Deut. 17:14-20 says that rulers should be chosen "From among your brothers . . . not a foreigner."  The ruler should be a "natural born citizen" as the U.S. Constitution requires, following the pre-1066 Anglo-Danish standard of "kith and kin," meaning "same country and family."  This is so that the interests of the country are the primary interests of the ruler.  As Jesus says in John 10:11-13, a hireling flees in times of defense and protection because the hireling's own goods are not at risk.
- Joel McDurmon, The Bible & War in America:  A Biblical view of an American obsession and steps to recover liberty, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Inc., 2012), 2-4.

With respect to external civil organization, the man is the image of God because Jesus Christ is his head [Gen. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 11:3-8]. And then the woman is below him, such that she cannot say that she has an equal position, for that would constitute an arrogance which would overturn all order and civic policy. That being the case, the man is the image of God.  Now it is noteworthy that it is said in other passages that there is in our Lord Jesus Christ neither male or female [Gal. 3:28]. That means that his grace extends to the man and the woman so that we all become sharers in that grace.
- John Calvin, Sermon on Genesis 1:26-28, Sept. 9, 1559.

As the U.S. Constitution requires regarding Presidents and Vice-Presidents (Article II, sect. 1:4), in Israel foreigners were excluded from holding public office (Deut. 17:15).  The danger of foreigners holding public office can be seen with King Solomon, who married many foreign wives, which turned his heart to foreign gods (1 Ki. 11:1-13).  As Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters" (Matt. 6:24).  There is no neutrality in political affairs.  Either an individual is loyal to God or to foreign gods.
- Gary DeMar, God and Government:  The Restoration of the Republic 150-51, Vol. 3 (2nd ed., 1990).

“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut. 23:2). To “enter the assembly” did not mean that illegitimates were prohibited from attending church, but that they were essentially denied citizenship: prohibited from holding office in the commonwealth of Israel.
- David Chilton, What Happens When God’s Law and God’s Promise Conflict? (April 28, 2010) at http://americanvision.org/2010/post/what-happens-when-god%E2%80%99s-law-and-god%E2%80%99s-promise-conflict/.

In Deut. 18:14-17, notice what God groups together: the amassing of horses, wives, and gold. He forbids horses because they are offensive military weapons of the ancient world; He forbids His people to be the aggressors in war. He also forbids the hoarding of gold and silver, because His form of government is to be decentralized, not allowing a large, centralized bureaucratic system. Besides, the Lord knew that a Biblical government would not need a lot of money, if it were not the aggressor in war, and if it stayed out of domestic issues that were none of its concern. Finally, God forbids unlawful remarriage – actually multiple marriages – because the practical application is the same. He knew that a magistrate would collect many wives for one of three reasons: perverseness, power, and wealth. All three were a form of power totally unacceptable to Him. Consider what happened to Solomon, who was remarrying for political reasons (1 Ki. 11:1-13). Any State allowing for non-discretional remarriage is a power state, condoning its own right to be a power-broker.

- Ray R. Sutton, Second Chance: Biblical Principles of Divorce and Remarriage, 219-20 at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks.

Birth must be less than God's designation to a crown, for Adonijah was older than Solomon [1Ki. 1], yet God appointed Solomon to be king. So those court prophets are wrong, who will have birth, without the people's election, to make a king, and the people's voices but a ceremony.
- Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Question 4 (1644), at http://www.constitution.org/sr/q04.txt.

The king is from the people, and not only and immediately from God: The Bible expressly says that the people made the king, though under God: Judg. 9:6; 1 Sam. 11:15; 2 Ki. 10:5; 1 Ch. 12:38. Today God does not immediately designate a king through prophetic unction, but He does mark the one out to the people who is most able to perform the duties of the office and meets the standards of God’s law: Exo. 18:21; Deut. 1:16-17; Deut. 17. Saul was not only anointed with oil first privately by Samuel, (1 Sam. 10:1,2) but also at two other times before the people—once at Mizpeh, and later at Gilgal, by a parliament and a convention of the states. Samuel judged the voices of the people so essential to make a king that Samuel does not acknowledge him as formal king, (1 Sam. 10:7, 8, 17, 18, 19,) though he honored him because he was to be king (1 Sam. 9:23, 24). The people make the king, but according to God’s law as in 1 Sam. 10:21. Saul is chosen from among their own, not from strangers. The Lord disclosed the man, by name, Saul the son of Kish, when he did hide himself among the stuff, that the people might do their part in the creating of the king. Because some of the states of parliament did not choose him, but despised him (v. 27,) therefore after king Saul, by that victory over the Ammonites, had conquered the affections of all the people fully, (v. 10, 11,) Samuel had Saul’s coronation and election by the estates of parliament renewed at Gilgal by all the people, (v. 14, 15, [cf. 1 Sam. 11:12-15]) to establish him king.
- Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Question 4 (1644), at http://www.constitution.org/sr/q04.txt.

When the plaintiff brings a lawsuit in his own name, he inevitably also brings it in God’s name, for God is the primary victim of crime: "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep. . ." (Lev. 6:1). The modern practice of allowing atheists to “affirm” to tell the truth in court, but not to swear on the Bible or in God’s name, is a direct affront against God and against the church as the guardian of the oath. The removal of God from oaths, and the light and dishonest use of oaths, is a declaration of the court's independence from God. In Lev. 6:1-7, the required animal sacrifice served as an atonement for a crime against God’s civil court of swearing a false oath. In the New Testament, this priestly sacrifice was made by Jesus Christ at Calvary. The various animal sacrifices in the Old Testament representationally prefigured this ultimate sacrifice (Heb. 9:1ff). Nevertheless, if the perjurer is a church member, he has partaken of the Lord’s Supper following his false testimony to the court. This places him in jeopardy of God’s negative sanctions (I Cor. 11:30). The church’s officers deserve to know of the transgression, and can lawfully assign a penalty. This penalty should not exceed the value of a ram in the Mosaic economy. The Church is the protector of the oath. The State is required to establish what constitutes a valid civil oath, but only after consultation with churches. The State must identify those congregations that are confessionally orthodox and therefore eligible to receive the trespass offering. This authority to identify confessionally orthodox churches implies that members of associations not so identified as orthodox cannot legally be granted the legal status of citizens.
- Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary 134-46 (1994), at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gnlv.pdf.

The Biblical account of Deborah (Judg. 4:1-5:31) does not imply that women should hold civil office.  First, there is no explicit teaching anywhere in the Bible that establishes the position that women should bear rule in the civil sphere. The example is not of sufficient weight to overthrow the four-fold cord of evidence of the explicit biblical teaching on the headship of man (Gen. 2:7, 2:18-24; 1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9), the clear statements of the law (Exo. 18:21; Deut. 1:13, 17:14-20), the picture of the virtuous woman (Prov. 31:10-31), and the lament over women ruling Israel (Isa. 3:12).  As the Westminster Confession of Faith admonishes: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” We contend that the biblical teaching presented above speaks far more clearly to the issue of women magistrates than does the account of Deborah.

Second, the judges during this period were more military leaders or “avenging deliverers” than they were civil magistrates (cf. Judg. 2:16-19).  Deborah is not a “judge” in the same sense as the other judges in the book. The account of Deborah is unique in that she did not lead Israel into battle herself (as did the other judges in the book), but, rather, the Lord choose Barak to be the military commander.  Barak was the true “judge” here (cf. Heb. 11:32 where Barak alone is mentioned), and Deborah’s role was that of a “prophetess” who gave divine guidance to Israel.

Third, the Song of Deborah and Barak gives some important insight into Deborah’s actual position in Israel (Judg. 5:1-31). In verse 7, she claims to be a “mother” in Israel, not a father. This is significant, given the headship of the father in Israel, and it is in line with our suggestion that her role was one of support and guidance to the leaders of Israel as a prophetess. Additionally, verse 9 indicates that there were yet “governors” (literally, lawgivers, or leaders) in Israel.  This would refer to the elders of the people and the rulers of the tribes.  This further supports the idea that the judge was not a civil magistrate in the usual sense, but rather a military leader and deliverer.  Deborah was neither a “judge” nor a magistrate. Also, in verse 12 of the song, Deborah is exhorted to awake and sing, but Barak is exhorted to arise and “lead,” indicating that Barak is the military leader. Additionally, the “dominion over the mighty” in verse 13 is either a reference to Israel’s victory over Sisera and the Canaanites, or to the gathering of the people to go up to battle; whichever, it does not mean that God has appointed Deborah to the position of civil magistrate.  She “judged” Israel (Judg. 4:4) only in the sense that she was sought out by the people for advice and judgment in the settlement of disputes because of her wisdom from God.

- William Einwechter, Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate? (July 8, 2004), at http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx.

The Biblical lament that “women rule over them” (Isa. 3:12) confirms the error of a woman holding civil office.  There are debates about the exact connotations of this text, but one thing is clear: Women ruling over men in the civil sphere is put in a very unfavorable light.  It is seen to be the result of sin and a part of God’s retributive justice, certainly not a blessing!  The most likely interpretation is that Israel had weak and incompetent leaders (cf. Isa. 3:4; Eccl. 10:16) who are being controlled by women.  Now if it is a sign of weakness for men who are civil rulers to be ruled by women, what is it but a sign of feebleness on the part of men to actually seek to have women rule over them? It is weakness and a sin because it is an abdication of their responsibility to be the leaders God has called them to be.

- William Einwechter, Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate? (July 8, 2004), at http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx.

The Biblical picture of a virtuous woman is against a woman holding civil office.  In Prov. 31:10-31, we are given the biblical picture of a woman who fears God and walks in His ways. The center of her interest and the place of her ministry are in her home.  Of her husband it says: “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land” (Prov. 31:23). The “gates” in Old Testament times referred to the place where the leaders of the city (i.e., “the elders of the land”) would gather to discuss community affairs, administer civil law, and judge in criminal and civil cases. The “gates,” therefore, is a reference to the “city hall,” the “capital building,” the “courthouse” or, in short, to the seat of civil government.  Note that the husband of the virtuous woman is active in the gates; not the virtuous woman herself; she is active in her home.  However, also note that the virtuous woman’s works are to praised in the gates (Prov. 31:31).  That is, those who are leaders in the community ought to recognize the great work that she is doing in support of the community by faithfully fulfilling her duties as a wife and mother “at home” (1 Tim. 2:15; 5:10, 14; Titus 2:3-5). Furthermore, the virtuous woman does make her presence felt in community concerns through the influence that she has on her husband (and mature sons) that her wisdom and knowledge will help to direct the affairs of the community.  It is her husband who sits in the gates, but his renown and ability as a civil leader is due, at least in part (if not largely), to her help and support.  It is the husband who speaks and judges in the gates, but it is his wise and godly wife who is his chief counselor.

- William Einwechter, Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate? (July 8, 2004), at http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx.

The Biblical qualifications for civil office require civil leaders to be men.  Every time the Scripture speaks to the subject of the necessary qualifications for those who will bear rule in the civil sphere, it always speaks in terms of men and never in terms of women.  God set forth the essential qualifications for civil magistrates for all people and for all time when He spoke through Jethro to Moses to “provide out of all the people able men” (Ex. 18:21).  And Moses himself said to the people as they were about to choose their civil magistrates, “Take you wise men . . .” (Deut. 1:13).  Importantly, the word for “men” chosen by the Holy Spirit in both of these texts is the Hebrew, gender specific word for a man, i.e., a male as opposed to a female.   The directions that God gives concerning the establishment of a king in Israel requires that a man, and not a woman, be chosen (Deut. 17:14-20). The king was to be a “brother,” and he was not to “multiply wives to himself.”  In every other passage of Scripture dealing with the civil magistrate and his qualifications and duties, men are in view (2 Sam. 23:3; Neh. 7:2; Prov. 16:10; 20:8, 28; 29:14; 31:4-5; Rom. 13:1-6; etc.).  The standard of God’s law that men be our civil rulers upholds the order of creation.  Since God is both Creator and Lawgiver there is never any contradiction between the created order and the law of God.

- William Einwechter, Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate? (July 8, 2004), at http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx.

The Biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies a woman for civil office.  The Bible explicitly states that the man has headship over the woman, and that this headship is not based on cultural factors, or even the fall; rather, it is based on the created order established by God Himself (Gen. 2:7, 2:18-24; 1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9).  God has decreed that the order of authority be as follows: God-Christ-Man-Woman.  Each one in this “chain of command” is under the headship (i.e., authority) of the one preceding him or her.  By implication and command, man has headship in the state as well as church and family (1 Cor. 11:3; Exo. 18:21).  To claim that man has headship in the church and family but not the state is confusing and inconsistent with the order God established at creation and revealed in the Bible.  That a woman is the best qualified candidate is not an acceptable reason to support a woman to be a civil ruler any more than it is an acceptable reason to have woman rule as an elder in the church or over her husband in the family.

- William Einwechter, Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate? (July 8, 2004), at http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx.

Deborah can be a favorable example of having a women in office under certain conditions.

1. God Himself establishes Deborah as a judge. When the people “cried out to the Lord,” Judge Deborah was the answer to their prayers (Judg. 4:2–3).

2. In Judg. 4:4 God is making a point. The NAS translation reads: “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.” The KJV offers a similar translation. Here’s how it reads in the Hebrew: “Now Deborah, a woman, a prophetess, and the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.” The point of the chapter is to make it clear that a woman is judging Israel. When the Bible offers such detail, we need to pay close attention to the message.

3. There is no condemnation of Deborah. In fact, we learn that the place where she judged is eventually named after her: “the palm tree of Deborah” (Judg. 4:5). There is an entire chapter devoted to the Song of Deborah and Barak (Judg. 5:1ff.). Jael, another woman, is praised for doing her “civil duty” (Judg. 5:24–27).

4. Deborah is a true judge in Israel. She certainly did not force herself into office. Her authority was legitimate and recognized by the people, so much so that she could call on Barak to muster the troops to defend Israel against Jabin king of Canaan (Judg. 4:6–7). The claim that she was not “judging in the gate” does not diminish her legitimacy as a judge. No one in the book of Judges is said to judge “in the gate.” The fact that she judged while “under a palm tree” is indicative of civil authority, sustenance, and wisdom (Ps. 1:1ff.). Remember that Nebuchadnezzar’s civil authority is symbolized by a tree (Dan. 4:1ff.), as is civil authority generally (Judg. 9:1ff.).

5. If God had disapproved of Deborah as a judge, Israel would have lost the battle with Jabin. In addition to Deborah’s faithfulness, there is the account of Jael and Sisera in the same chapter (Judg. 4:15–24). God is trying to tell us something, and we need to listen to His voice.

There is no doubt that the judgeship of Deborah is out of the ordinary, but the period of the judges is not a normal period in Israel’s history. The men are weak, as Barak’s response indicates (Judg. 4:8), and the people were generally unrighteous with every man doing “what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6). We see what this type of society produces if the men don’t assume their proper leadership roles. The people will choose a king like all the nations (1 Sam. 8:1ff.), but not before adversely affecting the family and church.  At the same time, we are not called on to judge the Deborahs of our time or those who support their civil work.

- Gary DeMar, Should Sarah Palin be in Politics? (Sept. 9, 2008), at http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=171.

Christianity imposes the duty upon men to choose rulers from their fellow citizens of mature age, sound wisdom and real religion – “men who fear God and hate covetousness.” [Exo. 18:21] This will prevent tyranny and secure republican government.
- Noah Webster, Advice To The Young, in History of the United States (1832), at 310, at Google Book Search.

God commands leaders to be chosen who are just men, ruling in the fear of God [2 Sam. 23:3]; otherwise republican government will be corrupted by unprincipled men.
- Noah Webster, Advice To The Young, in History of the United States (1832), at 307, at Google Book Search.