eradicated. “Listen up, you ungrateful brats!” 2. He seems to take credit for what God is about to do – “must we bring water for you,” is a rhetorical sentence. He knows he must; God just told him to do it. Phrasing it the way he did implies Moses and Aaron are going to all this trouble themselves. 3. Next, he adds to the instructions God gave him, by hitting the rock (twice! more display of temper) instead of speaking to it. Was he provoked? Certainly. I wonder if anyone in the history of the world was ever provoked more than Moses was. But clearly provocation doesn’t give us a free pass to rage on about something. Having said that, why didn’t God forgive him and cut him some slack? Should this one display of temper trash decades of service?

God did forgive him – but sometimes consequences are necessary, not just for the offender, but for other people involved. According to Matthew Henry, Israel, in addition to Moses, was punished by Moses’ exclusion from the Promised Land.

The removal of Moses at that time, when he could so ill be spared, was a rebuke to all Israel, and a punishment of their sin. Or, [3.] It was for their sakes, that it might be a warning to them to take heed of offending God by passionate and unbelieving speeches at any time, after the similitude of his transgression; for, if this were done to such a green tree, what should be done to the dry?

With all of the goodness and mercy God has shown to me, even when I feel provoked or treated unfairly, I don’t have the right to be offended. If vengeance is warranted, God will take care of it. And if He gives the offender repentance, wouldn’t I rather accept their apology than have to accept theirs, AND proffer one of my own?