# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The eternal God is your dwelling place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And the rule of God shall protect thee". This looks ahead to the Kingdom, when the rule of God will be openly upon earth.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Underneath are the everlasting arms. He thrusts out the enemy from before you and said ‘Destroy!’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Perish!". And yet although the Canaanites were thrust out by God from before them, they refused to accept this potential power to inherit the Kingdom. Just as so many do today. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel shall dwell in safety alone- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Israel shall dwell in confidence alone on the land of Jacob". They would not share the land with other tribes, they alone would be there, and the other tribes would become part of Israel.&nbsp; In <em><a href='B:230 4:8'>Psa 4:8</a></em> David spoke of how God alone "makes me dwell in safety alone". The very same Hebrew words occur in <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em> – Israel will “dwell in safety alone” in the Kingdom. David felt that even in the midst of hardship, this time of Kingdom blessing had come for him internally, in the peace of his own mind. Likewise in our lives the essence of the Kingdom can come. We live the eternal life now.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fountain of Jacob in a land of grain and new wine. Yes, His heavens drop down dew-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul evidently disapproved of Jacob's attitude in falsely obtaining the physical blessing from Isaac (<em><a href='B:520 12:20'>Rom 12:20</a></em> surely alludes to it); but his evil deception of his father was used by God to grant him the physical blessing (<em><a href='B:10 27:28'>Gen 27:28</a></em> is confirmed by God in <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em>), even though at the time he was dressed like a goat, connecting himself with fallen Adam and the rejected at the day of judgment; “Deceiving and being deceived” certainly rings bells with Jacob (<em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The passage in :26-29 speaks of God’s dramatic intervention to permanently save Israel from their enemies in the last days, and associates this with the heavens dropping dew upon the land. Seeing this is a normal thing to happen, the implication must be that during the time of their enemies' domination the dew had not come. See on :13.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You are happy, Israel. Who is like you, a people saved by Yahweh, the shield of your help, the sword of your excellence!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "and his sword is thy boast". Israel would finally come to a point where they boasted not in their own strength (unlike today) but in Yahweh's saving work for them in giving them the Kingdom.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your enemies shall submit themselves to you; you shall tread on their high places- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Upon their neck". But "high places" would be a reference to the idolatrous “high places”, which the prophets lament were a spiritual snare to Israel. Moses’ final wish and knowledge was that ultimately, Israel would quit with idolatry and be Yahweh’s alone. Seeing that he had predicted their spiritual failures, Moses perhaps had his eye on the day when finally God’s people shall conquer all their temptations, even if only a minority of those with whom God works actually get there in the end, all the same, a minority will, and they will be God’s true Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Passages like <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em> now take on special relevance: "The Canaanites were then in the land". Moses was saying this as his people were about to enter a Canaan likewise occupied by Canaanites. He was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em> introduces us to Abraham as a man who had God as his "shield"; and <em><a href='B:50 33:29'>Deu 33:29</a></em> concludes the Pentateuch by saying that Israel as a nation should be happy because <em>they</em> have Yahweh as their "shield". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, opposite from Jericho. Yahweh showed him all the land of Gilead to Dan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This presumably required supernatural vision, it was a vision of the Kingdom. This vision may not have just been literal, because in <em><a href='B:50 33:1-29'>Deu 33:1-29</a></em> the blessings of Moses imply his foresight also of their future experiences in that land, especially in the last days. It was from "Abarim" (<em><a href='B:50 32:49'>Deu 32:49</a></em>). Moses seeing the Kingdom but being unable to enter it, nor himself lead God’s people into it, points forward to how the law of Moses gave a vision of the Kingdom, but was unable to bring us into it. That required the work of Joshua / Jesus. "Abarim" means 'the regions beyond'. Moses and his law gave an insight into the Kingdom, the region beyond him. For the culture of grace and kindness, centered around the sacrificed future Messiah, the Lord Jesus, was the outcome of the law. But it was unattainable by weak men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah to the hinder sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that he saw the western boundary, having seen the northern boundary in :1. The renowned Hebrew commentator Rashi claims "to the hinder sea" should be "unto the last day". As noted on :1, I suggest that the vision was not only geographical, but also of how things would be in the land over time, especially in the last days, as explained on <em><a href='B:50 33:1-29'>Deu 33:1-29</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the South and the Plain of the valley of Jericho the city of palm trees to Zoar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If indeed (see on :1,2) Moses saw not only geographically but also over time, he would have seen the events around Jericho as the walls fell, and seen things like the casting of the temple items in <em><a href='B:110 7:46'>1Ki 7:46</a></em> - which was done in the plain of the valley of Jericho. The LXX puts this description in terms of the promises made to Abraham which will be alluded to in :4: "from the River of Egypt unto the Great River, the River Euphrates, and unto the Western Sea".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to him, This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, saying ‘I will give it to your seed’. I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' final experience was to view the land just as Abraham did, looking to all points of the compass and then receiving the promise that he would one day, not immediately, eternally inherit it (<em><a href='B:10 13:14-15'>Gen 13:14-15</a></em>). So Moses was comforted that he was indeed a seed of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses the servant of Yahweh died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses died "by the mouth of the Lord (Heb.). "By the mouth of the Lord" can imply a kiss; as if the Angel kissed Moses, and this resulted in his death. Remember, the Angel was Moses <em>friend</em> (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>). It was a reversal of how the Angel created Adam and breathed into his nose the Spirit; now the Angel kisses Moses and takes it away. And then he buried him, laying him in the grave in hope of better days, when Christ would come and raise his people, when God’s people would at last be obedient. What an end. Moses seems to have foreseen this when he said that “We bring our years to an end with a sigh”, a final outbreathing (<em><a href='B:230 90:9'>Psa 90:9</a></em> RVmg.). And then the Angel built a sepulchre. Just picture that Angel perhaps digging, yes <em>digging</em> the grave, building the sepulchre of the rocks laying around in that cleft in the mountain. In the context of Moses leading Israel, we are told: "As a beast goeth down into the valley (tired at the end of a day, led there to drink by a loving owner), the Spirit (Angel) of the Lord caused him to rest" (<em><a href='B:290 63:14'>Isa 63:14</a></em>). Moses was buried by the Angel in a valley in the mountain (<em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>). The Hebrew translated " rest" means both to physically lay down and to comfort. So we have the picture of the Angel comforting Moses with the hope of resurrection, kissing him goodnight as it were, and then laying him down in the grave. The softness of God at the death of Moses, the gentleness, prefigured above all the gentleness, in a sense, of the Father with His Son at the cross; and His gentleness with each of us in out time of dying. Let's remember this idea. For short of the second coming, we're all mortal. There's something wondrous about the death of Moses. It's as if God took Moses' funeral- and said in truth 'This is the best man I've yet known', as a man might say at the funeral of his best friend.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth Peor, but no man knows of his tomb to this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the very place where they camped after being rejected from entering the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:29'>Deu 3:29</a></em>). In his death, Moses was completely identified with his sinful people, as was the Lord Jesus. For those association with Him, sin itself is thereby no longer a barrier between God and man. <em><a href='B:290 63:14'>Isa 63:14</a></em> says that the Spirit (the Angel) caused Moses to rest as a man leads his animal to water in a valley. The way the Angel buried Moses is very touching. “According to the word of Yahweh” (:5) can bear the translation “By the kiss of Yahweh”, as if the Angel with whom Moses was used to speaking face to face, as a man speaks with his friend, kissed him and as it were reversed the kiss of life, took his breath / spirit away, and laid him down to rest there on the mountain, then carried the body down to the valley and buried him there, to rest until the resurrection. The softness, respect and gentleness of God with His beloved in their time of dying comes over very strongly here.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An alternative reconstruction of the death of Moses is possible. Rabbinical commentators claim that "he buried him" (<em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>) is reflexive; it means that Moses buried himself. For confirmation of this, see S.R.Hirsch, <em>The Pentateuch</em>, Vol. 5 p:685 (New York: Judaica Press, 1971). It is the same Hebrew construction as in <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 6:13'>Num 6:13</a></em>. In this case, the description of Christ as 'making his own grave' (<em><a href=B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a></em>) could be read as an allusion to the death of Moses. Therefore the pattern of events was perhaps something like this: The Angel showed Moses the land;&nbsp;Moses, in the presence of the Angel, dug his own grave and lowered himself into it, as a conscious act of the will, in obedience to God’s command (as the prototype of the Lord Jesus). The prophesy that Moses would <em>lie down</em> in death takes on a literal sense in this case (<em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>). Then the Angel kissed him, and he died. The Angel then built up the sepulchre over his body. Personally I feel this was what happened, but I am cautious to strongly push&nbsp; ideas which rely on a fine point of Hebrew grammar.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his youth abated-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was one of those old people who still had a ‘young’ attitude to life; not for him the cynicism which comes with old age; hence Deuteronomy is at times optimistic about people with what could be seen as an almost naive youthful optimism. One wonders whether he was therefore right to accept Jethro’s advice that he needed to arrange helpers lest he wear out (<em><a href='B:20 18:18'>Exo 18:18</a></em>), seeing that God had kept him so physically strong, and continued to do so. Strong defines those Hebrew words as meaning that his newness, his youth, had not been chased away (NEV "abated") by the years, as happens to most men. He had all the energy, intellectually and physically, of a 21 year old, yet with all the sadness and knowledge of God of his 120 years. All the times we read he "rose up early" to commune with God demonstrate his energy, his enthusiasm for the word of the God of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses accepted Jethro's advice on the basis that he will "surely wear away" (<em><a href='B:20 18:18'>Exo 18:18</a></em>); even though his natural strength never abated (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>), and God surely would not have asked him to do the impossible. Jethro at this time seems to have seen Yahweh as only one of many gods; he was a pagan priest. He prophesied that if Moses followed his advice, "all this people shall go to their place in peace" - which they didn’t. <em><a href='B:40 10:31'>Num 10:31</a></em> suggests Moses saw Jethro's knowledge of the desert as better than the Angelic "eyes" of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:3'>Pro 15:3</a></em>) who were going ahead of the camp to find a resting place (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href=B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). It seems Moses recognized his error on the last day of his life, when he admits Yahweh, not Jethro's wisdom, had led them (<em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>). Likewise Paul in his final communication comments on the way that Mark with whom he had once quarrelled was profitable to him (<em><a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 9:1'>Deu 9:1</a></em> records Moses' assumption that Israel would enter Canaan on the day that he died: "You are to pass over the Jordan this day". But they did not pass over that day because they mourned for Moses 30 days. It is possible that Moses felt so despised by them that he assumed there would be no period of mourning for him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him, and the children of Israel listened to him and did as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must compare this with <em><a href='B:40 27:18'>Num 27:18</a></em>: "Yahweh said to Moses, Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him". Because Joshua had the Spirit, Moses was told to lay his hand on him. Yet <em><a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a></em> says that Moses laid his hand on him so that Joshua might receive the Spirit. Here we see the upward spiral of spirituality at work- those who are of the Spirit are made more spiritual. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom Yahweh knew face to face- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Messiah was the prophet promised "like unto" Moses (<em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>). This may therefore be a note to the effect that the Messiah had not yet arisen at the time of writing. Gideon was bidden rise up to the example of Moses- for there were many similarities between his call by the Angel, and the Angelic calling which Moses received at the burning bush. Thus Gideon was called to follow the Angel in faith, "because Ehyeh is with you" (<em><a href='B:70 6:16'>Jdg 6:16</a></em>)- a direct quotation from the Angelic manifestation to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a></em>. And yet he responds: "Alas! For I have seen Yahweh's envoy face to face!" (<em><a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a></em>). Gideon knew full well that Moses had seen the Angel "face to face" (<em><a href='B:50 34:10'>Deu 34:10</a></em>). Gideon's fear is therefore rooted in a sense that "No! I'm simply <em>not</em> Moses!". And it's the same with us. We can read of all these reasons to believe that Moses is really our pattern, and respond that "No! This ain't me...". But there, in the record of Gideon and his success, lies our challenge to rise up to the spirit of Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>in all the signs and the wonders which Yahweh sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Of all the miracles God has worked, those involved with the salvation of Israel from Egypt are repeatedly presented as the greatest ever done, and thereby Moses becomes the most spectacular Old Testament channel for the work of God’s Spirit. And this reflects the personal wonder of the way God brought each of us out from the world onto the path to His Kingdom. For those raised Christian, this is so hard to perceive adequately enough.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and in all the mighty hand and in all the great terror, which Moses worked in the sight of all Israel- </em></p>The idea is that the hand of Moses did these things, hence GNB "the great and terrifying things that Moses did in the sight of all Israel". But the "great terror" was done by the mighty hand of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). The final accolade for Moses was that his hand was hand in hand with God’s, he was a willing partner in the salvation of God’s people. The same phrase "great terror" is used in <em><a href='B:300 32:20-21'>Jer 32:20-21</a></em>, but the point is made that this was an ongoing work "unto this day". This is the power of event in Biblical history. Those events are no mere past actions that are completed. God’s word becomes a living word, as we perceive that the same hand which worked in those historical events is bringing about the essence of those events in our own lives.


text:
<p>Yahweh the God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they struck them; so Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country- </p><p>This was only true on one level. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn’t possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>They captured all the border of the Amorites from the Arnon to the Jabbok, and from the wilderness to the Jordan-</p><p>The territory is described from south to north, and then from east to west. The Ammonites claimed Israel had occupied their land and that of Moab (:15); Jephthah is aware of the history and corrects them, saying that in fact Israel captured the land of the Amorites, not the Ammonites. And that was only because Sihon of the Amorites refused to let Israel pass through his land and came out to attack them, resulting in Sihon's defeat. The Ammonites were to suffer the same fate- they picked a fight with Israel and then Israel not only defeated them but took twenty other towns (:33). And he stresses that Israel skirted around Moab rather than taking their land (:18). His awareness of God's word makes us ponder why he seemed unaware that he could redeem his daughter from having to undergo what he had vowed.</p>


text:
<p>So now Yahweh, the God of Israel has driven out the Amorites from before His people Israel, and should you take it over?-</p><p>By asking the Ammonites to accept Yahweh's legitimate claim upon this territory, Jephthah was effectively asking them to accept Yahweh as their God. In all God’s judgments, there is the desire for human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Won’t you inherit that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever Yahweh our God has given to us, that we will take- </p><p>The idea of a god giving his people territory to possess was not at all foreign to the peoples of the land. Chemosh was god of the Moabites (<a href='B:40 21:29'>Num 21:29</a>; <a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:300 48:7'>Jer 48:7</a>; <a href='B:300 48:13'>Jer 48:13</a>; <a href='B:300 48:46'>Jer 48:46</a>). But Moab and Ammon were closely connected. And Chemosh had failed to protect 'his' land from the Amorites. Jephthah states the issue as being a conflict between Yahweh and Chemosh, both apparently laying claim to the same land. So the only way out of the conflict was for Ammon to accept Yahweh as their God, instead of accepting Chemosh, the god of another nation (Moab) as their god. But we wonder whether Jephthah is not still reasoning from the false assumption that Yahweh was only the God of the land of Israel, rather than going further as David did, and perceiving Him as in fact king of all the planet, with a claim therefore on every human heart:&nbsp; And later we will suggest that Jephthah's view of Yahweh was that He was a God open to negotiation and responding to bargaining chips like the offer of his one and only child.  </p>


text:
<p>Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab? Did he ever strive successfully against Israel, or did he ever fight against them?- </p><p>This is a somewhat more human argument. Balak king of Moab ought to have contested this land issue historically, but he never did.</p>


text:
<p>While Israel lived in Heshbon and its towns, in Aroer and its towns and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why didn’t you recover them within that time?- </p><p>As noted on :25, this is now a more human argument, to the effect that if a territory had been taken in war and kept for 300 years by its conquerors, then it could not reasonably be demanded back. But this is a human argument, and Jephthah should have surely just kept with the spiritual argument- that the land was Yahweh's, and He had given it to His people. We often see the same tendency; human, secular or logical arguments are deployed to uphold or support a position which is simply true because God’s word has declared it to be so. This is where so much of 'apologetics' fails to be ultimately relevant. We think particularly of attempts to use science to bolster the Biblical accounts of God’s miracles, or creation itself.</p>


text:
<p>I therefore have not sinned against you, but you do me wrong to fight against me. Let Yahweh the Judge be judge this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon-</p><p>Jephthah speaks in the first person, as if this is a personal argument with him. But he does so because he realizes he is manifesting God. He also argues that Yahweh is the Judge between Yahweh and Chemosh in their conflicting claims to property. The argument means that it is foolish to enter into the judgment court, seeing this is the case. Paul uses the same kind of argument, in presenting the Lord Jesus as both our advocate for the defence as well as our judge. We cannot, therefore, be condemned; if we are truly "in" Him.  Jephthah claims to trust that God will judge. But he then offers God a deal- he will sacrifice his daughter if God does indeed judge for Israel. Judges were not to be bribed (Dt. 16:19; 27:25) for Yahweh cannot be bribed (Dt. 10:17 "For Yahweh your God, He is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty and the awesome, who doesn’t respect persons nor take reward"). That perhaps was a warning against the kind of attempt to bribe the gods made by the child sacrificing cults. And Jephthah knew his Bible, as it were, from how he reasons with the Ammonites about Israel's history. But Jephthah seeks to do just this with the ultimate judge. We too can give lip service to the idea of resigning all to God's judgment, and then press ahead in our own strength to bring about His judgment, as if it all depended upon us and our victories.</p>


text:
<p>However the king of the Ammonites didn’t listen to the words of Jephthah which he sent him- </p><p>Just as the king of Edom refused to listen to God’s words (s:w. :17). For Jephthah is clearly speaking God’s words here.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Spirit of Yahweh came on Jephthah and he crossed over Gilead, Manasseh and Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he crossed over to the Ammonites- </p><p>As he went, he asked the Israelites there to support him, but they didn’t (<a href='B:70 12:2'>Jdg 12:2</a>). This repeats the theme of what happened at the time of Deborah, and also Gideon. And again we see the inability of people to learn from history. For the Spirit was clearly upon Jephthah as it was upon Gideon and Deborah. See on :20. We enquire whether Jephthah was aware of this gift of the Spirit. Presumably he was, because gifts of the Spirit usually have some external manifestation and evidence. And yet he still makes the deal with Yahweh- that if Yahweh gives victory, he will sacrifice whatever first comes out of his house to greet him [and he surely knew that would be his daughter]. Had he fully trusted in the work of the Spirit, he need not have cut that 'deal' with God. 

We too have received the Spirit, but are inclined to still lack faith that things will work out unless we act towards God as the world around us does. The gift of the Spirit for us is a constant internal presence of the Lord Jesus. When we pray, we may come to a time when we are lost for words, the clock ticks, the seconds slip by, but we still feel "in" God's presence although we aren't saying nor articulating anything at all... until we end the prayer with something like "In Jesus' Name, Amen". But the reality is that how we feel in those silent, wordless moments "in" prayer is how we can feel all the time. This is a huge challenge to us. But that is what life in the Spirit looks and feels like. But like Jephthah, we fail to retain the intensity and still consider we need human strength. </p>


text:
<p>Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh and said, If You will indeed deliver the Ammonites into my hand- </p><p>This need not imply doubt, but rather faith (for which he was noted in Hebrews 11). "If" in Hebrew doesn't have to imply that something is open to question, but can function as the word "when...". But if indeed the "if" here betrays a lack of full faith, then this was the basis for his foolish vow. Perhaps a man of full faith would not therefore have needed to make this vow. He would have taken victory as an absolute given. So in this case, we see how taking the lower level of faith so often leads us into further problems.</p><p>And yet it is hard to avoid the impression that Jephthah is trying to broker a deal with God. He had faith, which God saw and commended in Heb. 11:32. But that faith was incomplete and he wanted to try to encourage God to come through for him by offering God his daughter. As God saw that incomplete faith and commended it, as He did with Abraham, so we are encouraged that our incomplete faith is still acceptable to God. And are led to patience with those whose faith is clearly incomplete. There seems something wrong with this offer of something to God "If You will indeed deliver..." enemies. It's a kind of bribing God, and is not unknown today. If God does this, I shall do this or that. The usual pattern so far in Judges has been Israel's sin, Gentile oppression, Israel's repentance- and then God empowers a judge to deliver Israel through His Spirit. But Jephthah doesn't focus on the promises of the covenant- to give victory in response to loyalty to Yahweh. Instead he tries to bribe God. And I therefore do not consider that it was out of his mind to sacrifice one of his family to God. For offering your children to your god in gratitude wasn't unknown in the surrounding tribes. The Moabites especially were famed for their child sacrifices.  </p>


text:
<p>then whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering- </p><p>I will engage with the question as to whether or not Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering; but I wish to preface the presentation of evidence by observing that this is one of the many times that the Bible intentionally presents us with a question which is ambiguous and cannot be conclusively decided. For God wishes us to engage with Him, to reflect upon His word, and consider it carefully. And in the process of that consideration and careful engagement with God’s word, we are led closer to Him. It is the process and not the product, the road rather than the destination, which is important in these cases. Whether we come down on the right or wrong side in our conclusion as to whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter... is not the intention of the record. This of course is hard of acceptance by those literalists and legalists who insist that every Bible verse must have a clear, black and white interpretation, with no ambiguity.</p><p>That said, at this point I would note that animals don't live in houses where people live. Nor do they come forth from the doors of a house to meet the master of the house. And to sacrifice one animal in gratitude for a victory would be a very small sacrifice. If he had in view an animal, then he makes no stipulation that it must be a clean animal. For unclean animals couldn't be sacrificed. So it seems he does indeed have his daughter in view from the start. And we might wonder whether this isn't something similar to how Saul pronounced death on whoever had eaten, in return for military victory, "even if it be Jonathan my son", knowing surely that Jonathan had eaten as he had not heard the command and curse upon those who ate. We note in the case of Saul's vow to slay Jonathan that he is not condemned by Yahweh for breaking the vow. Rather does he just lose face before his people. And surely Yahweh would not have condemned Jephthah for not keeping the vow. Further, the phrase "offer it up for a burnt offering" is never used figuratively. Sacrifice as a concept is, but he doesn't use the word sacrifice. And yet contra this is the clear Divine disgust at human offerings, and Yahweh's condemnation of the other tribes for offering up their children to their gods. And as noted on :14, Jephthah had an excellent knowledge of the scriptures. So I conclude that the whole question is left intentionally ambiguous, with evidence both ways- in order to exercise our minds.</p><p>He offers "whatever comes forth", the phrase used of a child coming out from a woman at birth to become part of the "house" of the father, surely knowing that something was going to come forth. And typically it would be a woman coming to congratulate him. Jephthah knew full well that it was customary for women to go out to meet returning victors with songs and dances; in 1 Sam. 18:6 the women do so to meet David returning from his victory over Goliath. There is ample evidence from surrounding cultures that the victorious warrior's own daughters would come dancing to their father's success. Surely Jephthah knew his daughter would do this. It would have been most unusual if she had not. There is no Old Testament example of virgins devoting themselves to the Lord's service and remaining unmarried, let alone being forced to do so by a third party. The law of Moses and Biblical history is silent about this. So the vow to offer someone as a burnt offering must surely be taken as literal. It has been observed that  “The burnt offering (‘olah) involves death in all 286 O.T. occurrences". Even if we wish to go with this line of interpretation, there is still something ethically, morally and logically dodgy about a father telling his teenage daughter that she must remain a lifelong virgin serving Yahweh because her father has just won a victory. Even if we still accept that, then the essential lesson still remains: That for the sake of pride, a man destroyed his daughter's life. And he used his daughter as a kind of bargaining chip with Yahweh- even though Yahweh makes no recorded response to his offer. When he should have gone to war in faith, trusting in his empowerment by the Spirit. And only male animals could be sacrificed in this context, and at a designated altar with Levitical priests officiating. So Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter was still not according to God's will. If he did it, which I suspect he did, then this was still not true devotion to Yahweh according to His law.</p><p>We could however go with Adam Clarke's suggestion that we translate the Hebrew as meaning ""I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering"; that is, 'If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him'". However :34 clearly presents Jephthah as in a state of tragic shock when his daughter comes out of the house to greet him, and if Clarke's get out is valid, then this reads very strangely. See on <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:4'>Jdg 12:4</a>. But we note that indeed it is legitimate to translate the "and" as "or", as in Ex. 25:15. In which case we can understand him to mean that he would dedicate it to Yahweh or offer it as a sacrifice. The Hebrew for "burnt offering" is always used just about a literal burnt offering; it's never used figuratively. Child sacrifice was so common in the surrounding world, and offered to the gods as a kind of deal in which the god would give a victory in return for it. Child sacrifice was of course abhorrent to Yahweh  (Jer. 7:31; 19:5 ; Ez. 16:20; 23:39) and forbidden by the law (Dt. 12:31; 18:10, Lev.18:21; 20:2); but Jephthah may have been influenced by the surrounding conceptions of "God". His ultimate salvation (Heb. 11:32,33) surely involved some unrecorded repentance, as in the cases of Lot, Samson and so many whom the New Testament assures us will be saved. Our repeated surprise at who shall be saved is surely to teach us the lesson not to judge, and to accept that repentance may take place in a person without our being aware of it. This can be a helpful thought as we struggle with the apparent lack of repentance from those who have hurt us. Historical records mention people offering their most noble children after offering purchased or slave children failed to lift a siege. Eusebius, citing Philo of Byblos, says that the Phoenicians "offered up their dearest children" in order to get victory against their enemies. And there are Biblical examples. Hiel rebuilt Jericho apparently using his oldest and youngest sons as foundation offerings (1 Kings 16:34). In 2 Kings 3:4-27 Mesha, the king of Moab, sacrificed his oldest son atop the walls of his fortress in full view of besieging troops to vainly try to break their siege. Ahaz sacrificed his son during a siege of Jerusalem, so perhaps he was doing the same thing (2 Kings 16:3,5). To sacrifice your most treasured possession to your god was seen as quite normal. And a son was a man's most treasured possession. It could be argued that a king or leader was expected [in the surrounding cultures] to make such a sacrifice. Jephthah's offer of his only beloved child can be readily understood within this context. Human sacrifices, especially of children, were required by the Moloch cult (2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35). They were required in association with vows; Moloch would do good or not do evil to the offerer if they offered him their child. But Moloch was the god of the Ammonites whom Jephthah was fighting. Clearly he was influenced by the very religious system he was fighting- as often seen later in Israel's history.

This kind of negotiation with God was common- if You do this, then I'll do that. We think of Jacob offering to pay Yahweh a tithe if he is returned home safely (Gen. 28:20-22), Hannah offering Samuel to Yahweh if she gets pregnant (1 Sam. 1:11), Absalom claiming he made a vow to Yahweh if He returned Absalom from exile (2 Sam. 15:7-9). The law of Moses was aware of this culture. Vows to Yahweh are to paid immediately (Dt. 23:21) at the place Yahweh chose (Dt. 12:11,17,18); but Lev. 27:1-8 allowed for payment to be made instead of the promised devotion of a person. Other legislation about vows is found in Lev. 22:17-25; Num. 30:2-17. And the practice of making vows and giving them is alluded to often-  Job 22:27; Ps. 50:14; 56:13; 66:13; 76:12; Prov. 7:14; Ecc. 5:3. We note Saul promising God in 1 Sam. 14 that his men would eat nothing for a day, basically in return for military victory. When his son Jonathan unknowingly breaks the vow, Saul says he has to die [although we note that he didn't carry that out and is not condemned for it]. Jephthah's vow was made in this context. He could have got out of it. But it was perhaps his pride that stopped him. Human pride is more powerful even that faithfulness to your family.  </p>


text:
<p>So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them and Yahweh delivered them into his hand- </p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>):&nbsp;See on <a href='B:70 12:2'>Jdg 12:2</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He struck them from Aroer to Minnith, twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the children of Israel- </p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter- </p><p>I often say that the closer you look at anything Divine, the greater is the beauty. When you place human stuff under the microscope, the beauty breaks up. The fact Jephthah had only one child is stated twice over ["She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter" Jud. 11:34], and this is also stressed when we perceive the order of the numbers in this part of Judges. They are in a pattern: 70 - 30/30/30 - 1 - 30/30/30 -70. The first "70" is the number of children Gideon had; the first "30/30/30" refers to the sons/donkeys/cities of Jair's children ("He had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkey colts, and they had thirty cities" Jud. 10:4), the central "1" is Jephthah's single daughter, the second "30/30/30" is the sons/daughters/daughters-in-law of Ibzan (Jud. 12:9 "He had thirty sons and thirty daughters. He sent his daughters away in marriage, and brought in thirty women for his sons"), and the final "70" refers to the sons, grandsons, and donkeys of Abdon (Jud. 12:14 "He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkey colts"). Don't tell me the Bible isn't Divinely inspired to have such detail in a chiasm like this. 

Having no other children [and the text twice labours this] meant that his line would die out, and that was the greatest tragedy for Hebrew man, a fate worse than death. The judges that precede and follow the story (Jud. 10:1–5; 12:8–15) have many children, as if to highlight the tragedy and cost of his sacrifice. He made the vow in Mizpah and his house was in Mizpah- everyone knew the terms of the vow, and so we can conclude that his daughter came out of the house knowing what she was doing. This was unusual for a man of some distinction, and we wonder if Jephthah had become impotent. Or it could be that his wife had become barren, and he had refused to remarry or take other wives. He stands in stark contrast to other judges of Israel, who had 70 or 30 sons. We see this as a sign of his integrity. The whole narrative is set up for us to sense that the&nbsp; girl coming out of the house to meet Jephthah sent a chill of terror and tragedy down Jephthah's spine. The tragedy of the scene is emphasized by the record mentioning that she was his only child. I discussed on :31 the pros and cons for thinking that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, and concluded that the evidence seems carefully stacked on both sides. Therefore I conclude that the incident is consciously crafted to help us engage carefully with the text, and there is no definite conclusion possible. His apparent integrity in only having one child is carefully balanced against his rashness of having made an oath which he now thinks he must carry out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When he saw her he tore his clothes and said, Alas my daughter! You have made me very sad and troubled, for I have made a vow to Yahweh and I can’t go back on it- </p><p>"I can't go back" is literally "I am not able". He was able, but his pride was greater than his very genuine love of his family. And so it has so often been. We think of Darius and Herod making rash oaths and harming devout men of God- against their better desire, but because of their pride. His vow was unlawful, as it involved human sacrifice, so it was not binding before Yahweh. Jephthah was not a priest and so could not have lawfully offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice. So he was wrong to present his action as an unavoidable part of his Yahweh worship. The truth is that he was treating Yahweh as Moloch was treated, and was worshipping Yahweh in the way Moloch was worshipped. We note that his attitude to his own brethren the Ephraimites resulted in the death of 42,000 of them (Jud. 12:6). Surely he could have avoided that outcome, but he presents as having little conscience about blood shedding. He had after all led a band of robbers for many years, robbing his fellow Israelites, and was famed for being a warrior because of that. We could argue that he could have redeemed his daughter from the vow he involved her with (<a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a>). But he decided in his mind: "I can't go back". Actually he could have done; but he so firmly chose the higher level that it was as if there was no way back. <a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a>, in evident allusion to Jephthah, describes those who will attain the Kingdom as fearing Yahweh, and swearing to their own hurt and changing not. Some may swear and change and attain the Kingdom; but we are invited to follow Jephthah to the highest level. The principle of Jephthah's vow is seen in many other Bible characters.</p><p>Or it could be that for all his fluent knowledge of the history of God’s people, he had not paid due attention to the details of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a>, and so was unaware of this. I discussed on :31 whether like Saul wanting to kill his son Jonathan, Jephthah just possibly might have wished to kill his daughter. For he knew she would come out of the house to greet him with tambourine if he won. And this would make his grief here either theatrical, or because he now realized the reality of what he had vowed.</p><p>AV "thou art one of them that trouble me" correctly reflects the Hebrew. She had become an Achan to him, she was as one of his enemies. This seems a very harsh response; and it is certainly full of concern about his own feelings rather than his daughter's fate at his hands. But it may reflect the depth of his grief as he realized what his vow now required him to do. This extreme grief on his part would show the love he had for her, and we think of the mourning of Darius the night when Daniel was in the den of lions because of his refusal to change his decree. Through perceiving Jephthah's great grief, we are given an insight into his pride in still going ahead with her sacrifice. Be that sacrifice literal or figurative.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, My father, you have made a vow to Yahweh; do to me what you have vowed, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies the people of Ammon- </p><p>Her attitude is indeed commendable on one hand, but she sees her father’s victory as being his personal vengeance upon his personal enemies. The idea of fighting for Yahweh against His enemies, and His vengeance, seems far from her. I suggest she was fully aware of the vow, and went out of the house to greet her father knowing her fate. Jephthah doesn't tell her the content of the vow. The way he speaks and she responds ["you have made a vow..."] suggests they both knew what the vow meant and required. The content of the vow is not explained to her by Jephthah. Their conversation suggests they both knew the content of the vow and what it now entailed. The law allowed her to have disallowed the vow but she was of the same mindset. The house was in Mizpah and the vow was taken in Mizpah. Everyone knew the deal Jephthah had cut. There is a connection in the Hebrew which is easily missed in translation: "Do to me... because Yahweh has done  vengeance for you". Because of what Yahweh did, so must be done to her. It's all the language of the deal. There is no cry of despair by her. She expresses no surprise nor attempt to get out of the vow. The fact she "returned to her father and he did to her his vow that he had vowed" (:39) shows her total acceptance. She could easily have run away and not returned to face the consequences of her father's vow.</p>


text:
<p>She said to her father, Let this one thing be done for me: let me alone two months to go around on the mountains and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.</p><p>As discussed on :31, this could mean that she was resigned to death. Or the bewailing of her virginity could mean that she accepted that she was dedicated to Yahweh and therefore could never marry and have children. But there is no Mosaic concept of a woman being devoted to Yahweh by the oath of a third party, and therefore being unable to have children or marry. Even the oath of Naziriteship didn’t preclude marriage. So again, as discussed on :31, we are left with evidence for and against the idea of her sacrifice. This, I suggest, is intentional.</p><p>For God wishes us to engage with Him, to reflect upon His word, and consider it carefully. And in the process of that consideration and careful engagement with God’s word, we are led closer to Him. It is the process and not the product, the road rather than the destination, which is important in these cases. Whether we come down on the right or wrong side in our conclusion as to whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter... is not the intention of the record. This of course is hard of acceptance by those literalists and legalists who insist that every Bible verse must have a clear, black and white interpretation, with no ambiguity.</p><p>Whatever Jephthah's unwisdom, motives or murderous plans which may or may not have lurked in a very dark mind which wished to slay his daughter, this doesn’t exclude him from being listed amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11. The lesson therefore is the same as that which we take from Samson. No matter how possibly tangled were a man's motives at some points in his life, no matter how strangely parts of a man's biography may read or appear when we meet them in live encounter, we are not to judge. For God at the end of all things may well accept him as faithful to Him. We are not to judge simply because we cannot judge.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go. He sent her away for two months, and she and her companions went and mourned her virginity on the mountains- </p><p>The vow surely implied that Jephthah would immediately offer up whatever came out of his house (:31). So by allowing two months to perform the vow, he was stretching the interpretation. Why not, then, annul it altogether? We note it was her virginity which was to be lamented, which would suggest it was a devotion to a virginal life that was in view, rather than death. But then to die childless was also seen as a tragedy worthy of bewailing.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel- </p><p>Jephthah "did" the vow after the two months. If she was only mourning her virginity in that period, there's a logical problem. For she was a virgin at the start of the period and at the end of it. She didn't sleep with a man during the two months. And so Jephthah "did" the vow to her at the start of the two months, if the vow was simply that she was to remain a virgin. Logically the requirement seems to be that he ended her life at the end of the two months. And her great sadness was that she died without having been a mother. The record stresses that the tragedy was her virginity. Whether or not Jephthah killed her, the idea is that he lost his lineage. God was silent about agreeing to Jephthah's vow, and there is no Divine comment on his carrying it out. Perhaps because the judgment was intrinsic to what he did- he was left with no seed. </p><p>"And she was a virgin" is intentionally vague; fort tenses in Biblical Hebrew aren't at all precise. It could mean that she died, being a virgin. Or that she now lived the rest of her life as a virgin. But if the vow came into effect only after two months, then that could be read as implying she then died. Because she was a virgin at the start and the end of the two months. We note that the record doesn't state what Jephthah did to her; just that he did what he had vowed, and as discussed on :31,37, that vow is intentionally ambiguous. And the incident ends with this same open ended position, beckoning us to engage with the text and wonder what actually happened.</p>


text:
<p>that the daughters of Israel went each year to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year-</p><p>We wonder what there was to celebrate about this girl. For she could surely have run away, and would have found plenty to support her, just as Jonathan did when his father tried to murder him according to some unwise oath. Was the celebration of her obedience to her father’s unwise oath? Or we could read "celebrate" as "lament" (AV). In which case this would be a lamentation of how a young woman had her life either ruined or ended because of the unwisdom of a male, and his pride in refusing to just take back his oath, in a mistakenly literalistic interpretation of <a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a>. Again, as discussed on :31,37,39, the record is intentionally vague, in order to invite our thought and engagement with it. Whatever actually happened to Jephthah's daughter, Jephthah acted unwisely and wrongly. It was only his pride that stopped him using the Mosaic laws about changing a vow. The rest of the Jephthah record presents him as a sharp guy- an able negotiator, statesman, Biblically and spiritually articulate, and a saviour and true judge of God's people. And later Biblical comment upon Jephthah is likewise positive (1 Sam. 12:11; Heb. 11:32). Perhaps we are left with the stark contrast, to ponder- whatever happened to his daughter, we see how a man is accomplished as Jephthah can still fail when it comes to pride. No price is too high for some men to pay in order to preserve their pride- or try to. Even the destruction of the nearest and dearest to them. That would be one takeaway from the whole enigma. And yet he will still be saved; a prostitute's son who had led an armed gang of robbers, who was proud and influenced by pagan conceptions of God, who shed blood too freely... will still be saved.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ephraim were gathered together and passed northward, and they said to Jephthah, Why did you go to fight against the Ammonites and didn’t call us to go with you? We will burn your house around you with fire-</p><p>This continues a theme in Judges, of how God's people had no collective vision nor responsibility. The men of Ephraim were jealous and had a wounded sense of self-importance- rather than rejoicing that the Ammonite enemy of Israel had been destroyed. The Ephraimites came over as offended because they weren’t invited to fight in a battle, even though they had shown no inclination; and they did this with both Gideon and Jephthah&nbsp; (<a href='B:70 8:1'>Jdg 8:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>). We see how the Biblical record is consistent in its depiction of character and personality, over incidents which occurred far apart. This is yet another internal evidence for Divine inspiration.</p><p>The threat to burn his house with fire, from which his daughter had emerged, may be an allusion to what he had done to her; and they sought to punish him by burning him to death, the punishment for apostacy. I discussed on <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a>; <a href='B:70 11:37'>Jdg 11:37</a> how the whole question of 'Did Jephthah slay and offer his daughter?' is intentionally left ambiguous. And here again we have only a possible contribution towards the argument that he may have done this. But it is very tangential, purposefully so.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah said to them, I and my people were at great strife with the Ammonites and when I called you, you didn’t save me out of their hand- </p><p>We note the difference between this response to the Ephraimites, and that of Gideon in <a href='B:70 8:1-3'>Jdg 8:1-3</a>. Gideon was far humbler, and his softer answer turned away wrath. Whereas Jephthah is not so wise, and it results in bloodshed. We recall his unwisdom in his vow of Judges 11. Surely Jephthah ought to have learned from the history of how Gideon correctly responded in an identical situation- when again, the Ephraimites had not come forward to help him in routing Yahweh's enemies. We also note Jephthah speaks of how the men of Ephraim could have helped save him from the hand of the Ammonites. But it was Yahweh who delivered him out of the hand of the Ammonites, and placed the Ammonites into his hand (<a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>). In the flush of victory, Jephthah seems to have lost the humility which Gideon displayed as noted on <a href='B:70 8:2'>Jdg 8:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When I saw that you didn’t save me, I put my life in my hand and went against the Ammonites, and Yahweh delivered them into my hand-</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p><p>Why then have you come up to me this day, to fight against me?- </p><p>Again we sense an arrogance, in the flush of victory. As if to say, 'I just beat the Ammonites, why then try to fight me?'.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim, and the men of Gilead struck Ephraim because they said, You Gileadites are renegades of Ephraim from Ephraim and Manasseh-</p><p>The motivation for the conflict is here given as being merely racial and historical prejudice, rather than anything spiritual. And yet despite this yet further unwisdom and arrogance, Jephthah is listed as being amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, assured of resurrection to eternal life. We note that Jephthah took the initiative in attacking his brethren, and he did so because their words stuck in his mind, he kept repeating them, and therefore did what God was surely against- attacking and slaying his own brothers. This casual attitude to the death of others may, or may not, tie in to the discussion on <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a> as to whether he also intended to slay his own daughter.</p><p>We see here the power of unkind words, although LXX offers "because they that were escaped of Ephraim said, Ye are of Galaad in the midst of Ephraim and in the midst of Manasse". This would imply there had been a previous, unrecorded conflict between Gideon and the men of Ephraim:&nbsp; But 'You as Gileadites are really under our control' was the idea. GNB "The Ephraimites had said, "You Gileadites in Ephraim and Manasseh, you are deserters from Ephraim!"". And reflection upon those words made Jephthah so angry that he went and slew his brethren.</p><p>We could understand that the men of Ephraim wanted to attack Gilead. Which is what the Ammonites had effectively tried to do in Jud. 11, and had been defeated again by Jephthah. The men of Ephraim were acting just like the Gentile world... and met the same fate. And this is what happens in all conflicts between God's people.
Or again we can see the attack on Gilead as being the result of pride. They boast, depending how we translate the Hebrew, that they will reduce the Gileadites to a mere remnant.
</p>


text:
<p>The Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan before the Ephraimites. When the fugitives of Ephraim said, Let me cross over, the men of Gilead said to him, Are you an Ephraimite? If he said No- </p><p>The men of Gilead were related closely to the Ephraimites, hence the claim of :4. There was just a slight difference in accent between them. So this really was brother slaying brother, and shows Jephthah and his men in a very bad light. And yet, he is counted amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, and we assume he must have repented for what he did here.</p>


text:
<p>then they said to him, Now say ‘Shibboleth;’ and he said Sibboleth, for he couldn’t manage to pronounce it right, then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan- </p><p>"Sibboleth" means both a stream- which is all the 'river' Jordan is at places in northern Israel- or a burden of abuse (<a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a>); and 'shibboleth' is an ear of corn. There are many examples of this kind of thing in dialects today. Maybe the idea was&nbsp; that if they couldn't say "shibboleth" then they were asking to be placed under an abusive burden of death, 'sibboleth'. It has been observed: "The ‘ear of wheat’ was an ancient symbol of Ishtar, the goddess of heaven; and in later astronomy the Aramaic shebelta was the name of the Virgo Spicifera in the Zodiac: possibly, therefore, popular religious associations may have had something to do with the choice of the test word".</p><p>At that time, forty-two thousand of Ephraim fell- </p><p>This was nothing less than a bloodbath, a huge massacre. Although "thousand" when used of military conflict probably refers to a military division, rather than to a literal 1,000. Or we can read this as 'forty and two thousand', i.e. 40 + 2,000 = 2,040. The whole tribe numbered only 32,500 at the previous census (Num. 26:37), which was less than the first numbering (Num. 1:33). Only 1,000 from each tribe formed the army (Num. 31:4,6). Whatever the figure, Jephthah presents surely as conscience less in arranging for the slaying of so many of his fellow Israelites. This would be in the context of his willingness to slay his own daughter, and his having led a band of violent robbers for many years prior to that.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah judged Israel for six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in a city of Gilead- </p><p>Perhaps it was during these six years that he repented of his unspiritual behaviour and unwisdom, and had the faith which was the basis of his commendation in Hebrews 11. We reflect that Jephthah was willing to sacrifice his only child for the sake of God giving him a victory which in turn would return him to his "house" or family, and make him their leader. But it probably didn't work out as family life happily for ever after. He would still have been spoken of as the son of a prostitute. And even if he did get the acceptance he so craved, it only lasted six years.</p>


text:
<p>After him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel-</p><p>All the judges / saviours look forward to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate judge / saviour of Israel. Ibzan, 'the splendid one' of Bethlehem, is a clear example.</p>


text:
<p>He had thirty sons and thirty daughters. He sent his daughters away in marriage, and brought in thirty women for his sons. He judged Israel for seven years- </p><p>He clearly wished to spread his influence far and wide. Perhaps "brought in" could imply from other tribes or even nations (AV "from abroad)", both of which were against the Mosaic intentions of keeping the inheritances within the tribes. We note the contrast with Jephthah, who had only one child, presumably because he refused to take other wives and retained his one barren wife as his only wife.</p>


text:
<p>Ibzan died and was buried at Bethlehem-</p><p>See on :8; he was a type of Christ. However, the book of Judges rarely mentions Judah, so this may be the Bethlehem in Zebulun (<a href='B:60 19:15'>Jos 19:15</a>), from where the next judge also came (:11).</p>


text:
<p>After him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel for ten years- </p><p>Elon's name means 'grove of oaks', clearly with reference to pagan practices. The fact he is not recorded as having renamed himself could suggest that he remained an idolater, although was used by God to deliver Israel. Being used by God doesn't mean we are therefore faithful to Him and assured of His acceptance.</p>


text:
<p>Elon the Zebulunite died and was buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun- </p><p>Elon and Aijalon have the same Hebrew consonants, and may be as in LXX the same basic word. Elon was a clan of Zebulun (<a href='B:10 46:14'>Gen 46:14</a>; <a href='B:40 26:26'>Num 26:26</a>), so this may refer to a man from that clan. The lack of a personal name would therefore indicate he was as it were an anonymous person used by God to deliver His people at a certain time.</p>


text:
<p>After him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel- </p><p>"Abdon" means server, and "Hillel" means praise, usually of Yahweh. Although the Yahweh Name is absent from his name, we assume that he was a servant of Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:70 10:16'>Jdg 10:16</a>). And yet as noted on :15, his personal commitment to Yahweh failed to ensure that the whole people were His servants.</p>


text:
<p>He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkey colts, and he judged Israel for eight years- </p><p>The very large numbers of children by several of the judges suggests they were polygamists, and we therefore get the impression of men who were not very spiritual but were used by God to deliver His people. They throw Jephthah into positive contrast, as he had only one child; presumably because he refused to take other wives and retained his one barren wife as his only wife. And he is one of the few judges listed in Hebrews 11 as having had true faith.  The stress on riding donkey colts may indicate prosperity; but it could equally suggest that they pretended to kingship. Because riding on a donkey's colt was connected with being proclaimed king.</p>


text:
<p>Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country of the Amalekites-</p><p>The mention of the Amalekites is tacit admission that Abdon did not effect a major, lasting deliverance of Israel from their enemies. Or perhaps, as with Joshua, his victories were not followed up by the people. We see spiritual weakness at every turn in the Judges narrative.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years- </p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p><p>Biblical history is unlike any other national history of a people in that it seems to emphasize the spiritual weakness of Israel. The heroes are nearly all flawed- and that, surely, is so as to give us realistic inspiration to rise up to their spirit, knowing how flawed we also are. And yet there's a tendency amongst some of us to idealize these men, in the same way as the Catholic and Orthodox churches portray them as white faced, haloed saints. Judaism has done the same. Despite the evident weaknesses of Samson (and other judges, e.g. Gideon) as revealed in the inspired record, later Jewish commentary sought to idealize them. Take Sir_46:11-12: "The judges too... all men whose hearts were never disloyal, who never turned their backs on the Lord...". Perhaps the psychological basis for this tendency is that we simply don't want to be personally challenged by the fact that heroes of faith were so much like us...</p><p>We know, or we ought to, how weak our moral judgment is, how prone we are to forget the degree to which God has justified us from our sins. This weakness is seen in the difficulty we have in analyzing the characters we read of in Scripture. For example, from reading the record of Lot in Genesis, it would seem that Lot was a materialistic, weak, faithless man who is shown to be the exact opposite to Abraham, who is held up as the example of real faith. Yet in the New Testament record, Peter points out that Lot was a righteous man. We are therefore left to conclude that the Genesis record is highlighting the weaker aspects of Lot's character, without commenting on the good points. We may have the same sort of surprise when we read in Hebrews 11 that Samson was a man of outstanding faith- yet the record we are reading at the moment in Judges seems framed to paint Samson as a womanizer, a man who lacked self-control and who only came to God in times of dire personal need.</p><p>But just imagine if only the negative incidents in our own lives, over a period of 20 (or 40?) years, were recorded. Anyone reading it would conclude that we were a complete hypocrite to claim to have any hope of salvation. In our self-examination, we sometimes see only this negative record; we fail to see that God has justified us, that in His record book, we are ranked among the faithful, as Samson was in Hebrews 11. Any character study of Samson needs to bear this in mind. Samson, over 40 years of service, courted a girl not in the faith and tried to marry her; once went to a prostitute in Gaza; and had an on-and-off relationship with a worthless woman in Sorek for a few months (?). And yet he seems to have lived the rest of his life full of faith and zeal- although I say this not in any way minimizing the mistakes he made. This is hardly evidence that Samson was the renegade sex-maniac that he is sometimes made out to be.</p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story - perhaps. Although I have made a case on Jud. 17 that in fact some of the people of Dan from Samson's village home migrated north exactly because he had not delivered them from the Philistines. And the mother of the apostate Micah was likely Delilah, with her 1100 pieces of silver. Jud. 18:30 speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and 20:28 of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7. Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?" (15:11). "They had become reconciled to the dominion of sin since it did not appear to do much harm. They could still grow their crops etc.". It is even possible that his parents had elements of weakness in them; for his name doesn't include the 'Yah' prefix, and 'Samson' ('splendour of the sun') may be a reference to the nearby town of Beth Shemesh ('house of the sun-god'). It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage. All the Judges were preceded by a period of Israel prostituting themselves to the surrounding nations (<a href='B:70 2:16-19'>Jdg 2:16-19</a>); and this was evidently true of the period in which Samson grew up. From this apostate tribe and background came Samson. The way his own people angrily rebuked him that " Don't you know that the Philistines are lords over us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>) was tacit recognition of the depth of their apostacy. They seemed to have no regret that they were fulfilling the many earlier prophecies that they would be dominated by their enemies if they were disobedient to Yahweh. The fact that Israel were dominated throughout Samson's life by the Philistines is proof enough that they were apostate at this time (<a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>;&nbsp;cp. <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>; <a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There was a man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah, and his wife was barren and childless-</p><p>Samson lJudges typically gives a cycle of sin, suffering, repentance, prayer to God, judge sent to save, sin, suffering, repentance, prayer to God, judge etc. The case of Samson is different. Israel suffer for their sins but they do not repent nor pray to God, yet Samson is still sent. Likewise, the barren woman stories in the Bible usually have the woman desperately praying for pregnancy, and then getting a Divine intervention through an Angel, with a message about the child's future mission. This pattern is followed here apart from the fact Manoah's wife isn't recorded as praying. But she apparently experiences God's intervention by grace, on His intervention, without her [recorded] prayers. Grace is to be a dominant theme of the Samson story. Throughout the Samson story, there are anomalies, not least that a Nazirite continually broke the conditions of Naziriteship but was still a "Nazirite unto the Lord", in His sight. These are all summed up in the comment that his marriage to the Philistine was "of the Lord". The introduction to Samson's birth mirrors the introduction we have to Abraham. He is mentioned first, by name, and then his wife, with the comment she was barren. We are set up to expect a significant child from this barren woman. And that is typical of God's work with Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah, Elisabeth... from the barren is brought forth something meaningful and salvific in God's purpose. And yet what we see in the child born is not at all a spiritual hero, but a very weak and confused man who was used by God. Samson is rather an anticlimax, intentionally so. And yet God still worked out His salvation through him. Manoah is named 15 times, his wife never; she is simply called "the woman", reflecting how she was perceived. As rather a childless nobody. God has a penchant for working through anonymous nobodies. And so the Angel was focused upon her rather than Manoah, even the second time appearing again to her alone, and she is presented as more perceptive than Manoah. It has been observed that "the large number of details about Manoah―he is given location, tribe, name and marital status―contrasts with the anonymity of his wife".
We note too the similarities with the account of the birth of Samuel. 'There was a certain man [Elkanah] of the family of... whose name was... whose wife was barren' (1 Sam. 1:1). Samson is to be a Nazirite to God from birth, and Hannah promised that Samuel was to be given up to Yahweh's service (1 Sam. 1:11-18); indeed it could be argued that Samuel was also a Nazirite. The Qumran text of 1 Sam. 1:13 has Hannah saying that "I will give him as a Nazir for ever" [MT "no razor shall come on his head"]. Both Elkanah and Manoah make offerings to God. Hannah assures Eli that "I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink" (1 Sam. 1:15), just as Manoah's wife is commanded not to [the phrase "wine nor strong drink" recurs], and just as the Nazirite was not to. We also note the repetition of phrase "If it had pleased God to kill us..." (by Manoah's wife, Jud. 13:23) and then in 1 Sam 2:25, talking of Eli's sins, who were slain "for it pleased God to kill them". The records are so similar that we wonder if what Samson failed to achieve, despite the potential given him, God set up Samuel to achieve. Although if Samuel were a Nazirite, he was defiled by touching a dead body (when he slew Agag, 1 Sam. 15:33). The parallels could mean that Samuel was intended to do the work Samson didn't. God raised up deliverance from another place, as Mordecai reasoned to Esther. And in seeking to understand our own lives and ministries, there must always be the consideration that perhaps we were raised up to do what others failed to do, perhaps even in previous generations. On Jud. 14:19 I note the parallels between Samson and Saul, and also David. God seems to work similarly today. One man [Samson] is raised up for a task, he fails or only partially does it; another [Samuel] is raised up and likewise doesn't complete it; and another likewise [Saul]. And then another [David] is raised up who does do it. 
Samson ived at a time when Israel were hopelessly weak. His great desire was to do the work of the promised seed, who would save Israel from their enemies. He resented the Philistine domination and sought, single-handed, to overcome it in faith, not only for himself, but for his weaker brethren. As predestiny would have it, in recognition of his zeal for these things, he came from Zorah, 'the hornet'- a symbol of the Divine power that would drive the foreign tribes out of the land, as Samson dedicated himself to do (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>). And his father’s name, Manoah, meant "rest", or inheritance (cp. <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). Samson-ben-Manoah was therefore Samson, the son of the promised inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh appeared to the woman and said to her, Look now, you are barren and childless but you will conceive and bear a son- </p><p>"You are barren... but you will conceive" is typical of how God seeks to bring us to real acceptance of how we are, before offering deliverance. We think of the Lord asking the blind man what he wanted the Lord to do for Him. It was in one sense obvious, but the Lord wanted to convict him of what he really wanted. We too pass through that process of conviction before God delivers.</p><p>God’s Angelic appearance to barren or childless women and promising them a very significant child is quite a theme. We think of Abraham and Sarah (<a href='B:10 17:19'>Gen 17:19</a>; <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>; <a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a>),&nbsp; Hannah (<a href='B:90 1:17'>1Sa 1:17</a>), Elizabeth (<a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a>) and Mary (<a href='B:490 1:31'>Luk 1:31</a>). These women were intended to have reflected upon the experience of those previous women, and to have taken strength and guidance from their response. This is the advantage of daily Bible reading and familiarity with the text and historical narrative of the scriptures. Even if we 'don't get anything out of it' at the point of reading, when events occur in our lives, we are able to see them in the context of Biblical history, and are comforted that we are not alone. Our experiences are not so totally unique. And it is the sense of walking alone in unchartered, unexperienced territory which is where much of our fear comes from. And yet because the hand of God works according to a historical pattern, we need not feel so alone; through patience and comfort of the scriptures we have hope (<a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a>), as if these historical records speak to us in a personified form and comfort us. See on :3,24.</p><p>"You will conceive" can be understood as 'You have conceived'. If so, we note how the Angel pointed out the obvious [that she was barren / infertile] and juxtaposed it with God's action: "You are pregnant". But the future tense would suggest that Manoah still had to do his part by sleeping with his wife.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore you must be careful and drink no wine nor strong drink, and don’t eat any unclean thing- </p><p>As discussed on :4, Manoah's wife was here promised that her son would be a Nazirite from birth; and she was to become the pattern for later women who were told likewise (<a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a>; <a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a>). It could be argued that she is being told that she too must be a Nazirite. At least until Samson is born. Menstruation meant touching the unclean (Lev. 15:19); so female vows of Naziriteship could not have been for longer than a month for pre menopausal women. But she would not have been menstruating whilst pregnant. If she was not asked to be a Nazirite, we would have an example of fences being placed around the law- Samson was to be a Nazirite, so his mother was not to drink wine whilst he was in her womb. The command to not eat anything unclean suggests she was likely or accustomed to eating unclean food. </p>


text:
<p>You shall conceive and bear a son, and no razor must come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he will begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>It would be simplistic for a character study of Samson to see Samson as some kind of sex maniac of a believer. He was a man of faith who, amidst a weak and indifferent brotherhood, tried to rise up to the spirit of Messiah in delivering Israel from their spiritual enemies. In order to devote himself to this, it seems that he chose the single life. In common with others who trod that path of zeal (e.g. Timothy and possibly Hezekiah), he couldn't maintain it all the time. He stumbled, and his stumbling in this area resulted in him reasoning that the end (i:e. the work he was doing) justified the means, and that therefore he could do God’s work in a way which in fact gratified his own flesh. He had to learn the spirit of the cross-carrying Christ; the lesson of the whole burnt offering: that the whole of a man's life must be affected by the cross- not just those parts which we are willing to surrender. We can't mix the service of God with the service of self. There is no third road. Because Samson failed to realize this (until the end), he was a man who in many ways never quite made it; he never quite lived up to the spiritual potential which he had.</p><p>Although he was to be the beginning of serious deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, the whole story of Samson is prefaced by the fact that during the 40 years of Samson's' ministry (15:20 + 16:31), "the Lord delivered (Israel) into the hand of the Philistines" (13:1). It is emphasized in <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> that "at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel" ; and the men of Judah chode with him: "Don't you know that the Philistines are rulers over us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). The point is hammered home in <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>: "He judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years". God’s intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith. It may be possible to understand that the breaking of his Nazariteship was yet another way in which he never lived up to his God-given potential. He was "a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death" (13:7). Yet he broke the Nazirite vow by touching dead bodies and having his hair shaven (<a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>)); and probably drinking alcohol at the wedding feast and every time when Delilah betrayed him. This may mean that he chose to break God’s ideal intention for him, to take a lower and lower level of service to God until actually he had slipped away altogether. However, it may be that God counted his desire for the high standard of Nazariteship to him. He saw him as if this never happened, in the same way as He saw Abraham as if he had offered up Isaac, even though ultimately he didn’t (<a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a>; <a href='B:660 2:21'>Jas 2:21</a>). Intention, not the human strength of will to do the act, seems to be what God earnestly looks for.</p><p>"A nazirite to God" could mean that this is how God would see him. Just as we are unto God  the righteousness of the Lord Jesus. His view of us is all important. Bible readers are being set up for the NT concept of imputed righteousness. Because it could be argued that Samson broke every condition of the Nazirite vow. He drunk alcohol (Jud. 14:5,10 cp. Num. 6:3, and surely he was drunk when tied up and then shaved when living with Delilah); touched the carcass of a dead animal (Jud. 14:8 and also the jawbone of the ass cp. Num. 6:6-8); and had his hair shaved (Jud. 16:15-22). But God saw him as a Nazirite. Although when his hair was shaved, it's as if God said 'enough'. Samson could not keep on his reductionism of God's principles, assuming all would be as before. Samson is purposefully enigmatic, and every man and his dog has a different interpretation of him- from “heroic fool, foolish hero, trickster, tragic wild man, comic bandit, tragicomic-trickster-terrorist, foolish-freedom-fighter-type-of-Israel, fool-for-love-Nazirite-judge, negative example and hero of the faith”. And that, I would argue, is intentional. We don't know what to make of him. But God does, and Heb. 11 tells us that somewhere, somehow, he had faith, and will be saved eternally. Despite all those possible interpretations of Samson, I have to say that he strikes me as a narcissist who wasted his potentials, and all he ever does is more for himself than for God. And yet through all that... he will be saved by grace. Possibly in no other OT character do we see saving grace more clearly operative.
"He will begin to save..." could mean that he would begin the salvation- and David would finish it. But that would imply there had been no Divine attempt to save Israel from the Philistines before Samson. But Shamgar had already fought the Philistines in Jud. 3:31. Rather I suggest this is simply an overall statement of Samson's achievement. He would begin the deliverance from the Philistines... although potentially he could have delivered Israel completely. Or at least, his own tribe of Dan. See on :25. Samson potentially could have freed Israel from the Philistines. Instead we read of him doing a few heroic massacres clearly motivated by personal anger and revenge.  
</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman went and told her husband, A man of God came to me, and his face was like the face of the angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he was from, neither did he tell me his name-</p><p>LXX "I asked him whence he was, and his name, but he did not tell me"."I did not ask him His Name". Therefore the husband did ask His Name when He appeared again. She assumed this was a prophet, a "man of God", but she had the suspicion that it was in fact an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>but he said to me ‘You will conceive and bear a son; drink no wine or strong drink, and eat no unclean thing, for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death’-</p><p>He was a Nazirite to God (i:e. in God’s eyes?) all his life- although he broke his Nazariteship by contact with dead bodies (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:15'>Jdg 15:15</a> cp. <a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>) and probably by drinking wine at his wedding (<a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a> "feast" = 'drinking', Heb:). This was not only imputed righteousness, but God counting the essential intentions of a weak willed man to him as if he had actually achieved what he fain would do.</p><p>Or it could be that we are to read this as meaning that it was God’s intention that Samson should be a Nazirite to the day of his death- but he failed to live up to that Divine intention and potential. Which is a sad theme of the Judges record. <a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a> cp. <a href='B:70 16:17'>Jdg 16:17</a> implies that Samson himself felt he had broken his Nazariteship. Likewise Zacharias was "blameless" in God’s sight, even though in this very period of his life he was in some ways lacking faith that his prayers would be answered (<a href='B:490 1:6'>Luk 1:6</a>). It is our holding fast that is our acceptable service (<a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a> mg:); not the occasional heroics of outstanding acts of obedience.</p><p>We know that we sadly oscillate between the flesh and the spirit. And yet Scripture abounds with examples of where God sees us as in a permanent state of either sin or righteousness. We are fountains that bring forth good water, and therefore by that very definition cannot occasionally bring forth bitter water; we are good fruit trees or bad ones. We aren’t a little of both, in God’s sight. This is surely because He sees us on the basis of the fact that we are in Christ, clothed with His righteousness, rather than as individuals who sometimes act righteously and sometimes not during the course of a day. Thus God saw Samson as a lifelong Nazirite, although we know there were times when he broke the Nazirite vow by, e.g., touching dead bodies and having his hair cut. The challenging thing is to behold our brethren as having the “in Christ” status (for we can’t impute anything else to them, lest we condemn them), and not to see them from the point of view of people who sometimes act righteously and sometimes don’t.</p><p>Likewise the Angel declared that he would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). Yet he died with the Philistines firmly in control over himself and Israel. This was potentially possible in the Angelic plan; but he didn’t live up to what had been made possible in prospect. Significantly, Samson’s mother omitted to repeat this part of the Angel’s conversation when she relayed the incident to her husband (<a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a>)- perhaps because she didn’t believe that her child would be capable of this. And perhaps this was a factor in his failure to achieve what God had intended for him.</p><p>The woman fails to repeat what was most important in the Divine plan- that "he will begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines". And she doesn't repeat the requirement about not cutting his hair. Possibly we have here the theme that will be repeated in the Samson story- of partial spirituality. She is thrilled that she will have a child. But she doesn't see much further than that. And her lack of focus upon the hair issue may have come to full term when Samson effectively allows his hair to be cut.
She adds the detail "to the day of his death". The Angel didn't say that. And we are left to ponder the intentional ambiguity. Was this prophetic, that he would be seen by God as a Nazirite "to the day of his death"? Or is this the mother assuming he would not break his Naziriteship all his life? In which case her hopes for her son were to be majorly disappointed. Naziriteship was a voluntary vow, but here we see the higher hand of God, making Samson a lifelong Nazirite on the Divine initiative; and likewise making Manoah's wife a Nazirite at least until she gave birth to Samson. It's like his marriage being "of the Lord" (Jud. 14:5). That higher hand of God's working over against our freewill is the Old Testament version of the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
</p>


text:
<p>Then Manoah entreated Yahweh and said, Oh Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we should do to the child who will be born- </p><p>The Angel had explained already; they were to raise him as a Nazirite. But as with Gideon, Manoah had a weak faith and wanted continual confirmation. And there was also the fact that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God’s words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness, as He does to many cultural mores which are a denial of deeper spiritual principle.</p><p>Manoah's prayer was answered in that the Angel did come again- to his wife. He obviously wanted personal reassurance that his wife's pregnancy was from him, and that indeed she was telling the truth. The essence of the prayer was answered- the Angel came to his wife. And stayed long enough for her to dash to Manoah and get him to come and meet the Angel. We likewise often receive answers to prayer that are not to the letter of what we asked, but fulfil the spirit of it. But it is surely significant that the Angel appeared to his wife whilst she was alone. Clearly God was focused upon her as His channel, although she remains nameless as "the woman", and Manoah is mentioned by name 15 times. We note that in :11 Manoah refers to his wife as "the woman" rather than 'my wife'.</p>


text:
<p>God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field, but Manoah her husband, wasn’t with her- </p><p>I suggested on :8 that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God’s words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness. But He does so by all the same first appearing to the woman alone, and not directly to Manoah in the first instance.</p>


text:
<p>The woman quickly ran and told her husband, and said to him, The man has appeared to me, who came to me that day-</p><p>We note that the woman ran quickly, whereas Manoah arose and walked behind his wife (:11 Heb.). She consistently is presented as the more responsive and dynamic. Even though she is left anonymous. We note too that the Angel refuses Manoah's offer of hospitality and declines to give Manoah his name- actions which would have been seen as a slight to the hospitality culture. The focus is repeatedly upon the anonymous woman rather than Manoah. The record of Samson's birth frequently uses the phrases "the man" and "the woman" (:10,11), as if to send the mind back to Eden- with the implication that Samson was the seed of the woman, in type of Christ. "The woman" is a phrase nearly always associated in Scripture with the birth of someone who was to be a seed of the woman. "Of all that I said unto the woman, let her beware", coming from the mouth of an Angel (:13), surely confirms the Eden allusions.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, Are you the man who spoke to the woman? He said, I am- </p><p>To hear the words of God directly, Manoah has to follow after his wife. I suggested on :8,9 that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God’s words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness. But He does so in such a way that still requires him to follow behind his more spiritual wife (see on :23), in order to hear those words.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said, Now may your words come true. What should the child’s way of life and mission be?- </p><p>There may be here the slight hint that he did not have total faith in the words of promise. For we could understand him as meaning 'Well I hope what you say is true. Should it be true, then how should we, in that case, raise the child; what is his mission going to be, so that we might raise him towards it?'. I note on :23 that his wife has more faith and perception than he does. And it is highly significant that the description of the "mission", to deliver Israel from the Philistines, is told only to the woman and not to Manoah.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, All that I said to the woman she must do- </p><p>Although God is making a concession to Manoah's weakness in appearing to him, He emphasizes that His primary word had been to the woman, not to Manoah. The concession to his chauvinistic weakness was therefore not total, but done in such a way that he was reminded that God had chosen his wife before him in revealing His word. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe- </p><p>"Let her observe" may have been the command to Manoah, to not stand in the way of her obeying the call to also be a Nazirite. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, Please, let us detain you so that we may make a young goat ready for you-</p><p>The record of Samson has a large number of examples of the repetitions in Biblical narrative. They are situations where he was connected into the experience of those who had gone before- e.g. Manoah's desire to detain the Angel recalls <a href='B:70 6:18'>Jdg 6:18</a>; <a href='B:10 18:5'>Gen 18:5</a>. His desire to detain the Angel and offer sacrifice was exactly that of Gideon (6:18). His belief after he had seen the Angel ascend (<a href='B:70 13:20'>Jdg 13:20</a> = <a href='B:70 6:21'>Jdg 6:21</a>), and his subsequent fear, were again expressed in the words of Gideon (<a href='B:70 13:21-22'>Jdg 13:21-22</a> cp. <a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). As Gideon was, perhaps subconsciously, the hero of Manoah, so Samson followed his father’s spirituality in this, wanting likewise to copy Gideon. It seems he lived out parental expectation, and imbibed the spirituality of his father without making it his own. Born and raised believers, beware.</p>&nbsp;<p>The whole scene is very similar to that of <a href='B:10 18:7-8'>Gen 18:7-8</a>. Manoah responded as Abraham did, and later he would have perceived the similarities, and therefore grasped that this "man" was indeed an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, Though you detain me, I won’t eat your food, and if you prepare a burnt offering, you must offer it to Yahweh. Manoah didn’t know that he was the angel of Yahweh- </p><p>And yet as noted on :15, the whole scene was so very similar to that of <a href='B:10 18:7-8'>Gen 18:7-8</a> that we conclude that Manoah ought to have perceived ["know"] that this was an Angel. The fact he didn’t is therefore an indication of lack of spiritual perception on his part. See on :23. The fact the Angel didn’t eat of his food and meat, whereas the Angels who visited Abraham did so, could be read as a possible rebuke of Manoah for not perceiving this was an Angel. It could also be argued that in a similar scene, the visiting Angel accepted Gideon's food (Jud. 6:18). See on :17.</p><p>"Detain" is the word used for the Angelic restraining of the womb from bearing children (<a href='B:10 20:18'>Gen 20:18</a>), and had been used specifically about Sarah (<a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a>). And this whole incident was intended to help them see the similarities with Abraham and Sarah's Angelic visitation. The Angel may intend them to grasp the point- that they thought they were detaining / restraining Him, when He had been restraining them from having children until this point. Perhaps only later did they perceive this, if at all. There are many such Biblical allusions built in by God to our life experiences; and we may or may not ever perceive them in the course of our lives. Self examination of the path and details of our lives is clearly intended by God.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, What is your name, that when your words come true, we may honour you?-</p><p>The record says that Manoah said this "to the Angel", whilst clearly thinking this was a mere man. He acts and reasons as if this is a man, and he needs to know his name so that he can give him honour. When surely his mind should have been upon honouring God. "When" may also bear the implication of "if", as if he still didn’t completely believe these words (see on :12). As noted on :16, his lack of perception that this was an Angel is criticized implicitly.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to him, Why do you ask about my name, since it is beyond understanding-</p><p>Or, "wonderful", implying 'miraculous'. This again was urging Manoah to understand that this was not a human prophet, but an Angel with the power to do miracles. I have noted on :16,17 that Manoah is being implicitly criticized for not perceiving this was an Angel. And so the Angel replies with exactly the Angelic words to Jacob (<a href='B:10 32:29'>Gen 32:29</a>). Their subsequent fear (<a href='B:70 13:22'>Jdg 13:22</a>) is that of <a href='B:10 32:20'>Gen 32:20</a>. See on <a href='B:70 14:12'>Jdg 14:12</a>. Yet despite this, Manoah fails to make the connection, for only at the point :21 does he realize this was an Angel. The Angel's name was "wonderful" [NEV "beyond understanding"]. The Angel doesn't give any one word answer, but instead "did a wonderful thing" (:19). For all time we see that the Name of God is not a lexical item, but rather manifest in what He does.</p>


text:
<p>So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to Yahweh. Then the angel did a wonderful thing as Manoah and his wife looked on- </p><p>Manoah had initially wanted to prepare food for the visitor, but He had declined it, and told him instead to offer it to Yahweh. And Manoah does so.</p>


text:
<p>When the flame went up toward the sky from the altar, the angel of Yahweh ascended in the flame of the altar, and Manoah and his wife looked on- </p><p>The fact they had an altar on their property indicates that they did serve Yahweh, although not in the ideal sense of offering at His sanctuary. But still God worked through that. "Ascended" is the word usually translated "offering". The idea is that the Angel was identified with the sacrifice, meaning that it had been accepted. Despite all Manoah's lack of spiritual perception throughout the encounter, as lamented on :16-18.</p><p>And they fell on their faces to the ground- </p><p>The phrase used of men doing this with a sense of unworthiness and conviction of sin (<a href='B:10 44:14'>Gen 44:14</a>; <a href='B:60 7:6'>Jos 7:6</a>; <a href='B:80 2:10'>Rth 2:10</a>). Now that they had been humbled, God could work further with them. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>But the angel of Yahweh didn’t appear to Manoah or to his wife any more. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh- </p><p>See on :16,17,18. It was the very absence of God’s direct appearance in his life that in the end persuaded Manoah that truly, he did have a fully valid relationship with Him. And the apparent silence of God is intended to teach us likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God- </p><p>He failed to learn the lesson from Gideon, who had likewise wrongly panicked (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>; <a href='B:70 6:28'>Jdg 6:28</a>); and likewise of Jacob and others who saw the face of an Angel and lived (<a href='B:10 16:14'>Gen 16:14</a>; <a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Isaiah too failed to learn this lesson from history (<a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a>). This is typical of man's tendency to think that God is "a hard man", indifferent to us as persons, distant, judgmental. Again Manoah is presented as far less spiritually perceptive than his anonymous nobody of a wife, who [as many such are today] was far more perceptive in spiritual things.</p>


text:
<p>But his wife said to him, If Yahweh wanted to kill us He wouldn’t have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from us, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these- </p><p>She reasoned that if God had accepted the sacrifice, and told them they would have a child, they would therefore not be slain at least before she gave birth. She presents as far more perceptive than Manoah, even though she remains unnamed.  Here we have a repeat of the essence of the situation between Deborah and Barak, where again a woman’s faith was greater than a man’s fear; see on :12. Such interconnections within the Biblical record reveal an overall Divine mind behind the entire volume. And we see too how Biblical history is intended to serve as a precedent for us, teaching us that we are not alone, not on unmapped territory never passed before. But all is working out as God has worked previously.</p>


text:
<p>The woman bore a son, and named him Samson, and the child grew and Yahweh blessed him-</p><p>"The child grew, and Yahweh blessed him" is the language used of Samuel, John and the Lord Jesus- all likewise chosen from the womb, with births announced by Angels to childless women. See on :2,3. It is possible that his parents still had elements of weakness in them; for his name doesn't include the 'Yah' prefix, and 'Samson' ('splendour of the sun') may be a reference to the nearby town of Beth Shemesh ('house of the sun-god'). We note that it was the wife who named him Samson, and it was unusual for a woman to name the child. Zorah was only 3 km. from Beth Shemesh. Long hair was associated with the sun gods- the long hairs representing the rays of the sun. The sun gods are depicted as having long hair- Ra-Horakhtz, Attis, Surya and Lugh. Samson chose to wear his long hair as seven locks (Jud. 16:13), and this is exactly the kind of radiant crown seen on the sun gods. The crown of the Greek sun-god Helios was often depicted with seven spikes. This continues the theme- that Samson mixed Yahweh worship with paganism; and his hatred of the Philistines was not therefore purely a result of his love for Yahweh. He died with the request “that I may avenge myself the revenge of one of my two eyes” (Jud. 16:28).  The sun was thought to be the 'eye' of Heaven. Samson's dying request that he be avenged for the loss of his eyes suggests he died still with a strong sense of association with the sun god. </p><p> It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out of the faith'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh began to trouble him in the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol-</p><p>Samson was intended to "begin" delivering Israel from the Philistines (Jud. 13:5), and so the Spirit of God "Began" [s.w.] to move him to do so (Jud. 13:25). But he didn't let that process progress as intended, becoming caught up on anger and sexual lust issues.  We have the sense that God began a work in and through Samson that wasn't completed as potentially possible- perhaps with the implication, that it should have been but wasn't. Not until David's time would Israel be free from the Philistines (2 Sam. 8:1). Yet despite only partially fulfilling his potential, Samson did make a beginning. And he will be saved, despite all that was unfinished and all the unrealized potential. On one hand, the fool begins and doesn't finish (Lk. 14:30 "This man began to build, and was not able to finish"). On the other hand, we are saved by grace even when we don't finish. Likewise the Lord has "begun a good work in us" and will complete it- if we let Him, for He will keep on trying to finish it ("Being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will keep working at perfecting it, until the day of Jesus Christ" Phil. 1:6). The Galatians 'began in the Spirit' but left that path and tried to complete the work without the Spirit, "by the flesh", and failed (Gal. 3:3). The Lord 'began' doing and teaching in His ministry (Acts 1:1; 10:37 "that word began from Galilee") and continues. So many times the Lord's words are prefaced with the statement that He "began to say..." (Mt. 4:17; 11:7,20; Mk. 4:1; 6:2,34; 8:31; 10:32; 12:1; 13:5; Lk. 4:21; 7:24; 11:29; 12:1; 20:9; 24:27). This is all quite some theme. His words were intended to commence something in the hearers, although usually that intended process wasn't and isn't allowed to go forward to its intended end. When a man today hears the Lord's words, that process likewise begins; but men truncate it.
I suggested on Jud. 17:1 that the story line continues directly from the death of Samson to Delilah and her son making an idol. We note that the camp of Dan, Zorah and Eshtaol are mentioned in Jud. 18:2,8,11,12, just as they are in Jud. 13. The Spirit of God had moved Samson to deliver his tribe Dan from the Philistines in that very area (Jud. 13:25 and see on Jud. 14:19), but he hadn't lived up to that potential. In Samson's time, the tribe of Dan had not possessed the land given to them (Josh. 19:47,48). In Jud. 18 we read of how they gave up, and went up north to drive the people of Laish out of their territory, rather than dealing with the Philistines and having their intended  tribal allotment. Samson was their potential means for inheriting the land they were supposed to. The Spirit moved him to be sensitive to this. Yet as we see in Jud. 15, they were prepared to live with the Philistines reigning over them. Samson perceived the potential and wanted to realize it; but his people didn't. And he himself failed to realize his own personal potential. Had he liberated Dan from the Philistines as God potentially enabled, the whole miserable story of Jud. 17-21 need never have happened. But instead Samson was caught up with personal skirmishes arising from his own anger issues and refusal to get over the anger and sense of revenge arising from his failed marriage. Yet he still will be saved, according to Hebrews 11.
Zorah was where Samson was born and he was buried in just the same location between Zorah and Eshtaol  (Jud. 16:31). In his youth, the Spirit moved him in between those places, setting him up for his life's work, or at least for the potential of it. The implication of being buried in the exact same place may mean that he didn't actually progress very far, in fact nowhere. Yet still he will be saved. The presence of the Philistines there, and perhaps their abuse of the Danites, provoked his spirit... and the Holy Spirit confirmed him in that. We know from his walk alone in the vineyards in Jud. 14 that Samson was not unknown to go walking alone. And so the LXX here in Jud. 13:25 is significant: "The Spirit of the Lord began to go out / walk with him". As he walked around the local area alone, angry at the evidence of Philistine domination, the Spirit went with him and confirmed him in his desire to break the bondage. Or we can interpret "the camp of Dan" as a military term for the soldiers of Dan in Zorah-Eshtaol, of whom there were 600 at the time of Jud. 18 in just that place; and he was one of them. The difference was that God's Spirit began to impel him personally. We see how the movement of the Spirit is partly a result of Divine sovereign choice, similar to making a man a Nazirite when Nazirite vows were to be taken as freewill decisions. Am. 2:11 speaks of God raising up Nazirites. On the other hand, God's Spirit confirms the human spirit. And yet the various translations all give the range of God's initiative with Samson here: “to stir” (NIV, NRSV), “to move [him] at times” (KJV), “to drive [him] hard", “to arouse”, “to direct”. Only LXX gives "to accompany / walk with". These translations all help us see how the Spirit works internally on a man's heart, and with us too today.
As we will note elsewhere, he failed to realize the potential- of giving his tribe Dan their inheritance free from the Philistines. He got caught up in anger issues over the failure of his first marriage. He turned to prostitutes, and was endlessly set on revenge for it. So that what he achieved was minimal compared to the potential enabled by the Spirit. Yet still he will be finally saved.
Samson was possessed of a finely tuned conscience. The first instance of this is when we read how the Spirit of Yahweh troubled him (Heb:) from time to time in the camp of Dan, in the very places where his people had earlier failed to follow up the victories of Joshua-Jesus by their spiritual laziness. He was troubled, deeply, by the Philistine dominance and Israel's unfaithfulness to Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen 41:8</a>). God works directly on the human spirit by His Spirit. And so He provoked Samson to have these concerns in his spirit, and God’s Spirit confirmed Samson's positive response to these proddings, which were initially of God’s working directly on his heart. This is how the Holy Spirit likewise works today.</p><p>The context of Samson's marriage does seem to suggest that Samson himself sought occasion against the Philistines; for the Spirit of the Lord had been troubling his conscience as to why the people of Dan had not followed up Joshua's victories, and had allowed themselves to be overrun by the uncircumcised (13:25 Heb:). The only other references to "troubled" are in <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen 41:8</a>; <a href='B:230 77:4'>Psa 77:4</a>; <a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a>; <a href='B:340 2:3'>Dan 2:3</a>. The Spirit of God worked with Samson's spirit, so that it was troubled as he went for his solitary walks of meditation. It was no accident that he was buried in the very place where his conscience was first awakened (<a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>); he maybe asked for this burial place, to show he had at last returned to his innocent spiritual beginnings.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines-</p><p>"Went down" reflects his spiritual fall; the theme is stressed in :1,5,7,10. This is a great anticlimax to all we have been set up to expect and hope for in Samson from the previous chapter. Born by Divine intervention, a Nazirite who has been Divinely stirred and set up to deliver Israel from the Philistines. And he now goes down and falls in love with one of their women, and intends to break the covenant by marrying her. And his weak father reluctantly goes along with it. It's all an intentional anticlimax to what we were set up to hope for. It reflects how God must so often feel- that potentials are wasted or at best only lived up to in a very partial way. Like Samson, God's potential heroes get caught up on their anger issues, personal revenge, sex and other dramas.
Samson's 'seeing' was wrong. The Hebrew is literally 'A woman he saw', and his first words are 'A woman I saw... get her for me'. This introduces us to his narcissism. He saw this woman, and then dismisses his father's objection that the woman is a Philistine by saying that she is 'right in his eyes', in his sight. His loss of eyes at the end is obviously an appropriate judgment upon a man who sinned with his eyes. But Samson is all Israel; for at this time, when there was no king, Israel like Samson did what was 'right in their  eyes' (Jud. 21:25).
"Timnah" means 'a portion assigned', alluding to how this small area had been assigned to God's people- not the Philistines. Samson's potential mission was to dispossess the Philistines from there, and the entire small region between Zorah and Eshtaol. He failed in this, although he will be saved finally, according to Hebrews 11.
Judah also did wrong in Timnath with a woman, and was deceived and shamed by her (<a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a> = <a href='B:10 38:17'>Gen 38:17</a>). Earlier Scripture, which it seems Samson well knew and appreciated, was crying out to Samson to take heed. But he was blind to the real import of it all. It is emphasized that Samson "went down" to her (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>), as if his literal descent to her in the valley was also a retrograde step spiritually. Samson's marriage was wrong. And so it was. And yet his hero Gideon&nbsp;(see on <a href='B:70 13:15'>Jdg 13:15</a>) had likewise 'gone down', the record emphasizes, to liberate Israel from their enemies (<a href='B:70 7:9-11'>Jdg 7:9-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:24'>Jdg 7:24</a>). In view of the other examples of Samson consciously imitating Gideon, it is likely that he was seeking an opportunity to deliver Israel from the Philistines. And yet he mixed his motivations. He loved the girl, he wanted to gratify his flesh with the forbidden fruit. He loved the world, and thereby became in some sense an enemy of God (<a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a>). But then he loved Gideon, he loved the holiness of Yahweh, he hated the world and the Philistines, he loved Israel, weak as they were, and wanted to deliver them from their spiritual bondage. And instead of casting him off as a man of such divided heart that he was not worthy of God’s covenant love, God worked with him. And by using a purposeful ambiguity, He has recorded this for us in such a way as unites God’s desire for Israel's deliverance with that of Samson.</p><p>It may be that as Gideon "went down" to destroy God’s enemies (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), so Samson justified his 'going down' to the Philistines to take their women, as well as to destroy their warriors (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>). As Gideon was somehow 'separate from his brethren' in his zeal, so was Samson. And yet Samson seems to have copied just the externalities of Gideon; not the real spirit. And therefore as Gideon foolishly multiplied women to himself in the spiritual weakness of his middle age, so perhaps Samson saw justification for his attitude. 'If heroic Gideon could indulge the flesh in this area, I surely can'. He fell into our common trap: to compare ourselves amongst ourselves, to measure ourselves against human standards as we find them among the contemporary brotherhood (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>). Saul should have realized that Samson, like him, idolized Gideon, but only on a surface level- and should have taken the lesson. But he didn’t see the points we've made in this paragraph. He could have done, but he didn’t bother. And so with us. The word supplies us the potential power to overcome. It can often happen that the daily readings are almost purpose-designed for our present situation. Yet if we neglect to read them- that help lies untapped.</p><p>Samson fell for the 'little of both' syndrome, justifying it under the guise of Scriptural examples. He had done this in his youth; he "went down" to take a Philistine girl for wife (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>); and yet by doing so he was seeking an opportunity to slay Philistines. He may well have had in mind the sustained emphasis on the fact that Gideon went down to destroy the Midianites (<a href='B:70 7:9-11'>Jdg 7:9-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:24'>Jdg 7:24</a>). He went down morally and physically, and yet he justified this by thinking that as Gideon went down physically, so would he. Such is the complexity of the process of temptation. And all this is written for our learning:&nbsp; Significantly, the major temptations within the Lord's mind- as far as we can tell from the record of the wilderness temptations- was to misinterpret Scripture to His own ends; to soften the cross.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>He came up and told his father and mother, I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore get her for me as my wife- </p><p>This marriage with an unbeliever was clearly wrong. It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out of the faith'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage. And Manoah is presented in Judges 13 as consistently lacking in spiritual perception.</p>


text:
<p>Then his father and mother said to him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? Samson said to his father, Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes- </p><p>The disappointment of Samson's parents is that of Esau's (<a href='B:10 26:35'>Gen 26:35</a>; <a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a>; <a href='B:10 28:1'>Gen 28:1</a>). For all Manoah's slowness to respond and perceive in Judges 13, he clearly was amongst the faithful minority. Samson's action was quite contrary to the spirit of the Law: marriage with the local tribes was categorically prohibited (<a href='B:20 34:16'>Exo 34:16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:3-4'>Deu 7:3-4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>). Joshua's warning that those who married the surrounding tribes would find them "a snare and a trap for you... thorns in your eyes" (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a> RSV) was fulfilled in Samson being tied up and blinded by Delilah; and yet it also had an element of fulfillment with his wife. The similarity is such as to suggest that Samson's marriage out of the Truth was definitely wrong because it was a fulfillment of the words of Joshua 23. "Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers... that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines?" implies that she wasn't the first one; he had often got involved with Philistine girls down in the valley, despite his conscience for Yahweh troubling him as he walked alone on the heights (<a href='B:70 13:25'>Jdg 13:25</a> Heb:). Samson gave no good answer to his parents: simply "Get her for me; for she is right in my eyes" (14:3, repeated in 14:7 for emphasis- he really did fall for the lust of the eyes). This insistence rather than explanation would suggest a bad conscience in Samson. Likewise the crowd only shouted out the more when asked why and for what crime they wished to crucify Jesus (<a href='B:470 27:23'>Mat 27:23</a>). The Biblical record is consistently psychologically credible, and true to observed human experience in this area. Unlike the contemporary, uninspired histories and legends of the other nations around Israel. See on :10,11.</p><p>She was 'right in his eyes' (14:3 AVmg:) not for beauty but in the sense that 'she suits my purpose' (Heb:). The same Hebrew is used not concerning beauty but rather utility in <a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:100 17:4'>2Sa 17:4</a>; <a href='B:110 9:12'>1Ki 9:12</a>. The way in which Samson set up the riddle, almost expecting that they might tease it out of him through his wife, the way in which he agreed that if they did this, he would give them the clothes of 30 Philistines... it all suggests that Samson set the whole thing up to seek an opportunity against the Philistines. On the other hand, there seems a connection with how Israel at this time did what was 'right in their own eyes'. Samson becomes representative of them all.
In their culture, it was unheard of for a man to disobey his father when it came to marriage. If the father said no, that was it. Samson presents as domineering and obsessive, possibly autistic. "Get her for me" is literally "This one, get her for me". That one, that Philistine... Manoah presents as weak in going along with his son's wrong request. For the command against intermarriage specifically stated that a man should not give his children in marriage to the surrounding tribes (Dt. 7:3,4). "Get her for me" specifically refers to paying the dowry and gifts to her family members. We perceive here the 'spoilt kid' in Samson, and the weakness of his parents. 
</p>


text:
<p>But his father and mother didn’t know that it was from Yahweh, for He sought an occasion against the Philistines, for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel-</p><p>The "He" can be read as both God and Samson; they both had the same desire, and God worked with mixed up Samson to this end.  LXX "it was of the Lord, that he sought to be revenged on the Philistines". Samson's obsession with revenge was wrong on many counts. For he should never have so loved the Philistine woman that he wanted revenge when the marriage didn't work out. But God worked through that, for He also sought revenge on the Philistines for what they had done to His weak people. But strictly, “from the Philistines”, a provocation originating on their side. Again we wonder whether this was God seeking to provoke the Philistines to provoke Samson so that he attacked them; or whether this is Samson consciously working out a way to make the Philistines provoke him so he has an excuse to attack them in a kind of revenge killing that would be more acceptable than an outright attack on them. And the ambiguity as to whether Samson or God are referred to is intentional; because it reflects how God works through human weakness, failure and anger. Working all this out from the evidence presented in the record is hard work. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God’s deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>):&nbsp;But the whole question of Samson's marriage is overshadowed by this fact that " It was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines". He used this incident to begin to raise up Samson as a Judge of Israel (<a href='B:70 2:16'>Jdg 2:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:18'>Jdg 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 17:10'>1Ch 17:10</a>). This is surely one of Scripture's purposeful ambiguities, designed to provoke us to meditation: it is unclear whether " he" refers to Samson or Yahweh. There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. And yet this would require that God almost made Samson have a desire for that woman. For God’s Spirit works directly upon the human spirit, and yet confirms our spirit in where we really want to go. This may not be impossible- it may be that Paul's God-given "thorn in the flesh" was a similar forbidden passion. It would be an example of God leading into temptation (<a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a>). However, it is more likely that God worked through Samson's wrong desires, through his human weakness, to bring about God’s purpose and glory.</p><p>It is often maintained that "judge not" refers to not judging motives. If we are not to judge motives, but we are to 'judge' in some sense, this would mean that we must judge the outward works of men. And yet Biblical and human analysis reveals that outward behaviour is often not a reflection of inner motive (e.g. Samson's marriage). To judge outward behaviour without considering motives is almost pointless. There are countless cases of where the same action may be right or wrong depending on motive. Thus both David and Uzziah acted as the High Priest, but only Uzziah was condemned for it; David refused to choose his punishment as God asked him, preferring to leave it to God, whereas when Ahaz did something similar, he was condemned for it; Rahab's lie is commended as an act of faith, whilst other lies are sins; Samuel and Eli both had the same experience of their children being apostate and them being criticized for it, but only Eli is condemned for this.</p><p>God’s intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samson went down with his father and mother, to Timnah and came to the vineyards of Timnah, and suddenly a young lion roared against him-</p><p>"Came to..." strictly translates as 'before coming to...'. These vineyards, I suggest, were in the valley of Sorek where Delilah was. For sorek is the Hebrew word translated "vine" in Is. 5:2; Jer. 2:21. Again the idea is that the events in Samson's life were all in a very small area of not many square miles. His mission was to dispossess the Philistines from it; but he failed in that. For the people of that area in Jud. 18 emigrated to the far north of Israel because of the Philistines. 
Lions roar when they are hungry, when they go onto the attack or begin to eat their prey (Ps. 104:21; Am. 3:4,8). Samson had provoked the lion by going into the vineyards, and yet the lion provoked Samson to kill it. This is related to how he sought to provoke a provocation "from the Philistines" through his marriage plan. It has also been suggested that "a young lion" would unlikely be alone in a vineyard- unless it were a nomadic lion attempting to claim a territory. This is yet another element of unreality, or anomaly, in the Samson story, reflecting how such things [like his marriage to the Philistine] were "of the Lord". Just as he was a Nazirite but flouted the vow, and as bees nesting in a lion cadaver is unusual, so is a singular young lion going on the attack in a vineyard, apparently separate from the pride of lions. Attempting to claim a territory is another reason why lions roar and tend to be more aggressive [This matter is firmly established in Brent A. Strawn, "kepir arayot in Judges 14:5", Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) pp. 150-158]. In this case, we see the lion representing the Philistines. And again, the issue is related to Samson's call to stop the territorial expansion of the Philistines into his area.
We get the picture of Samson and his parents walking the four miles down into the valley, and Samson goes off for a wander in the vineyards. The vineyard was a symbol of Israel (<a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a>; <a href='B:290 1:8'>Isa 1:8</a>; <a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:290 27:2'>Isa 27:2</a>; <a href='B:300 12:10'>Jer 12:10</a>; <a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a>). This may have been already evident to Samson from <a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a>; although most likely the symbol of Israel as God’s vineyard was already established by his time. Conscious that Timnath was the 'portion assigned' to Dan and yet they had failed to take it, Samson meditates there in the vineyards, a symbol of Israel, the people who should have been there. Inheriting Philistine vineyards was one of the blessings promised (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>) and initially obtained by Joshua-Jesus (<a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a>). And yet those vineyards were now back in Philistine control. A lion suddenly appeared and roared against him, just as the Philistines later would (<a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>). The lion was a common symbol of Israel's enemies. The Spirit came upon Samson and he overcame it, in evident symbol to him that he really could deliver Israel from the Philistines. There is every reason to think that Samson appreciated all this symbology.</p><p>And yet did Samson ultimately slay the lion of the Philistines and bring the promised blessings of honey to Israel (cp. <a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a>; <a href='B:50 8:8'>Deu 8:8</a> etc:)? No, not really. He achieved some tokenistic success against their warriors; but Israel remained enslaved (<a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>). He didn’t live up to that potential which God had enabled him to achieve. And yet although it may seem that his life was wasted, in that he didn’t really bring much deliverance for anyone- the whole process of it saved him personally. Those whose families and converts have turned away from the Faith will identify with this comfort. But whilst the above case for Samson's spiritual commitment can be made, there is evidence galore that his motives were mixed in this matter of Samson's marriage. Consider: why did he as a Nazirite go for a walk in vineyards, among the forbidden fruit (cp. Christians putting themselves into compromising situations)? This was typical of him: a great zeal and understanding, mixed with a desire to walk as close to the edge as possible, and to ultimately have a little of both. He had a fascination with vineyards, which the record brings out. Like an ex-alcoholic staring at the bottles in the shop ‘just out if interest’, so Samson fooled about with what was forbidden- just as we all tend to.</p><p>Not only do circumstances repeat between the lives of God’s children, but also within our lives. We may pass through a very similar experience more than once. The human chances of this ever happening again were remote. But the similarity and repetition may be so that we learn the lesson we failed to learn; or it could even be a punishment for not learning the lessons we should have learned. Again, Samson's life demonstrates this. The lion roared against him as the Philistines did (<a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a> s:w. <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>); and not least in the uncanny similarities between the way his first wife enticed him and wrung his secrets from him, and the way 40 years later another worthless woman did the same to him (<a href='B:70 14:15-17'>Jdg 14:15-17</a> = <a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:15-16'>Jdg 16:15-16</a>). He just didn’t see the similarities, or if he did, he didn’t learn any lessons. Admittedly, it's far easier for us, presented with the records as they are, spanning 40 years within a few pages. And yet without doubt the lion's attack on Samson was a warning to him- not to sail as close to the edge as he could, wandering in vineyards as a Nazirite.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him and he tore it as he would have torn a young goat, having nothing in his hand, but he didn’t tell his father or his mother what he had done- </p><p>It was only after it roared against him that the Spirit came upon him and enabled him to kill it. He had to take the first nervous steps towards that lion in faith, and then the Spirit came upon him and confirmed his actions. The fact he didn’t tell his parents what he had done may not only indicate his humility, but also suggests he was not naturally a strong man. To say he had just killed a lion would seem ridiculous.</p><p>The stress is on the way in which the Spirit came upon Samson (<a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a>; <a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>), as it did on other judges (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 6:34'>Jdg 6:34</a>; <a href='B:70 11:29'>Jdg 11:29</a>). "Not by&nbsp; might, nor by power, but by my spirit" (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>) may be referring to these incidents; demonstrating that when God’s spirit acts on a man, it is not human muscle at all that operates. He is even listed amongst those who out of weakness were made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>). The three references to the Spirit coming upon Samson all use the same Hebrew word; it is usually translated 'to prosper'. And the point is clearly made that Yahweh will not prosper / come mightily upon the wicked, but He will prosper the righteous and obedient. Yahweh prospered Samson despite his disobedience, anger issues and unspirituality. Here we have another Old Testament example of imputed righteousness. Samson broke the Nazirite conditions, but was still counted as a "Nazirite to God", in God's eyes. This isn't the same as God turning a blind eye to His favourites. He counts us as righteous, especially now "in Christ". </p><p>Samson killed a lion, escaped fire and killed many Philistines by his faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>)- so the Spirit tells us. Yet these things were all done by him at times when he had at best a partial faith. He had a worldly Philistine girlfriend, a sure grief of mind to his Godly parents, and on his way to the wedding he met and killed a lion- through faith, Hebrews 11 tells us (<a href='B:70 14:1-7'>Jdg 14:1-7</a>). The Philistines threatened to burn him with fire, unless his capricious paramour of a wife extracted from him the meaning of his riddle. He told her, due, it seems, to his hopeless sexual weakness. He then killed 30 Philistines to provide the clothes he owed the Philistines on account of them answering the riddle (<a href='B:70 14:15-19'>Jdg 14:15-19</a>). It is evident that Samson was weak in many ways at this time; the Proverbs make many allusions to him, the strong man ruined by the evil Gentile woman, the one who could take a city but not rule his spirit etc. And yet underneath all these weaknesses, serious as they were, there was a deep faith within Samson which Hebrews 11 highlights.</p><p>The latter day invader is likened to a beast devouring Israel (<a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a>), having the Assyrian invader as its prototype. But the Philistines are here likened to a lion ravaging God’s people, the vineyard of God. Thus the period of invasions by Israel's smaller neighbours is a prelude to the final invasion by Assyria/Babylon:&nbsp;These larger powers are also symbolized by the lion (<a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a>).</p><p>If the prohibition against Nazirites touching a carcass applied to animals, then this would've ended his Naziriteship. We get the impression God overlooked this. Probably this was why he didn't tell his parents how he got the honey. He scooped the honey with his hands and ate it from his hands, we are told. The same hands had just recently been empowered by the Spirit to slay the lion. His hands were again used to slay the Philistines with a bone, to tie the tails of foxes, to remove the gates of a town and then to push over the pillars of the temple. His unclean hands were still used by God.
We enquire why he didn't tell his parents; nor did he tell them where he got the honey from (:9.16). Likewise he tells his wife that he hadn't told his parents the answer to his riddle. On one level we deduce his loneliness, possibly arising from being an only child. On another, we get the impression that he realized that God was somehow in his life, and he was being called as an individual to deliver Israel from the Philistines. But this strand in his thinking was too heavily involved with his narcissism to be ultimately fruitful. For he failed to deliver his tribe from the Philistines, and his 'ministry' was merely personal skirmishes and vendettas against the Philistines. "She's the right one for me" (Jud. 14:3) can be read as a reflection of his sense that through this woman he could achieve his agenda- of attacking the Philistines. But the failure of that marriage led him to personal bitterness and anger, rather than perceiving that although life hadn't gone the way he expected it to, God was still in it.
</p>


text:
<p>He went down and talked with the woman, and she pleased Samson well-</p><p>This again indicates that he didn’t simply and totally use her as a tool towards his purpose of killing Philistines. He did really love her, and was wrong in this. But it was extremely unusual for a man to talk with a woman directly. There were usually intermediaries. The idea is that he specifically wanted her and saw the possibilities of using her in his carefully planned plot, to provoke the Philistines to provoke him so he could slay some of them in apparently legitimate revenge. We might note that so far he has only 'seen' her and decided to marry her; only now does he talk with her personally. On one hand, this was just a classic case of lust of the eyes. But it may be she looked somewhat 'loose' and he imagined her being unfaithful during the drinking party, which would then provide the provocation "from the Philistines" (:4) that he was trying to create.</p>


text:
<p>After a while he returned to take her- </p><p>Samson is described as wanting to "take" a wife; this Hebrew word is 51 times translated 'take away', 31 times 'fetch'. He evidently didn’t intend to live there with her; he wanted her to come and live with him in the Israelite encampment, four miles up in the hills from the valley where she lived. There was usually a significant period, up to a year, between engagement and marriage. Ample time for the bees to make honey in the carcass. </p><p>And he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion. In it there was a swarm of bees, in the body of the lion, and honey-</p><p>God sent the lion against Samson. He did this in order to go along with Samson's symbolic thoughts, and this may afford some justification for Samson's marriage. He was there, wandering in those vineyards, meditating how they were representative of the blessings which belonged to Israel, and yet they were now in the hands of God’s enemies. And then, God furthers the parable: He sends a lion, symbolic of the Philistines, and Samson is given power to overcome him. And further, when Samson returned to the carcass to meditate deeper on 'the fallen one' (14:8 doesn't use the usual word for 'carcass'- s:w. " fall" <a href='B:240 29:16'>Pro 29:16</a>; <a href='B:330 26:15'>Eze 26:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:27'>Eze 27:27</a>; <a href='B:330 31:13'>Eze 31:13</a>), "behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion" (14:8). The Hebrew for "swarm" is normally used (124 times) about a congregation of people, often God’s people Israel. And the Hebrew for 'Bee' is 'Deborah', a celebrated earlier judge. God was surely teaching him that through his victory over the Philistine lion, God’s people could be inspired to be faithful, and would therefore be able to enjoy the promised blessing of honey, taken out of the Philistines. Samson saw all this; for he "took" (Heb. is usually used in the sense of 'to take dominion over') the honey, partook himself, and shared it with others. In all this there is a detailed type of the Lord's representative sacrifice on the cross. On the cross, He won the victory over the lion of the devil (<a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a> cp. <a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a>; <a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a> may allude to Samson's victory). This enabled us to be empowered to partake the Kingdom blessings. As Samson walked away from the carcass some days after killing it (14:8 Heb. "a time" = 'days'- three days?), with the honey in his hands, eating it and offering it to others, so the Lord left the empty tomb. See on :9.</p><p>Samson discovered a congregation (Heb. 'edat) of bees- deborim, in Hebrew. The judge Deborah would've been fairly recent history for Samson; she would have been the heroine of anyone like Samson, who also arose to save Israel from their enemies at that time. Surely he was being gently led to reflect that there were a whole congregation of Deborahs ['bees'] around, and he should eat of them. And yet Samson went his loner road, and suffered the consequences of it- rather like Elijah, who was in denial of the fact there were actually at least another 7000 in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Or perhaps Samson was simply being asked to execute his deliverance of Israel after the pattern of Deborah, to 'eat' of her, to fellowship her example and spirit. But he chose not to 'get it'; as we so often do in the countless nudges and prods which God gives us in daily life. </p><p>We note the use of 'edat, meaning “community”, rather than the Hebrew 'seres', the common word for “swarm". The idea is that a new, liberated community of people would arisen over the dead carcass of the lion, representing the Philistines whom Samson would slay. But this potential never happened. For by the end of Samson's days, the Philistines were still in control of that small Danite community, between Zorah and Eshtaol, whom Samson had been intended to deliver. The presence of the honey in a lion carcass was miraculous, just as Samson's creation of a new community would have been. Some claim that the intense heat would have meant that the body of the lion decomposed dry, but that makes little sense. It has been observed: "The carcass would have to have dehydrated in an inconceivably short time, since bees do not live in such moist places as cadavers undergoing decomposition. Even if wind and heat in a Palestinian summer are judged sufficient to prevent decomposition, it is clear that the story does not represent Samson’s discovery as an every-day
occurrence".</p>


text:
<p>which he took it into his hands and went on, eating as he went. He came to his father and mother and gave some to them and they ate, but he didn’t tell them that he had taken the honey out of the body of the lion- </p><p>See on :8. The way he ate and gave to his parents and they also ate without him telling them where he got it from is a clear reversal of what happened in Eden (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>; doubtless Eve didn’t tell Adam either where the fruit came from): but here the fruits of spiritual victory rather than failure were enjoyed and shared. The promised blessings of honey were conditional upon Israel's obedience (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> cp. <a href='B:230 81:16'>Psa 81:16</a>), although granted in prospect (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a>). Israel at Samson's time were disobedient and therefore didn’t have the Kingdom blessings. And yet the whole acted parable taught that through the supreme zeal of one lonely man, into whose struggle not even his parents could enter (14:6,16), the blessings of obedience could be brought to the disobedient multitude of God’s people. And here we have the essence of the Gospel.</p><p>"The body of the lion" in :8,9 is LXX "the mouth of the lion". The idea is that he was empowered to take something out of the mouth of a lion, as David would. And as with David, the message was that he could save Israel from the mouth of the Philistines. </p>


text:
<p>His father went down to the woman, and Samson made a drinking feast as was the custom for the young men- </p><p>The process of marriage involved Samson in participating in the traditions of the surrounding tribes (this is emphasized: <a href='B:70 14:10-11'>Jdg 14:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>). The "feasting" was strictly 'drinking' (Heb:)- and Samson the Nazirite attended this. Even if he didn’t partake, he was placing himself directly in temptations' way to break his Naziriteship. Just like walking alone in the vineyards.</p>


text:
<p>When they saw him they brought thirty companions to be with him- </p><p>The problem with marriage out of the faith is that you don't marry just a person, but a family. And so he now has 30 "friends", all of them unbelievers. But we suspect Samson had evil intent in all this, for his marriage was because he sought opportunity against the Philistines. The groom ought to have brought 30 friends with him, but he didn’t. And so the bride's family provided them. LXX says they did this "because they feared him". They sensed he had evil intent toward them. This confirms the impression we have that his whole marriage plan was because that woman was "right in his eyes" for some plan he had to kill Philistines. In the same way as his marriage out of the Faith was "of the Lord".  The Philistines were suspicious that something was going on like this. </p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, Let me tell you a riddle now. If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast, then I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing-</p><p>Thirty changes of clothing was a huge amount of wealth. We ponder why both sides were willing to gamble for such very high stakes. I suggest the men who agreed the bet with Samson were drunk at the time. It was not a rational, normal thing to do. We wonder whether somehow, Samson knew he was going to tell his wife and she would tell the others, thereby creating the need for 30 garments, which he would obtain by murder. Perhaps he knew this only on a deeply subconscious level. But clearly he was using their deceit in suddenly expecting him to come up with 30 changes of clothes for his "friends" as an excuse to murder 30 Philistines. For the entire marriage was because he sought an opportunity to fight the Philistines. We are left wondering to what degree Samson was overtaken by circumstances [his wife revealing his secret], and to what degree he planned all that happened. If it was all so carefully premeditated, we ponder why he returned to his parents' home so angry, rather than with joy that his mission against the Philistines had started to be fulfilled. The 'unclear' element which the narrative presents is in fact a way of giving us insight into the working of the Spirit. There are elements of both Divine and human volition. </p><p>They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But if you can’t give me the answer, then you shall give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing. They said to him, Tell us your riddle, that we may hear it- </p><p>It was Samson's duty as the groom to provide 30 changes of clothing (a huge expense), or at least, this was what they perhaps unexpectedly told him at the wedding. But perhaps he knew this full well ahead of time, and was using it as an excuse to kill 30 Philistines. How that exactly would work out, he perhaps didn’t know. He clearly did love his bride, and she did indeed betray his love and trust. It is impossible to totally decode where he really stood in all this in psychological terms- for his motives were mixed and his plans and intentions were therefore perhaps not clearly defined in his own mind. I suggest that he knew full well that he had the obligation to provide 30 changes of clothing; this was part of the bride price. But he intentionally doesn't bring them, and says he will only give them if the Philistines guess his riddle.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Out of the eater came forth food. Out of the strong came forth sweetness. They couldn’t give the answer in three days- </p><p>"The eater" (Heb. 'the devourer') and "the strong" not only referred to the lion, but more essentially to Samson himself. The same basic word for 'eater' is used as a verb to describe how Samson 'ate' / 'devoured' the honey from the lion (<a href='B:70 14:9'>Jdg 14:9</a>). And years later the Philistines realized how Samson's riddle described himself: for they rejoiced that "the destroyer (devourer) of our country" was now overcome (<a href='B:70 16:24'>Jdg 16:24</a>). Samson saw that through his God-given strength he could bring forth the honey of blessing to Israel. They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).  A riddle was supposed to have a reasonable answer. But the answer to Samson's riddle was "Bees hived in a lion's carcass and produce honey", but bees do not make hives in carcasses. The Philistines were being asked to accept something miraculous had happened, the hand of God, and that was beyond their conception. But that was the point that Samson wanted to make. Without accepting that point, the riddle was insoluble. </p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day they said to Samson’s wife, Entice your husband to tell us the riddle, or we will burn you and your father’s house with fire. Have you called us here to mock us?- </p><p>Thirty changes of clothes was a major expense. "To mock us" can be rendered "to make us poor". Or the idea may be that they would have to strip themselves naked and give their clothes to Samson. LXX "did you invite us to do us violence?" could suggest that Samson had implied that he would obtain the 30 changes of clothes by murdering the wedding guests, the 30 companions of :11. Indeed the Hebrew for "mock us" can mean  'to dispossess'. That was indeed his intention and calling- to dispossess the Philistines from the small area between Eshtaol and Zorah. In this case, the wedding to the girl had been planned by Samson as a means through which to inflict damage upon the Philistines. The girl in question was "right in his eyes" for his plan. And yet his motives were mixed with his own carnal lust. For if he was merely using the wedding as a cover for an attack upon the Philistines, he wouldn't have afterwards been so furiously angry and jealous at the marriage not working out. </p>


text:
<p>Samson’s wife wept before him and said, You must hate me, and don’t love me. You have given a riddle to my people but you haven’t told it me. He said to her, I haven’t even told it to my father or my mother; why should I tell you-</p><p>He speaks to his wife as if she should expect that he was closer to his Hebrew parents than to her: "'I haven't even explained it (the riddle) to my father or mother', he replied, 'So why should I explain it to you?'" (14:16 NIV). <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a> taught that a man must leave his parents and cleave to his wife in marriage; she must be closer to him than them. It could be that by saying this, Samson was reminding her that he didn’t see their relationship as full marriage; he was only using her (cp. how he 'used' a Philistine as his best man, <a href='B:70 14:20'>Jdg 14:20</a>). Yet he did what only days before had been unthinkable: he told her his finest and most personal secret, which he wouldn't even tell his dear parents. Such is the fickleness of our nature. And yet there seems reason to think that somehow Samson foresaw his possible failure, and arranged to use the situation to forward God’s work. It could even be that the girl was party to Samson's plan; she may have appeared to have a genuine interest in Samson's spiritual aims. The Philistines themselves realized this when they chode with Samson's wife that they had been called to the wedding 'to have our possession taken away' (14:15 Heb:). They saw the aim of Samson's marriage: to dispossess them and take their possession for Israel. It seems no accident that he chose Timnath, 'a portion assigned'- to Israel. This was part of the land promised to Dan, but which they had allowed the Philistines to overrun (<a href='B:60 19:43'>Jos 19:43</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>). And Samson would have seen himself as 'Samson-of-Zorah', the hornet- symbol of the Egyptian tribes which drove out the Canaanites in preparation for Israel's later victories (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>).</p><p>The parallels between the woman of Timnah and Delilah are clear. The words of the Philistines to the woman are identical: ‘Coax your husband’ (Jud. 14:15); ‘Coax him’ (Jud. 16:5). Both women use the same language to persuade Samson to reveal his secret: ‘You really hate me, you don’t love me’ (Jud. 14:16); ‘How can you say you love me’ (Jud. 16:15). Both women are described as nagging him and wearing him down (Jud. 14:17; 16:16). The point is that Samson didn't learn from his mistakes, refusing to perceive how circumstance was repeating in his life.</p>


text:
<p>She wept before him for seven days, while their feast lasted, and on the seventh day he told her, because she pressed him severely. Then she told the riddle to her people. On the seventh day before the sun went down-</p><p>As "she cried the whole seven days of the feast" (14:17 NIV), she daily "pressed him". This is the very same Hebrew word used in many passages to describe how an apostate, Gentile-loving Israel would be pressed / oppressed by their enemies (<a href='B:50 28:53'>Deu 28:53</a>; <a href='B:50 28:57'>Deu 28:57</a>; <a href='B:300 19:9'>Jer 19:9</a>; <a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>). Samson was in some sense apostate at this time, yet he had faith and was strongly motivated; and for this he was blessed by God with strength to defeat the Philistines. The daughters of the Philistines hate God’s people (<a href='B:100 1:20'>2Sa 1:20</a>; <a href='B:330 16:27'>Eze 16:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:57'>Eze 16:57</a>). The Ezekiel passages stress the paradox: that Israel (whom Samson represented) loved the women who hated them.</p><p>Samson really loved that girl (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>; <a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a>; <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>), even though he also hated her (<a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; he must have gone through this process again with Delilah in the time that led up to her final betrayal). This true love for her makes Samson's marriages look more questionable.</p>


text:
<p>the men of the city said to him, What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion? He said to them, If you hadn’t ploughed with my heifer you wouldn’t have found out my riddle-</p><p>LXX "before he went into the chamber", the same word as in Jud. 15:1.  They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p><p>There is reason to think that to some degree, Samson may have realized that his life was pointing ahead to the great Messianic deliverer yet to come, the Lord Jesus Christ. Samson may have recognized the strength of the future Saviour when he gave his riddle to the Philistines. He meditated upon that dead lion with the sweet honey in it, and formulated his comment: "What is sweeter than honey? What (or, Who?) is stronger than a lion (Heb. 'the strong one'- this is one of Samson's many word plays)?". 'Who is stronger than the strong one?' was an idea picked up by the Lord Jesus in, I suggest, conscious allusion (<a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a>); although it is masked in the English text. He was the strong one who was stronger than the strong man of sin. Through His victory, the roaring lion of the devil lays dead. And in his skull is sweet honey; did Samson see in this the same meaning as David did in <a href='B:230 119:103'>Psa 119:103</a>? Did he so understand the nature and method of the Lord's work that he appreciated that the Lord's victory over all His people's enemies would be through the power of God’s word, lying there in the place of the mind of the beast He overcame? Yet Samson killed the lion himself; surely he felt that to some degree he was the strong man who had overcome the beast,&nbsp; through his application to God’s word. His frequent references and allusions to God’s past revelation, both in his words and actions, would indicate that he was a man of the word.</p><p>Samson's reference to his wife as his "heifer" could be seen as disparaging, just as his father Manoah had referred to his wife as "the woman" rather than "my wife". 'You ploughed with / behind my cow' would be a fair enough rendering. But to plough with another man’s heifer, implying to plough in another man’s ground, is an  expression used in Greek and Latin, as well as extra-Biblical Hebrew, for committing adultery with another man's wife. It was a drinking party with young men known to the bride. It's quite likely Samson is accusing them of having slept with her; and indeed she ends up marrying one of them. They ploughed behind her would suggest anal sex whereby she technically remained a virgin. Such practices are known in parts of Africa. In this case, we have here something that Samson couldn't have planned ahead of time; although on the other hand she may have been 'right in his eyes' in that he saw her as a loose woman who would likely fall for his plan, and justify his anger and desire to create a provocation from the Philistines. In this case we see his penchant for sleeping with loose women; we think of the prostitute in Gaza and Delilah who also did things for money. His anger served as motivator for his continued anger with the Philistines in the area. And this was used by God; even though "What should Samson have done?" would surely have been to count himself blessed God had saved him from a marriage to an unbeliever. And humbly sought to think differently.
We are maybe too quick to assume that "the eater... the strong" meant simply the lion. It was Samson who was without doubt "the strong", and had demonstrated himself stronger than a lion by killing one; and it was he who ate the honey- he was "the eater". “Samson's vomit” could have been the answer to Samson’s riddle: Food came from the eater [you vomit if you eat too much honey]; sweet things came out from the strong person. 
But we could argue that their answer to the riddle, or the answer he gave his wife, knowing she would share it, was not really complete. The answer was not just 'Honey out of a lion'. Their answer was "What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?". But this only answers the second part of the riddle: "Out of the strong came forth sweetness". They correctly define "the strong" and "sweetness". But they make no comment on the first part of the riddle: "Out of the eater came forth food". How exactly did honey come "out of" the lion? The answer was: "Because bees miraculously hived in its carcass after it had been killed". They don't explain that bit. Samson could have argued that they had not in fact fully explained the riddle. They were warm, but not right there. Again we wonder whether the entire thing was a set up by him. He asked them to agree the wager when they were drunk, guessing that his wife would be pressured by them because the wager was so large, guessing she would give in- and planning this as an excuse to legitimately get angry with them and kill them. For his marriage was because he sought a provocation "from the Philistines". But he was playing with fire, and the fact he returns to sleep with his wife and is angry she has married another man rather suggests that he let that fire burn him. Likewise he later sleeps with a prostitute as a pretext for carrying off the gates of the city. He clearly thinks he can have a little of both. They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (Jud. 14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They apparently didn't fulfil this condition. Likewise on :14 I suggested that they were to perceive that the answer was also "Samson"- the strong who would bring the blessings of honey to Israel. But Samson thought their answer good enough to go and kill 30 men to provide the garments.
</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty men of them and took their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle-</p><p>"Came mightily upon" has the idea of God penetrating / thrusting Himself upon Samson. And yet He was working through Samson's own spirit and desire to slay Philistines. We see how the movement of the Spirit is partly a result of Divine sovereign choice, similar to making a man a Nazirite when Nazirite vows were to be taken as freewill decisions. On the other hand, God's Spirit confirms the human spirit. And yet the impression is surely given that the Divine sovereignty side of the equation is stronger. We see the same happening when the Spirit came upon Saul (1 Sam. 10:6,10; 11:6). I discussed on Jud. 13:2 how Samson only 'began' to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but his birth has many similarities with that of Samson. As if God raised up Samuel to do the work Samson began but didn't finish. But even Samuel didn't do it; and so we can also note the many similarities between Samson and Saul, who was also raised up to deliver Israel from the Philistines. Like Samson, Saul also failed, and so David was raised up to do it (2 Sam. 8:1). The very same Hebrew phrase for the Spirit coming upon them is used of both men (Jud. 14:6,19; 15:14; 1 Sam 10:6,10; 11:6). Both committed suicide, and were mocked by the Philistines in the house of their idols (Jud. 16:25; 1 Sam. 31:4,9,10). David likewise has some similarities with Samson in that he too killed a lion with his hands, as a sign he could defeat the Philistine. He killed the Philistine "without a sword in his hand" (1 Sam. 17:50) just as Samson killed the lion with his bare hands (:5). And the Spirit given to Saul passed to him (1 Sam. 16:13). God seems to work similarly today. One man [Samson] is raised up for a task, he fails or only partially does it; another [Samuel] is raised up and likewise doesn't complete it; and another likewise [Saul]. And then another [David] is raised up who does do it. </p><p><a href='B:30 26:3-8'>Lev 26:3-8</a> had promised dramatic success against their enemies on the basis of obedience to the Law. The fact Samson had this power was therefore proof that he really was reckoned by God as zealously obedient to the Law; and yet he was like this in the midst of a sadly apostate Israel. I take this view of his strength. This is in itself no mean achievement: to rise to a level of spirituality much higher than that achieved by the surrounding brotherhood.</p><p>Significantly, he went down to the valley of Ashkelon, the very place that Joshua had conquered but Judah had been unable to drive out the Philistines from (1:18,19), and slew 30 warriors.But I would prefer to go with a different identification of "Ashkelon" as Khirbet Askalun, about four miles South of modern Tibneh (Timnah), rather than the well-known Ashkelon. Because it seems to me that Samson's mission was to free the area between Zorah and Eshtaol from the Philistines- see on Jud. 13:25. This was where he was first moved by the Spirit to deliver from the Philistines, and it was where he was buried. It was from exactly this relatively small location that the people of Dan emigrated northwards after Samson's death, unable to endure the Philistine domination. 
To kill the men and then strip their clothes from their dead, bloodied bodies would have infringed Samson's Nazirite vow; as did touching the carcass of the lion. And probably he participated at the drinking feast, which would have done the same. Yet he reminded a Nazirite to God. But he kept assuming that Divine law and principle didn't apply to him personally, that God somehow understood... and this led to him finally letting his hair be cut [for surely he knew Delilah would betray his secret], and that was reductionism to a point that God would not accept it. A powerful lesson to us, that the fact God may let man 'get away with it' doesn't mean there are no moral boundaries.
</p><p>His anger was burning, and he went up to his father’s house-He seems angry that he had let himself fall too deeply for that Philistine girl (14:19), and "utterly hated her" (15:2). And yet this human anger may also have been mixed with a more righteous anger, in that to give his wife to another was adultery, and it happened that they carried out (perhaps unconsciously?) the punishment for adultery which the law required (<a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a>; Leviticus 21; Leviticus 9). He realized that the Philistines had led him into sin, and he just wanted to destroy the source of his temptation. When he slew the thirty men at Ashkelon, as he seemed to have planned right at the start in his seeking occasion against the Philistines, he was "burning with anger". His motive was partly bitterness and the revenge of a man humiliated and deceived by a woman; but his slaughter of the Philistines was also done in faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>), with God given strength to confirm his faith.</p>


text:
<p>But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, whom he had considered a friend- </p><p>AV "used". We get the impression that he 'used' his wife as he 'used' this best man, because his motive was to use the situation in order to dispossess and murder Philistines. But he also genuinely loved the girl. His motives were terribly mixed. Here we have some more evidence on the side of 'the hand / Spirit of God' leading Samson rather than purely his own plans. The fact his bride was cruelly married off to his best man so quickly [despite his parents having paid the bride price for her] would have provoked his anger and been seen by everyone as unacceptable; and wrong as this anger may have been, in the sense that the planned marriage was disobedience, God worked through this. His failed marriage and the betrayal led him to hate the Philistines yet more. It stimulated deep anger issues within him that lasted the rest of his life. The subsequent events all relate to his anger with the Philistines and his desire for revenge, indeed it was all more of a personal vendetta than seeking to deliver Israel from the Philistines. It was his failed marriage that led him to use a prostitute and consort with Delilah who was likely not much less than a prostitute, willing to do anything for money. And yet through these failures God's purpose was worked out- of 'beginning' to deliver Israel from the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>But after a while, in the time of wheat harvest, Samson visited his wife with a young goat. He said, I will go in to my wife into the room. But her father wouldn’t allow him to go in-</p><p>This is another anticlimax, as in Jud. 14:1. We expect and hope that Samson has learnt his lesson and will keep well away from Philistine women. But we are disappointed; he returns to have sex with her and finds she is perhaps literally in the bedroom with her new husband, the best man at his wedding to her. His father had offered a young goat to Yahweh (Jud. 13:18), but Samson brings one as a gift to his Philistine father in law. But again, his failure is used to enable him to fight the Philistines with some kind of excuse. He speaks of being "blameless" by taking revenge, perhaps because this element to his behaviour would shield his people from being attacked by the Philistines. Because what he did would have been seen as vaguely legitimate within the revenge culture of the times.
Here we have another anomaly in the Samson story. His wife betrayed him and marries his best man. But despite his anger, still he loves her and comes back to her, for sex. He will do the same with Delilah despite all her betrayals. He never learns his lessons from his failures. But the anomaly is in that he wants to return to her for sex, rather than keeping an angry distance from her. He had slain 30 Philistine men to provide the 30 garments. Those men were from Askelun, a local village. Again we see the "of the Lord" element in all this. His sexual passions are clear, as is his naivety, born of allowing his passions to be overriding. But God works through this- in order to bring about further judgment upon the Philistines, and to coax Samson towards his intended potential of delivering that area from the Philistines. 
We get the impression that the woman's father blocked the door of the bedroom where the woman was. She was newly married- although marriages usually took time to arrange. We get the impression she was within the bedroom having sex with Samson's one time best man. The whole situation, caused by Samson arriving at the very worst moment, was of God. Because it fuelled Samson's anger. Even though that anger was in many ways wrong. And yet God worked through that anger, empowering Samson to catch 300 foxes and tie their tails together. 
As the Spirit came upon Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:34'>Jdg 6:34</a>), so it is described as coming upon Samson (<a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a>). It seems that the incident in ch. 15, where Samson visits his wife with a kid and uses this as an excuse to kill many Philistines, was planned by him to reflect Gideon's zeal. The way Gideon brought a kid to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:19'>Jdg 6:19</a>) may reflect how Samson came with a kid (<a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>). See on :4.</p>


text:
<p>Her father said, I was certain that you utterly hated her, therefore I gave her to your companion. Isn’t her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please take her instead- </p><p>Samson really loved that girl (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>; <a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a>; <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>), even though he also utterly hated her (he must have gone through this process again with Delilah in the time that led up to her final betrayal). This true love for her makes Samson's marriages look more questionable. The turning of love to hatred is what happened when Amnon raped Tamar. The Biblical record is consistently psychologically credible, and true to observed human experience in this area. Unlike the contemporary, uninspired histories and legends of the other nations around Israel.</p><p>He seems angry that he had let himself fall too deeply for that Philistine girl (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>), and "utterly hated her". And yet this human anger may also have been mixed with a more righteous anger, in that to give his wife to another was adultery, and it happened that they carried out (perhaps unconsciously?) the punishment for adultery which the law required (<a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a>; Leviticus 21; Leviticus 9). He realized that the Philistines had led him into sin, and he just wanted to destroy the source of his temptation.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, This time I will be blameless of harm to the Philistines-</p><p>He burnt those vineyards in a desire to be "blameless from the Philistines" (15:3 AVmg:). The same word is translated unpunished, guiltless, innocent, clean, acquitted; as if he knew he had sinned, but believed that by further fighting of Philistines he could gain his forgiveness. He had to be brought to the shame of Gaza Prison to learn that forgiveness was by absolute faith, not works and hatred of this present world.</p><p>Samson insisted that he would be "blameless" if he now destroyed the Philistines' economy by arson (3). But on a secular level, his causing of famine and pain to so many was not an appropriate response to his betrayal by his bride's family. This is all similar to Samson claiming that the Philistine girl was "right in my eyes", using the word for just or righteous. He felt his using her to provoke a fight with the Philistines was somehow 'right' and righteous. But he now wants sex with her... his ethics are definitely mixed. Yet God worked through it, even though Samson was on one level unethical and wrong to reason like this. Just as God worked through his anger problem.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, tied them tail to tail in pairs and put a firebrand between each pair of tails- </p><p>I noted on :1 how Samson was seeking to imitate Gideon, who apparently was his hero. He takes 300 foxes and puts firebrands in their tails. Why 300? Surely this was in conscious imitation of how Gideon took 300 men and put firebrands in their hands, and with them destroyed God’s enemies (<a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>). The connection between the faithful 300 and the foxes could suggest that in Samson's eyes, he didn’t even have one faithful Israelite to support him; he had to use animals instead. He is consistently portrayed as a man acting alone, not leading Israel, which was perhaps the Divine intention for him as a judge. Throughout the Samson account, there are things which show God's power overriding nature. Bees hiving in a carcass is an obvious one. Another example is how foxes, who are solitary creatures, are put into pairs and take fire in a specific direction. Some have argued that jackals must be in view, because they are pack animals. The lesson of the foxes cooperating was perhaps to show Samson that his solitary personal war against the Philistines was not God's way. We recall how he didn't share his secrets with neither his wife nor his parents; how he twice went for a wander in the vineyards alone; and never told his parents about slaying the lion nor the source of the honey he later found in it. Solitary endeavour was not God's intention for Samson. Had he engaged with this weakness of his, he might indeed have fulfilled his mission potential of liberating at least the Zorah-Eshtaol area from the Philistines.  To confirm Samson in learning this lesson, the incident with the foxes now takes his conflict with the Philistines away from a personal argument with his wife's family and neighbours, and towards a total engagement with the Philistines. He slew 1000 of them, so we can imagine they mobilized a few thousand warrior against him. His slaying of the 30 men after his betrayal at the wedding apparently went without reprisal from the Philistines. It was perhaps seen as within the limits of an eye for an eye in their lex talonis culture, seeing that Samson had been so badly treated and shamed at the wedding. But his action with the foxes would have brought hunger and economic ruin to the Philistines, and elevated their conflict with Samson to an altogether different level. </p>


text:
<p>When he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing grain of the Philistines and burnt up both the shocks and the standing grain, and also the olive groves-</p><p>Samson used the whole situation as an opportunity to burn up the corn and vineyards of the Philistines, in conscious allusion to how the law stipulated that a man who did this to his Israelite neighbour must make retribution (<a href='B:20 22:5'>Exo 22:5</a>):&nbsp;He was emphasizing that these people were not his neighbours, they were not in covenant relationship, and he openly showed that he treated them accordingly. Likewise he took vengeance on the Philistines (<a href='B:70 15:5'>Jdg 15:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>), when the Law taught that Israel were not to take vengeance (same word) on each other (<a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a>), but could do so on their enemies (<a href='B:40 31:2'>Num 31:2</a>; <a href='B:50 32:43'>Deu 32:43</a> cp. <a href='B:60 10:13'>Jos 10:13</a>). Note, in passing, how he set those foxes up as cherubim, again imitating Gideon's flaming torches- a ball of whirling fire coming in judgment upon the Philistines. The fox was a symbol of apostate Israel in later Scripture (<a href='B:330 13:4'>Eze 13:4</a>); perhaps Samson made the same connection, and wanted to symbolize how through his faith and insight, weak Israel could be turned into the cherubim of God in bringing judgment on the Philistines and deliverance for themselves. The way he used their tails to bring such destruction may have been a reference to <a href='B:50 28:13'>Deu 28:13</a>; <a href='B:50 28:44'>Deu 28:44</a>, where apostate Israel, suffering for their sins as they were in Samson's time, are described with the same word: they would be the tail of the nations. He saw that he was the one who could bring salvation and blessing to Israel.</p><p>He later teased Delilah to tie him with seven “withs”, the Hebrew word implying made from a vine. He just would mess with the forbidden. The way he burnt up those vineyards in 15:5 may have been as a result of realizing that the answer lay in total devotion and rooting out of temptation, rather than wandering around in them as he did in Judges 14; cutting out the eye that offends. See on :3. His hatred of the vineyards was perhaps a reflection of his alcoholism. Surely he only slept and let Delilah's men cut his hair or bind him because he was drunk.  
Destruction of fruit trees in war was forbidden (Dt. 20:19) and the contemporary culture considered that whilst theft of your enemy's harvest was acceptable, destroying their fruit trees was excessively cruel. But Samson does this, intentionally. 
</p>


text:
<p>Then the Philistines said, Who has done this? They said, Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because his wife was given to his companion. The Philistines came up and burnt her and her father with fire- </p><p>The seven day marriage feast, associated with a deceitful father in law offering the sister of the desired bride in marriage- this is all the same as Jacob experienced (<a href='B:10 29:27'>Gen 29:27</a>), right down to the fact that the younger sister was fairer (<a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a> cp. <a href='B:10 29:16-17'>Gen 29:16-17</a>). Samson should have learnt from the evident similarities with Jacob; but like Jacob, he still trusted his own strength. <strong>&nbsp;</strong>See on <a href='B:70 13:18'>Jdg 13:18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, If you behave like this, surely I will be avenged on you- </p><p>Saul followed Samson's weak side when at this same time he demanded to be avenged of his enemies (<a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>); yet this wasn't Samson at his best (<a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>). On one hand, Samson uses this murder of his wife and father in law as a pretext for killing more Philistines. But yet we also sense that he had loved the girl, and wanted vengeance as any Hebrew man would have wanted for the murder of his wife. It was all about him, "I will be avenged", and he fails to learn the lesson even in his last words, demanding vengeance for his eyes. Likewise he boasts that "I" have slain a thousand men just with a jawbone. Yet still he will be saved. His motives were hopelessly mixed, flesh and spirit confused together. Whereas the life of simple, total devotion to the Spirit is the only way to peace and real spiritual achievement.
He felt he had done to the Philistines as they had done to him, and he felt his behaviour to them was somehow in terms of an eye for an eye, the lex talonis: "If you do this will I not be revenged against you, and after that I will cease?" (Jud. 15:7). "As they have done to me, so I have done to them" (Jud. 15:11). He kills 30 men because his wife betrayed him. He burnt up the corn harvest because the wife he had abandoned had remarried. His expectation that he has the right to sex with her after her remarriage is unreasonable and betrays a sense of over entitlement. He kills many people because his ex-wife had been executed by the Philistines. He kills a thousand men with a jawbone because the Philistine authorities tried to arrest him. He wrecks a city gate because he was angry with himself for sleeping with a whore. Then at the end he wants to kill 3000 people because he has lost his sight. Again, his revenge is disproportionate. The revenge he took was always far more than an eye for an eye, even though he sees it all as justified, legitimate revenge within the terms of lex talonis ["If you do this will I not be revenged against you, and after that I will cease?" (Jud. 15:7)]. The Mosaic examples of an eye for an eye are always careful to insist that any such punishment must never exceed the harm initially done. Samson seems to have had a sense of over entitlement and a genuinely warped sense of equality / measure for measure. Possibly an overbearing mother and distant, weak and ineffective father contributed to this narcissism. We note of course that the Lord's teaching was that "an eye for an eye" was not anyway the ideal standard of spirituality. And yet God worked through this, to begin the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines. 
</p>


text:
<p>He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them, then he went and lived in the cave in the rock of Etam-</p><p>He smote the Philistines "hip and thigh" (AV) with a great slaughter, alluding to the sacrifices (s:w. "shoulder" <a href='B:20 29:22'>Exo 29:22</a>; <a href='B:30 9:21'>Lev 9:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:24'>1Sa 9:24</a>; <a href='B:330 24:4'>Eze 24:4</a> - nearly all usages of this word in Samson's Bible referred to the "shoulder" of the sacrifices), as if he was offering them as a sacrifice to Yahweh. Hip on thigh" is apparently a better rendering, implying hand to hand combat. This would serve to emphasize his contact with the dead bodies, as he hurled them to the ground one by one. And yet the Spirit of Yahweh came upon him to enable this- a breach of the letter of the Nazarite law.</p><p>But then he "went down (again- see on <a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>) and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam. You don't go down if you are going up to the top of a rock. But perhaps spiritually he 'went down', to dwell in isolation from the people he was supposed to be judging / leading, in the rocks. Dwelling in the rocks is associated with a bad conscience in <a href='B:290 2:21'>Isa 2:21</a>; <a href='B:290 57:5'>Isa 57:5</a>. Yet for all this, God counted him as having judged Israel 20 years at this stage (15:20); even though there was this evident break when he simply ran away from his people.</p><p>We enquire why Samson took refuge in Judah. I suggest he wanted to protect his own people of Dan, or at least the small area he was called upon to liberate, between Eshtaol and Zorah.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Philistines went up, and encamped in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi- </p><p>Samson's victory at Lehi may have inspired Shammah to slay the Philistines at the same place, years later (<a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>; AV "into a troop" is Heb. "Lehi"). And yet Samson's victory with a donkey jawbone would have been inspired by Shamgar's victory with an ox goad (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>). This is how the body of Christ should function; one spiritual victory inspiring another.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah said, Why have you come up against us? They said, We have come up to take Samson prisoner, to do to him as he has done to us- </p><p>He says that he had killed Philistines because "I merely did to them what they did to me" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a> NIV). There was no mention of the fact that he was seeking occasion against God’s enemies (even though he was speaking to Hebrews). He passed off his actions as pure revenge- which on one level, was all they were. The Philistines had earlier said that they wanted to take Samson "to do to him as he did to us" (<a href='B:70 15:10'>Jdg 15:10</a>). And Samson replies in the same primitive way: that he only did to them what they did to him. It seems that Samson spoke to them on their level. And yet when the Philistines came upon Samson, roaring against him like the lion in <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>, God’s Spirit once again came upon him in confirmation of his faith. And yet his motives were hopelessly mixed. He was partly the angry young man, the jilted lover, wishing to express his native anger- and yet doing so by claiming that he was serving God. And indeed he was- but with mixed motives. We see this kind of thing in ourselves, and in many who claim to serve God.</p>


text:
<p>Then three thousand men of Judah went down to the cave in the rock of Etam and said to Samson, Don’t you know that the Philistines are rulers over us?- </p><p>This was tacit recognition of the depth of their apostacy. They seemed to have no regret that they were fulfilling the many earlier prophecies that they would be dominated by their enemies if they were disobedient to Yahweh. The fact that Israel were dominated throughout Samson's life by the Philistines is proof enough that they were apostate at this time (<a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>; <a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>). Israel, as so often, refused the saviour / deliverer raised up for them, and preferred to remain in bondage. Just as so many today. We note that the men of Judah numbered three thousand warriors. Potentially, this was a force large enough to fight the Philistines. But this continues the theme of men not living up to their potential. The ideas are juxtaposed- they had 3000 warriors, but accepted the Philistines ruled over them. They had the potential to break free, but accepted their servitude. And are only recorded as using their potential strength to fight against their own deliverer.</p><p>What is this that you have done to us?- </p><p>Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?".</p><p>He said to them, As they did to me, so have I done to them-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>. If we ask 'What exactly did they do to him? What did they kill and burn of his?', the answer must be 'His wife'. He perhaps felt that she was worth hundreds of them, and the burning of their livelihood, leaving famine in it's wake, was what they had done to him emotionally. Yet it is curious how he loved the Philistines and yet hated them. Samson's answer however reveals that his main motive was personal revenge. He gives no hint that he sees his actions as part of a Divine deliverance of His people from the Philistines. Yet that was his potential and His intended purpose, as the Angel explained to his mother. The Philistines have just used the same phrase- they want to do to Samson as he did to them (:10), and now he says he wants to do the same to them, as they did to him. This is a classic case of "an eye for an eye", with each stage of the 'hitting back' being of greater magnitude than what was done. It is clearly out of step with the spirit of the Lord Jesus, who taught specifically not to think and act like this. We are again left with the impression that Samson was all about personal vengeance, shame, pride and anger issues rather than wanting to deliver Israel from the Philistines to Yahweh's glory. </p>


text:
<p>They said to him, We have come down to tie you up so that we can deliver you into the hand of the Philistines. Samson said to them, Swear to me that you will not kill me yourselves-</p><p>He had to beg his own people not to try to kill him themselves (even whilst he had long hair), because he knew that the strength he had was only for certain specific purposes- i:e:, to deliver God’s people from the Philistines (15:12). </p><p>15:12 bind. The way they came to bind Samson has suggestions of Legion (<a href='B:490 8:29'>Luk 8:29</a>); perhaps they considered him to be mentally ill, and attributed his strength to fits? Or worse, did they consider the work of the Spirit of God to deliver them to be that of demons? If so, Samson was typifying the Lord's later experience (<a href='B:470 12:24-27'>Mat 12:24-27</a>). The way Jesus spoke of himself in this context as the stronger than the strong man (cp. Samson) encourages this view. And yet the strong man who was bound, i:e. the devil, can also be seen as a reference to Samson. Again, we are left with a difficult question: Was Samson telling them the truth when he said that his motive at Lehi was purely personal revenge? Or were they so unspiritual that he spoke to them on their level, even though at other times he pleaded with them to quit their idolatry (<a href='B:70 2:16-19'>Jdg 2:16-19</a>)? Or were his motives simply hopelessly mixed? Within him was a burning desire to do God’s work; he was the one faithful Israelite who could chase 1,000; and yet in the company of his unspiritual brethren, he let his human side come out, and wrapped up his zeal for the Lord in human terms- even though there was some truth in how he expressed it. This kind of thing can so easily happen in our Christian experience; we bring out the worst in each other.</p>


text:
<p>They said, No, we will tie you up and deliver you into their hand, but we will not kill you. They bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock- </p><p>The way they tie him up and he begs them not to kill him (15:12,13) hardly sounds like Samson judging Israel (:20). And yet this was his desire, and this is what God imputed to him, in the same way as he was a Nazarite to God (i:e. in God’s eyes?) all his life (<a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a>)- although he broke his Nazariteship by contact with dead bodies (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:15'>Jdg 15:15</a> cp. <a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>) and probably by drinking wine at his wedding (<a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a> " feast" = 'drinking', Heb:). This was not only imputed righteousness, but God counting the essential intentions of a weak willed man to him as if he had actually achieved what he fain would do.</p>


text:
<p>When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him, and the Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him. The ropes that were on his arms became as charred flax, and his ropes dropped off his hands-</p><p>The Spirit likewise came upon him to kill the Philistines in Lehi (15:14). It wasn't a permanent strength. This is in harmony with the way in which the Spirit was used in the New Testament. The Spirit came upon the apostles and they were filled up with it, as it were, and then drained of it once the work was done; and had to be filled with it again when the next eventuality arose. The shouting of the Philistines recalled the roaring of the lion against Samson (<a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>). As in our lives, one experience prepares us for the next one, which occurs on a far greater scale than the first one.</p>


text:
<p>He found a fresh jawbone of an ass and struck down a thousand men with it-</p><p>The record emphasizes it was a "fresh" jawbone. This meant Samson would be touching something unclean, and thus ending his Naziriteship. Yet still God empowered him to slay the Philistines in his unclean state. And we have to ask whether it was not, surely, of God that this fresh jawbone was there. God could have arranged an iron weapon to have come into his hand, or a jagged millstone or sharp flintstone. But the providential arrangement was for something unclean. This, then, is something slightly more than God tolerating Samson's breaking the letter of the Nazirite vow. This is God, having set Samson up as a Nazirite from birth, actually putting something unclean in his hand. And He then makes water flow for Samson to drink from the unclean carcass (see on :19). The message was that God accepted Samson was not very pure... but didn't want Samson to think that He wouldn't work through him because of that. Tragically Samson ended up sinning that grace may abound in that he came to assume that even his hair could be shaved, and still he would receive the Spirit.  </p><p>Samson slaying Philistines with a jawbone suggests Shamgar slaying Philistines with an ox goad (15:15 cp. 3:31).</p><p>15:15 Samson grabbed a jaw-bone and exalted that with that he had slain a thousand men at Lehi. The word for "jawbone", Lehi, means literally 'that which is soft'. God was teaching him that His strength was only perfected in weakness. His words are a conscious allusion to <a href='B:60 23:10'>Jos 23:10</a> (and <a href='B:30 26:8'>Lev 26:8</a>): "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the Lord your God, He it is that fights for you". It could be that he counted the bodies, or counted each man he slew, consciously trying to get up to 1,000 in order to fulfill the prophecy. Although !a thousand" may refer to a military unit rather than a literal number. Samson doesn't say that he alone killed the thousand men; he did it with the jaw-bone (coming from a Hebrew root meaning 'soft', 'weak'). This jaw bone is one of the seven weak things which are mentioned in Judges as being the tools of God’s salvation: left handed man (<a href='B:70 3:21'>Jdg 3:21</a>); an ox goad (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>); a woman (<a href='B:70 4:4'>Jdg 4:4</a>); a nail (<a href='B:70 4:21'>Jdg 4:21</a>); a piece of a millstone (<a href='B:70 9:53'>Jdg 9:53</a>); a pitcher and trumpet (<a href='B:70 7:20'>Jdg 7:20</a>). God’s people are likened to an ass frequently (<a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a>; <a href='B:10 49:14'>Gen 49:14</a>; <a href='B:290 1:3'>Isa 1:3</a>; <a href='B:300 2:24'>Jer 2:24</a>; <a href='B:350 8:9'>Hos 8:9</a>; <a href='B:490 13:15'>Luk 13:15</a>; <a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a>). The first two references would have been known to Samson at Lehi; and he may have reflected that the fact the firstborn of an ass must be redeemed by a lamb was prophetic of how Messiah would save all His otherwise condemned people (<a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a>; <a href='B:20 34:20'>Exo 34:20</a>). Could it not be that despite their cruel betrayal of him and utter faithlessness, dear Samson felt he was living out a kind of acted parable of what was possible for Israel: that through his zeal, and in his hands, the weak people of God could achieve the great victory over thousands which Moses and Joshua had earlier foretold? In this he was a superb type of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps on heaps; with the jawbone of a donkey I have slain a thousand men-</p><p>Samson sees all this as a personal triumph rather than seeing it in the context of God's plan to liberate Dan from the Philistines. Samson's victory song at Lehi smacks of personal vengeance, showing how mixed were his motives. There is little suggestion of the humble servant merely doing God’s will:</p><p>"With a donkey's jaw-bone</p><p>I have made donkeys of them.</p><p>With a donkey's jaw-bone</p><p>I have killed a thousand men" </p><p>(15:16 NIV).</p><p><a href='B:30 26:3-8'>Lev 26:3-8</a> had promised dramatic success against their enemies on the basis of obedience to the Law. The fact Samson had this power was therefore proof that he really was reckoned by God as zealously obedient to the Law; and yet he was like this in the midst of a sadly apostate Israel. This character study of Samson takes this view of his strength. This is in itself no mean achievement: to rise to a level of spirituality much higher than that achieved by the surrounding brotherhood.</p><p>Joshua's final exhortation to Israel contains a passage which reads as some kind of prophecy of Samson. It is proof enough that Samson is to be read as a symbol of Israel: "Be therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses... that you come not among these nations, these that remain among you (true in Samson's time)... but cleave unto the Lord your God…no man has been able to stand before you (this was Samson)... one man of you shall chase a thousand (cp. <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>): for the Lord your God, He it is that fights for you (this was exactly true of Samson in <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>)... take good heed unto yourselves... else if you go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them (as Samson did), and go in unto them, and they to you (cp. <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 16:1'>Jdg 16:1</a>, where Samson went in to the Philistine women): know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you (cp. <a href='B:70 16:20'>Jdg 16:20</a>); but they shall be snares and traps unto you (Delilah!)... and thorns in your eyes, until you perish" (<a href='B:60 23:6-13'>Jos 23:6-13</a>). This passage would associate Samson's God-given strength and victory over the Philistines with his obedience to God’s word. It was not that Samson was just an arbitrary tool in God’s hand. Frequently the things Samson says and does are full of allusion to various passages in the Law, and also earlier incidents recorded in Judges which would have been known to him probably as the oral word of God. The point is that God counted Samson's heart and partial obedience as enough obedience to work through him, and treat him as if he were obedient. Just as he was a "Nazirite to God".</p>


text:
<p>When he had finished speaking he threw away the jawbone, and that place was called Ramath Lehi- </p><p>And yet it was out of that jawbone which he discarded that water came to save his life (:19). He had used and then as it were cast away his first wife and best man, considering that the end [defeating the Philistines] justified the means. He is perhaps being shown that his attitude was wrong. The value and meaning of the human person, even if they are Philistines, is such that nobody should ever just be used and discarded.</p>


text:
<p>He was very thirsty and called on Yahweh and said, You have given this great deliverance by the hand of Your servant; now shall I die for thirst and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised-</p><p>Samson had broken the Nazirite vow by touching the lion's carcass and eating the unclean honey from it. He had apparently drunk alcohol at the drinking party. He had touched the wet, fresh jawbone of a dead animal. He had touched dead bodies. Right after that, he faces death from thirst. He only survives by praying to Yahweh and then receiving miraculous water. God was teaching him that all his breaking of the Nazirite conditions was not unnoticed by Him, nor was Samson granted some kind of automatic exemption from God's law. He realizes this, and prays strongly to God for salvation. God was putting the brake on him. Or trying to. Because in the final incident with Delilah and his hair, he is brought up to reality with a harsh jolt. He effectively allowed Delilah to have his hair shorn [for surely he knew she would do this], and thus ended his Naziriteship. He on some level assumed this infringement of God's requirements would also be acceptable with God, and "as at other times" he could shake himself, receive power and murder the Philistines. But we cannot practice reductionism until there is no moral basis left in our relationship with God. See on Jud. 16:20.</p><p>His request for water in that dry place was abundantly answered- in the same way as Yahweh had responded to exactly the same request from a faithless Israel in the desert (<a href='B:20 17:1-7'>Exo 17:1-7</a>; <a href='B:40 20:2-13'>Num 20:2-13</a>). And the way he names the well after the miraculous provision of water, and the way presumably the opened well remained (15:19), has links with pseudo-Israelite Hagar (Gen. 16:19; 21:19). And yet even in these similarities, it must be noted that there was a certain spiritual culture in Samson's prayer. He didn’t make a direct, crude demand for water. He placed his situation before God, and left it to Him to respond as He knew best. This is a feature of many spiritual prayers: not to crudely, directly ask for the obvious; but to simply inform the Almighty of the situation, in faith.</p><p>Samson at Lehi saw them as unclean asses; and yet he loved their women. And yet in the midst of this almost arrogance, he cries: "I thirst", and so exhibits something of the spirit of Christ in His final hour of agony and ultimate conquest on the cross (<a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a>). Samson&nbsp; despised the uncircumcised Philistines, as he had been brought up to (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>). He knew they hated him and yet he loved them and yet he hated them- all this shows the complexity of human nature, and describes our attitude to the world and the things of the flesh. And yet the only real answer is to cut off the flesh; to gouge out the eye that offends; not to comfortably go along with the fact that we have such a love: hate relationship with the flesh. For we cannot serve two masters; we can only ultimately love one. The Lord we serve is in many ways a demanding Lord. &nbsp;</p><p>Samson dying of thirst crying desperately for water recalls Hagar's experience (15:19 cp. <a href='B:10 21:19'>Gen 21:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But God split the hollow place that is in Lehi and water came out of it- </p><p>This is the language of God’s provision for Israel in the wilderness. The word translated "Lehi" is that for jaw bone (AV "God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout"), as if the water came out of the discarded jaw bone. “God split open the hollow place which was near [or “in”] the jawbone". As discussed on :15, here we have an example of God yet again taking the initiative in showing that He would work through the unclean. For He could have made the water appear from some other source. Likewise He worked through the bees and honey miraculously appearing in the cadaver of the lion.</p><p>When he had drunk, his spirit came again and he revived, therefore its name was called En Hakkore- </p><p>We note how place names were altered or given to commemorate what had happened. The way that so many paganic place names survived in ancient Israel is a reflection therefore of how little effort they made to eradicate pagan influence- for they were mostly idolaters themselves. We have here another miraculous anomaly in the story- a spring remained on the top of a hill, Ramath Lehi (:15), 'jawbone hill'. Springs are generally in valleys, not on the top of hills; and so this one was called the fountain of the one who called [on God]. </p><p>Which is in Lehi to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>He judged Israel in the days of the Philistines for twenty years-</p><p>God’s intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. And he was hardly accepted as Israel's judge / saviour, for they tied him up and handed him over to the Philistines. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith. On the other hand, we must factor in 1 Sam. 12:11, a comment about Samson that commentators have generally not given due weight to: "Yahweh sent Jerubbaal, Bedan, Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety". The context is Samuel arguing that Israel didn't need a king to deliver them from their enemies, because they had had judges like Samson who delivered them. This certainly suggests that Samson did achieve something more than a few personal scraps with the Philistines, motivated by his personal anger issues. But it's not recorded. The Philistines themselves described him as "our enemy, the destroyer of our country who has slain many of us" (Jud. 16:24). Which encourages us to think that in God's wisdom, He has intentionally chosen to just record Samson at his worst, the low points of his life. To demonstrate that a believer [as Hebrews 11 treats Samson] may have very low moments, poor motivations etc. and yet still be a believer. It's no bad exercise to mentally write a spiritual autobiography of yourself, recording only you at your lowest moments. And yet by grace through faith, you too will be saved eternally.
</p>


text:
<p>Samson went to Gaza and saw there a prostitute, and went in to her-</p><p>We noted earlier on Jud. 14:1 and 15:1 that the record presents us with strong anticlimaxes. We expect Samson to be spiritually strong, but he collapses in both 14:1 and 15:1. But by the end of Jud. 15 we are left with Samson strong in faith and humility, and having judged Israel 20 years. We are left hopeful that he is on the way up, spiritually. And now we read he goes to a Philistine city and sleeps with a prostitute. Again, our spiritual expectations are dashed. Yet despite all these failures to live up to potential, he will still be saved because of his faith.
This incident repeats how he went somewhere and saw a woman in Jud. 14. He presents as absolutely failing to examine himself, totally not self critical, blind to the consequences of his sins and therefore never learning from his mistakes. We think likewise of how a femme fatale teased his secret from him in Jud. 14 and then again in Jud. 16.
The way this passage starts with "Then" (see Heb:, AV) is one of several classic conjunctions which occur in the Biblical record. The "But" of <a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a> is another. After the spiritual and personal glory of the fight at Lehi, "Then..." Samson goes to Gaza and sees a whore. It may not have happened immediately afterwards (<a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>), but it seems purposefully placed where it is in the record. A similar example occurs in <a href='B:70 14:19-20'>Jdg 14:19-20</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>: after repenting of his marriage with the Philistine girl and using his failure as an opportunity to seek occasion against God’s enemies, Samson then relents and lets his human love for the girl take him over, and he goes to visit and sleep with her. And again in <a href='B:70 16:3'>Jdg 16:3</a>, we see Samson repentant as he lies there at midnight, and he rises up and in the spirit of the Lord's cross, carries away the gate of his enemies. And then, "it came to pass afterward, that he loved a woman..." (<a href='B:70 16:4'>Jdg 16:4</a>). He simply couldn't keep up the level of spiritual intensity which he fain would have. And again, we know much about this problem .</p><p>And yet Samson went to Gaza conscious that his people had failed to drive out the tribes there (<a href='B:60 11:22'>Jos 11:22</a>). Judah had captured it in Joshua's strength (<a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a>), but had let the Philistines return. So Samson chose Gaza from spiritual motives; and yet he schemed out his plan to enable him to gratify his flesh. But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night. Then he "got up and took hold of the doors..." (<a href='B:70 16:1'>Jdg 16:1</a>; <a href='B:70 16:3'>Jdg 16:3</a> NIV):&nbsp; If he went in to spend the night there, he presumably entered the house at around 7 or 8. He had what he wanted, and then lay there thinking, the record seems to suggest, and decided to not lay there all night as he planned, but get up and do God’s work. Whilst it is unrecorded, surely there were prayers of deep and fervent repentance as he lay there? His conscience likewise seems to have struck him after he attempted to marry the Philistine girl, and also when he burnt up the vineyards. And so again here. He may have justified his behaviour by reference back (in his deep subconscious, maybe) to how the spies sought to destroy Jericho by entering the city and lodging with a whore - who also lived near the city gate..</p><p>When Samson decided to attack Gaza by going into a harlot's house, he may have been consciously imitating the way the spies played their part in Jericho's destruction (16:1). And yet it was once again only a surface imitation. He fell for the 'little of both' syndrome, justifying it under the guise of Scriptural examples.</p>


text:
<p>The Gazites were told, Samson is here! They surrounded him and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, staying quiet all night and saying, Wait until dawn, then we will kill him-</p><p>"They laid wait for him all night" is describing what they intended to do; for he arose at midnight. They were apparently "in the gate of the city", where the whorehouse was just as Rahab's was. They waited outside her house, in the gate of the city, probably in the many guard chambers there were around the gate complex of a city. Yet they "surrounded him"; so he was in a room within the gate complex, used as a brothel, just as Rahab's brothel was on the city gate. Just as the Philistines would do later around Delilah's house [because he failed to see the similarities]. But Samson picks up the gate of the city- presumably killing the Philistines or making them flee. For the city gate complex was always heavily guarded in any city. Taking the gate of the city with its bar would likely have wrecked the whorehouse. The bar was a horizontal rod at the backs of the two leaves of the gate.</p><p>See on <a href='B:230 118:10-12'>Psa 118:10-12</a>. The purpose of this final tragic chapter in Samson's life was to bring Samson to a final realization that there was no third way in the service of Yahweh: it's all or nothing. The Lord worked through Samson's 'little of both' syndrome. The Lord Jesus read the Samson record this way: He recommended that we too tear our eyes out to stop us stumbling from the path of total devotion (<a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a>). We all know how the story turns out. And it's one of those parts of Scripture which I for one don't reading. I don't want to go on from chapter 15 to chapter 16. I know what's coming, and I'd rather not be reminded of the whole tragic sequence. And yet it's there, absolutely for our learning. And Samson should have already learnt. As his first wife had vexed her with her words to tease his secret from him, so Delilah did. As the Philistines laid wait for Samson as he lay with the whore in Gaza (16:2), so they laid wait in Delilah's bedroom (16:9). He had already repented of using God’s service as an excuse for satisfying his own flesh in the incident with the Gaza prostitute. He had bitterly walked away from his first Philistine wife. He burnt down the vineyards, recalling how he had foolishly strolled in them as a Nazarite. He must have looked back and seen how he had played with fire. And now, he goes and does it all again. He goes to the valley of Sorek, 'choice vines', and Samson falls for Delilah, 'the vine'. He went down to the vineyards again; the Nazarite tried to take fire into his bosom again.</p>


text:
<p>Samson lay until midnight, then arose and took hold of the doors of the city gate and the two posts, picked them up, along with the bar, put them on his shoulders and carried them up to the top of the mountain that faces Hebron-</p><p>"Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight" (16:3 AV) gives a different picture: of Samson 'laying' with her as a man lays with a woman, and then getting up and going out to do God’s work. The interplay between sexuality and spirituality was never stronger.</p><p>The incident in Gaza is evidently typical of the Lord's work. There was Samson, "the splendour of the sun" , 'compassed in' by his enemies (as Christ on the cross, <a href='B:230 118:5'>Psa 118:5</a>; <a href='B:230 118:10-12'>Psa 118:10-12</a>) in Gaza ('fortified stronghold', cp. death). Then he arose in the darkness, rendered powerless the gates of death and carried them up 30 miles to a high altitude (cp. Heaven), to Hebron, 'the city of fellowship', where the tomb of Abraham was (<a href='B:10 23:19'>Gen 23:19</a>), and where Gentile giants had once lived (<a href='B:40 13:22'>Num 13:22</a>), conquered by faithful Israelites. Joshua had taken Hebron (<a href='B:60 10:36'>Jos 10:36</a>) but Israel had not followed up his victory, and the Philistines had returned; Caleb then took it (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>), but again, by Samson's time, the Philistines were back. And Samson, although a type of Christ, was intensely aware of all this failure (cp. how he chose Gaza and Timnath, areas with a similar history, for his other exploits). It would seem that Samson killed the men at the gates, the leaders of the city, and then took the gates with him (16:3 cp. 2). The Hebrew used for Samson 'taking away' the gates is that translated 'possess' in the Genesis promises. Thus he possessed the gates of his enemies and slew their figureheads, as the Lord did through the cross. Samson obviously saw some specific meaning in taking the gates to Hebron and the tomb of Abraham. He surely saw that he was prefiguring Messiah's work of taking the gate of his enemies, as promised to Abraham. Or perhaps he saw himself as 'in' the Messiah, and sharing in what He would do in the future. Archaeologists have found tablets that refer to the power of Baal to possess the gates of all who oppose him; and Samson evidently wanted to show the superiority of Yahweh over Baal. The fellowship ('Hebron') which was enabled by the Lord's victory should never be undone by us; He died that He might gather together in one all God’s people, to reconcile us all in one body both to each other and to God. To break apart the body is therefore to deny the essential intention of the cross. There are other points of contact with the Lord's passion. The men of Gaza laid wait in the gates of the city; they were therefore the rulers? But they decided to only kill him in the morning. The rulers of the Jews decided likewise.</p><p>It is hard to decide whether Samson was an ordinary man "out of weakness made strong" by the Spirit; or whether he was a giant, extra empowered at times by the Spirit. To carry the gates and the bar that ran across them would require not only strength, but a very large person. The bar was a horizontal rod at the backs of the two leaves of the gate. Likewise his ability to touch both the pillars on which Dagon's temple rested would have required very long arms. A person's arm span is related to their height, and various Dagon temples have been uncovered. For his hands to be on each pillar, he would have been abnormally tall. This consideration could support the idea that he was a giant, and that in turn would perhaps explain his apparent lack of intelligence, his mother's previous barrenness due to genetic issues, inability to settle down with a woman, hot blooded compulsive behaviour, inability to charismatically lead Israel in battle and the fear the Philistines had of him when he first appeared on the scene at his wedding party [in the LXX]. In this case, he was the Israelite version of Goliath the Philistine giant.
Samson's strength isn't taken away despite his sin. He assumes that he can touch the unclean and morally do as he wishes, and God will remain with him. The fact God by grace appears to let man 'get away with it' leads men to the same tragic decline as we will now read of. It is a powerful warning. We note Hebron was 30 miles away and at an elevation of 3300 feet. It was on the frontier of Israelite and Philistine territory, and the gates placed there on a mountain there would have been visible to the entire Shephelah. If this mountain is the modern El Montar, it towered as a landmark familiar to all travellers along the caravan route from Syria to Egypt. Samson was seeking to make a point and to inspire Israel that they too could possess the gates of their enemies. Yet he does this right after spending an evening with a whore in Gaza. How do men feel after visiting a whore? Angry with themselves and wanting to prove themselves in some other way, since they have failed to find or keep a wife as the love of their life. Samson's physical feat right afterwards was surely motivated by anger, with himself and with the Philistines and their whore. But God empowered that anger with a gift of His Spirit, and worked through Samson. And finally will save Samson eternally. We gasp at His grace.


text:
<p>Afterward, he fell in love with a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah- </p><p>Samson had a mixed conscience when he slew the lion. He was in the vineyards, the very place where he shouldn't have been as a Nazarite, although he justified it by spiritual and even Biblical reasoning. He then burns up those vineyards in order to have a blameless conscience. He then loses that good conscience and cowers in the rocks. And then later he goes to the valley of Sorek (Heb. 'the vine') and forges a relationship with another worthless woman. Samson's marriage looks less acceptable in this context. So he returned to his old desire to walk near the forbidden fruit of the vine. His purges of conscience were temporary, and he returned to the old haunts and ways.</p>


text:
<p>The lords of the Philistines came to her and said, Entice him, and find out where his great strength lies, and how we might prevail against him to tie him up and subdue him. Then we will each one of us give you eleven hundred pieces of silver-</p><p>"Delilah" is a distinctly Hebrew name, and Sorek was on the border of Hebrew and Philistine territory. I will suggest on Jud. 17:1 that she is in fact the Hebrew woman who uses her wealth to sponsor her son to make an idol.
<a href='B:240 6:26-27'>Pro 6:26-27</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a> make clear allusion to Samson and Delilah, and they suggest that Delilah was a "whorish woman". In this case, her motivation for betraying Samson was fundamentally financial, apart from other lesser factors which there probably were. The bribe she was offered has been estimated in modern terms as around US$ 1 million (2019). And Judas likewise went to the chief priests and asked how much they would give him for betraying the Lord. Again, Samson was a type of Christ. This all indicates the unbelievable materialism which is in our natures: to betray a good man, even the Son of God, ultimately for pieces of metal. We must have all asked: 'Why, oh why, did Samson go on trusting her, when it was so obvious she was going to betray him?'. It may have been because she was an Israelitess (even if a renegade). The way she says "The Philistines are upon you!" (16:20) and the way the lords of the Philistines came up to her (16:5) may suggest this. Their offer of money to her was exactly after the pattern of the Jews' approach to Judas. The way "pieces of silver" feature in both records leads us to wonder whether the correspondence was so exact that she also betrayed the helpless Samson with a kiss, as Judas did. See on <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>.</p><p>We note that the same sum of 1100 pieces of silver will occur in the next chapter; see on <a href='B:70 17:2'>Jdg 17:2</a>.</p><p>The parallels between the woman of Timnah and Delilah are clear. The words of the Philistines to the woman are identical: ‘Coax your husband’ (Jud. 14:15); ‘Coax him’ (Jud. 16:5). Both women use the same language to persuade Samson to reveal his secret: ‘You really hate me, you don’t love me’ (Jud. 14:16); ‘How can you say you love me’ (Jud. 16:15). Both women are described as nagging him and wearing him down (Jud. 14:17; 16:16). The point is that Samson didn't learn from his mistakes, refusing to perceive how circumstance was repeating in his life.</p>


text:
<p>Delilah said to Samson, Please tell me where your great strength lies, and how you might be tied up and subdued- </p><p>As his first wife had vexed him with her words to tease his secret from him, so Delilah did. But Samson didn’t learn from his life, and this is the tragedy of so much spiritual failure- people don't learn from history, both their own and others.  LXX "and humbled". It was crystal clear what Delilah intended to do with the information. </p>


text:
<p>Samson said to her, If I am tied with seven fresh cords that were never dried, then shall I become weak like other men-</p><p> LXX "and humbled". It was crystal clear what Delilah intended to do with the information. 
He&nbsp; teased Delilah to tie him with seven “cords” or AV "withs", the Hebrew word implying made from a vine. He just would mess with the forbidden. Samson tells Delilah that if he is bound, he will be weak "like one man" (16:7 Avmg:). This is surely an allusion to passages like <a href='B:30 26:8'>Lev 26:8</a> and <a href='B:60 23:10'>Jos 23:10</a> - that one man would chase many. Samson implies that he fights like he is many men; he appropriated those blessings to himself. He came to assume he had faith. Lifetime Christians have the same tendency, with the joy and vigour of first faith now far back in time. Samson had been bound before and had burst those bonds (<a href='B:70 15:13'>Jdg 15:13</a>); he seems to have assumed that one past deliverance was an automatic guarantee of future ones. His great zeal for the Lord's work seems to have lead him to chose the single life; and yet he evidently was in the habit of occasional affairs (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a> "is there never..." ), using prostitutes and having on and off relationships with women like Delilah. Samson thought his devotion and the appalling apostacy of his brethren somehow justified it. Note how Timothy and Hezekiah seem to likewise have stumbled in their commitment to the single life.</p>


text:
<p>Then the lords of the Philistines brought to her seven fresh cords which had not been dried, and she tied him with them- </p><p>As this all happened in the bedroom (:9 NEV "inner room"), it seems to me that she used them in some kind of sexual bondage game. "Delilah" means 'weak', and Samson was the archetypical strong man. The mind will follow... as to how this played out in their sex life. And yet the strong was dominated by the weak, and eyeless in Gaza he was made to do women's work. Yet as noted on :9, even at such a low spiritual point in his life, God’s Spirit remained with him.</p>


text:
<p>Now she had an ambush waiting in the inner room- </p><p>The idea is, "the bedroom". See on :8. The Philistines are described as "abiding" in Delilah's house (16:9 AV)- a word normally used in the sense of 'permanently living'. It would seem that Samson didn’t permanently live with her, but occasionally visited her, until at the end he was happy to live with her (she pressed him "daily"), co-habiting with her other Philistine lovers. With his hair shaven, he 'went out, as at other times'- deciding bitterly that he had really had enough, and once again he would walk out on her, this time for good, and would 'shake himself' and take a hold on himself. But this time it was too late.</p><p>She said to him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! He broke the cords, as a string of tow is broken when it touches the fire. So his strength was not known-</p><p>The thongs burst from him as when string comes close to a flame. This is similar to the scene in <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>, where because the Spirit was upon him, Samson became like a burning fire which snapped his bonds. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>Delilah said to Samson, You have made a fool of me and told me lies! Now please tell me how you can be tied- </p><p>We are left to imagine all the crocodile tears and lies told by Delilah regarding how she set him up to be ambushed and slain by Philistines, whilst claiming she loved him.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, If I am tied with new ropes with which no work has been done, then I shall become weak like other men-</p><p>
Samson ends up bound (s.w. "tied") in fetters of brass. He was truly an Israelite in bondage to the Philistines, the very thing he had so despised and given his life to fighting against. But in these bondage games with Delilah, he liked being tied up in bondage to a Philistine [or quite possibly, a Hebrew woman involved with the Philistines]. We have a deep insight here into how he actually both loved and hated Philistine bondage. Just as he loved vineyards and yet burnt them up. This inability to wholly dedicate himself to Yahweh's ways and people was to be his undoing.
Samson was reasoning that as the ropes of Jud. 15:11 had been overcome by the Spirit, so any attempt to tie him up would trigger the same outpouring of Spirit power.
</p>


text:
<p>So Delilah took new ropes and tied him with them and said to him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! The ambush was waiting in the inner room. He broke them off his arms like a thread- </p><p>In the next two occasions when Samson broke his bands (<a href='B:70 16:12'>Jdg 16:12</a>; <a href='B:70 16:14'>Jdg 16:14</a>), the language of breaking them as if there was fire within him (as in :9, see note there) doesn't occur. It may be that although the fire of the Spirit was within him, Samson came to feel that he, of his own ability, was doing the miracles: "he snapped the ropes off his arms...". There is even a sense of unjustified, egoistic sarcasm in the way he gets the Philistines to tie him with flimsy pieces of grass and then breaks them off and kills them.  Samson had broken the ropes which the men of Judah had bound him with; he was living in the assumption that God would act as He had done before, empowering him to get out of his problems by grace. He was slipping into continuing in sin that grace might abound, presuming upon grace, seeing grace as a right and entitlement. And yet as with the power of the Spirit right after sleeping with a prostitute in :2,3, so again despite such weakness, God's Spirit power still came upon him. But there had to be a limit to his reductionism.</p>


text:
<p>Delilah said to Samson, Until now you have fooled me and told me lies. Tell me how you can be tied. He said to her, If you weave the seven braids of my hair into the fabric on the loom, I will become as weak as other men-</p><p>Samson had been named after the sun god, and was raised near the sun god shrine at Beth Shemesh. Long hair was associated with the sun gods- the long hairs representing the rays of the sun. The sun gods are depicted as having long hair- Ra-Horakhtz, Attis, Surya, and Lugh. Samson chose to wear his long hair as seven locks (Jud. 16:13), and this is exactly the kind of radiant crown seen on the sun gods. The crown of the Greek sun-god Helios was often depicted with seven spikes. This continues the theme- that Samson mixed Yahweh worship with paganism; and his hatred of the Philistines was not therefore purely a result of his love for Yahweh.
See on <a href='B:230 118:10-12'>Psa 118:10-12</a>. He initially says: "If they bind me..." (16:7), but changes this to "If you..."; he knew beforehand that she would betray him, although couldn't admit it to himself. And so we see the complexity of Samson's situation. It was not that his telling of the secret to Delilah was necessarily a sin in itself. He trusted her and yet knew on another level she would betray him. This is just a part of human nature. It helps explain why the Lord Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him (<a href='B:500 6:64'>Joh 6:64</a>), and yet how He could really trust in Judas as his own familiar friend, confide in him (<a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>), tell him that he would sit with the other eleven on thrones in the Kingdom (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a>). This was ever a serious contradiction for me, until considering the Samson : Delilah relationship in depth. A man can know something about someone on one level, but act and feel towards them in a quite different way than this knowledge requires. David likewise must have known Absalom’s deceit; but he chose not to see it, for love’s sake. “They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things [just as Absalom did in the gate]... but I, as a deaf man, heard not” (<a href='B:230 38:12-13'>Psa 38:12-13</a>). Paul surely knew how Corinth despised him, how little they knew and believed, and as he himself said, the more he loved them, the less they loved him. And yet in all honesty he could say: “As you abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence and in your love to us” (<a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a>). Yet the more abundantly he loved them, the less they loved him- not the more abundantly. Yet he saw them as loving him abundantly. One also gets the sense that the Gibeonites’ deception was somehow guessed by the elders of Israel, but against their better judgment they disregarded the telltale signs (<a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a>). Or Amasa, taking no heed to the sword in Joab’s hand... against his better judgment, surely (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>). This is a feature of human nature; the contradictions evident in the Jesus : Judas relationship and the Samson : Delilah relationship are only explicable for me by realizing this. The whole thing is an eloquent essay in the Lord's humanity and the depth of His 'in-loveness' with Judas the traitor. If you love someone, you like them and see them as different and better to how they are. You see them as more than they are, as more than they can be. And so it is with God's love, resulting in what Paul would call Him imputing righteousness to us, justifying us, counting us right.</p><p>And this Lord is our Lord, the same yesterday and today. Our self-knowledge will be deepened by realizing that we too have this spiritual schizophrenia: it's not that we are spiritual one day and unspiritual the next. We are both flesh and spirit at the very same moment. Appreciation of this will help us cope with the more evident failures of our brethren. It doesn't necessarily mean that they must be written off as totally unspiritual and insincere because of acts and attitudes of evident unspirituality. The Spirit is still there, at the very same moment. Think of how Samson slept with a whore until midnight, and then in faith rose up and was granted the Spirit to perform a great act of Christ-like, cross-like victory over the enemies of God’s people.</p>


text:
<p>She wove his hair into the fabric and fastened it with the pin, and said to him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! He awoke and pulled away the pin from the loom and the fabric-</p><p>The way Samson asked Delilah to fasten the hair of his head with a nail and then try to have mastery over him is a parody of what would have been a well known incident: Deborah's mastery over Barak (<a href='B:70 4:21'>Jdg 4:21</a>). This would indicate that Scripture was never far from his mind. In Samson's relationship with Delilah, he got closer and closer to the edge. Samson tells Delilah to bind him, then he gets closer to showing his hand: he asks her to do something to his hair. And then, he falls to the final folly. It could even be that after the previous teasings he left her completely (16:14 AV "he went away")- after the pattern of his previous twinges of conscience concerning his first wife, his love of vineyards, his lying with the whore in Gaza... But he evidently returned to her.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, How can you say, ‘I love you’, when your heart is not with me? You have fooled me three times and have not told me where your great strength lies-</p><p>Even at his weakest, Delilah had observed that his heart wasn't with her: it was somewhere else, i:e. with the God of Israel. She repeats the very words of Samson's first wife. And he failed to discern the patterns in life, to learn from his mistakes. Because he wasn't deeply impressed by his sin, because his anger and pride were so dominant in his personality.</p>


text:
<p>When she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, he became tired to death-</p><p>Samson's marriage reflects a spiritual brinkmanship which was his spiritual undoing, however. For the same word is used concerning how Delilah&nbsp;later vexed him unto death with her words, and then Samson rose up and slew the Philistines with God’s help. The same word is used concerning how the Gentile enemies of an apostate Israel would afflict them (<a href='B:50 28:53'>Deu 28:53</a>; <a href='B:50 28:55'>Deu 28:55</a>; <a href='B:50 28:57'>Deu 28:57</a>). Yet at this very same time, Samson had faith. But there came a time- there had to come a time, for the sake of Samson's eternal salvation- when this having a little of both had to be ended.</p><p>His becoming tired to death could mean that he now decides upon a path to death. His later suicide was just the outworking of his decision to die at this point; see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>So he told her everything, and said to her, No razor has ever come on my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaved, then my strength will go from me and I will become weak like any other man-</p><p>Samson's zeal to deliver Israel was confirmed by God, in that he was given gifts of Holy Spirit in order to enable him to deliver Israel. However, this doesn't mean that he himself was a man rippling with muscle. The Philistines wanted to find out the secret of his strength; it wasn't that he had such evidently bulging muscles that the answer was self-evident. He told Delilah that if his head were shaved, he would be like any other man. He was therefore just an ordinary man, made strong by the Father after the pattern of the Saviour he typified. It wasn't a permanent strength. This is in harmony with the way in which the Spirit was used in the New Testament. The Spirit came upon the apostles and they were filled up with is, as it were, and then drained of it once the work was done; and had to be filled with it again when the next eventuality arose. Indeed, the word baptizo strictly means 'to fill and thereby submerge'; hence the use of the term in classical Greek concerning the sinking of ships or the filling of a bottle. Therefore the idea of baptism with Holy Spirit could simply be describing a temporary filling of the Apostles with power in order to achieve certain specific aims.</p><p>If this is indeed how Samson experienced his fillings with the Spirit, it throws new light on the way he allowed Delilah to apparently suck information out of him. She asked for the secret of his strength; he knew she would betray him; he told her; she betrayed him, which meant a group of Philistine warriors came and hid themselves in the house (full known to Samson); and he then rose up and killed them, using the gift of God’s Spirit. He was so sure that God would use him in this way, that he thought he could do anything in order to entice Philistine warriors into his presence- even if it involved gratifying his own flesh. The way he threw away the jawbone after killing 1000 Philistines at Lehi may suggest that&nbsp; he felt that now he had done the job, the instrument was useless; and he begged the Lord to give him drink. He knew that now he was an ordinary man again.</p>


text:
<p>When Delilah saw that he had told her everything, she sent for the lords of the Philistines saying, Come up once more, for he has told me everything. Then the lords of the Philistines came up to her, and brought the money with them-</p><p>It has been suggested from the way the Philistine lords are described as coming up to her, and the way in which she speaks of&nbsp; "the Philistines" (16:18-20), that she was in fact an apostate Israelitess. And thus he justified himself:&nbsp;We are left to ponder how Delilah lived after she had received all the money she clearly coveted. Was she happy? Did what she did buy her happiness? Clearly not.</p>


text:
<p>She made him sleep on her knees, and then she called for a man who shaved off the seven braids of his head. Then she began to torment him, and his strength left him-</p><p>See on <a href='B:140 33:12-13'>2Ch 33:12-13</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>. It should be noted that his strength was not somehow magically associated with his hair; his strength went from him because Yahweh departed from him (16:19,20). We have seen earlier that Samson was well into spiritual brinkmanship. It had characterized his life, according to the selection of incidents the record presents us with. The sequence of events is worth listing:</p><p>Delilah asked Samson to tell her his closest secret, </p><p>then Delilah bound Samson as he asked;</p><p>Samson awakes from a deep sleep with Delilah;</p><p>Delilah playfully afflicts Samson while he is bound and Samson overcomes Delilah (16:19 implies this happened each time);</p><p>Then Samson realizes Delilah has betrayed him;</p><p>and the Philistine warriors were there waiting in the bedroom.</p><p>Then Samson goes out of the bedroom, shakes himself and kills them.</p><p>Then Delilah says Samson doesn't really love her</p><p>- and they repeat the experience.</p><p>This is the classic material for love : hate relationships. At first sight, Samson appears an incomprehensible fool. But more extended meditation reveals the human likelihood of it all. She would've convincingly repented and asked for one last chance- time and again. It is hard not to interpret his sleeping exhausted with her and then the bondage session as some kind of sex game, followed by drinking alcohol so that he fell fast asleep [thus mocking his Nazirite vow]. And yet Samson thought he was strong enough to cope with it, as did Solomon years later. He may even have had some kind of desire to simply mock the Philistines when he suggested they should tie him up with seven pieces of grass. He seems to somehow have known that his first wife would wangle his secret from him and betray him, and thus he would have the opportunity to kill Philistines- even though he didn’t intend to open his heart to her (<a href='B:70 14:16'>Jdg 14:16</a>). And now the same happened. He seems to have known that she would betray him, although he evidently thought better of her; for he was deeply in love with her.</p><p>The shame of the final fight is graciously unrecorded. The events of 16:19-21 seem a little out of sequence. It would seem that Delilah awoke Samson, and he thought he would go outside, shake himself and kill the Philistines whom he was sure were in wait. But she started to tease him as before in their games of bondage; but this time, "she began to subdue him, and he began to weaken" (16:19 LXX; one meaning of 'Delilah' is 'the one who weakens'). "Began" is a strange translation; it is often translated to profane / humble. She spiritually abused him. And then she called the Philistines. He was powerless, physically, beneath that woman, and was therefore no match for them. The fact she was physically stronger than him when the Spirit of the Lord left him is proof enough that he was not a physically strong man in his own right. The way the apostate woman subdued him physically, in the name of a love / sex game, would have remained in his memory. He, the strong man of Israel, had been conquered by a worthless woman. His humiliation was to be typical of Israel's: "children are their oppressors (cp. the young lad at the feast?), women rule over them" (<a href='B:290 3:12'>Isa 3:12</a>). It is quite possible that Peter had Samson in mind, when he wrote of how "they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness... they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world... they are again entangled therein, and overcome..." (<a href='B:680 2:18-20'>2Pe 2:18-20</a>). Samson had been spiritually overcome, and therefore physically he was overcome and brought in bondage. Thus Peter understood that Samson is everyman.
"Torment" is 'humiliate', and is twice used of rape in Jud. 19:24; 20:5. It is quite possible that she sexually humiliates him in some form as he is tied up. Clearly the love he had for her was blind to the fact she had a seething hatred of him.
We note that "she called for a man" is not found in all texts; some say that she cut Samson's hair. Jack Sasson suggests: "Bringing him to sleep on her lap, she called to the man [Samson], then began to cut the seven braids on his hair".
</p>


text:
<p>She said, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! He awoke out of sleep and said, I will go out as before and shake myself to be free of them. But he didn’t know that Yahweh had departed from him-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>. The way Samson was so deeply sleeping on Delilah's knees that he didn’t feel them shave him, and then he went out and shook himself (this seems a fair translation)- all this could suggest he was drunk. There is no concrete evidence for this, but his love of vineyards would suggest he had a yearning for the forbidden fruit. And Sorek means the vine, and "Delilah" can be understood as 'vine woman'. He had broken the Nazarite vow by touching dead bodies, he obviously thought that having unshaven hair was only tokenistic and irrelevant to the real spirit of Nazariteship, and therefore he may have reasoned that alcohol was also another tokenism. Thus his reductionism destroyed him (almost). Perhaps it was brought about by a wilful misunderstanding of God’s waiving of the Nazarite ban on touching dead bodies; for after all, God had made Samson a Nazarite, and then empowered him to go and kill Philistines in personal combat, thereby touching dead bodies. So God waived one principle for a more important one; and yet Samson abused this, taking the principle far further than God intended, to the point that he ended up justifying sin as righteousness.</p>&nbsp;<p>"He didn’t know that Yahweh had left him" is the depth of spiritual tragedy. The Lord Jesus may have had this in mind when He spoke of how the rejected would not know what hour He would come upon them (<a href='B:730 3:3'>Rev 3:3</a>). Samson went through the experience of rejection at the Lord's hands in advance of the actual judgment seat. He was set grinding in the prison- a figure which was later picked up as representative of the unbeliever generally (<a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a>; <a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a>; <a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a>). He was as it were delivered to satan, that he might learn (<a href='B:610 1:20'>1Ti 1:20</a>); his own wickedness corrected him (<a href='B:300 2:19'>Jer 2:19</a>). And this finally brought him to himself. His experience was a pattern for the apostate Israel whom he loved. Yahweh forsaking His people is associated with them cutting off their hair in <a href='B:300 7:29'>Jer 7:29</a> - an evident allusion to Samson's shame. As the Philistines rejoiced over Samson and praised their god for their victory, so Babylon was to do years later, as Zedekiah like Samson had his eyes put out.</p><p>We have here a sober warning. Samson had broken the Nazirite conditions multiple times, and there is no mention of his cleansing nor rededication. He came to assume that letters of the law were irrelevant. And in the end, he thought that even his hair could be shorn. We see for all time that there is a limit to God's patience, and the spirit of His laws overriding the letters. We cannot practice reductionism to the end, whereby nothing remains. We cannot assume that we have a right to God's acceptance of us; we are in fact entitled to nothing but death. I explained on Jud. 15:18 that God had previously sought to put the brake on Samson's downward slide in all this, by forcing him to pray for salvation rather than automatically providing it. But the lesson, as ever with Samson, went unheeded. Just as he failed to learn the lessons from his first wife enticing him to share his secret and then betraying him.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines seized him and put out his eyes, and they brought him down to Gaza, bound him with fetters of brass, and made him work at grinding in the mill in the prison-</p><p>"Bound" is the word used for how Delilah had bound Samson with weak things like grass and hair, just as the Israelites had bound him before handing him over to the Philistines. The same word is used. He now found that he was unable to break what he was bound with. He was truly an Israelite in bondage to the Philistines, the very thing he had so despised and given his life to fighting against.</p><p>Samson, who boasted that he had made donkeys of the Philistines, is now made as a donkey. Dagon was the god of corn, so Samson's grinding corn was showing him to be a servant of Dagon and not of Yahweh. He who had lusted with his eyes now lost his eyes.</p><p>He was given women's work in prison, grinding at the mill, in order to rub the point in (<a href='B:20 11:5'>Exo 11:5</a>; <a href='B:470 24:41'>Mat 24:41</a>). 'Grinding' was some kind of figure of speech for the sex act (s:w. <a href='B:220 31:10'>Job 31:10</a>). "May my wife grind for another, and over her let other men kneel" (Job 31:10). "Take a pair of millstones and grind flour. Uncover your veil, strip off your skirt, reveal your thigh... Your nakedness shall be exposed, also your disgrace shall be revealed" (Is. 47:2,3). The "fetters of brass" with which he was bound would have recalled his games of bondage with Delilah, and the same word is translated "filthiness" in a sexual context (<a href='B:330 16:36'>Eze 16:36</a>). The word used for 'prison' means literally 'house of binding'- an extension of Delilah's house, they would have joked. One can imagine how the story of how Delilah enticed him would have become the gossip of the nation.</p><p>The idea of binding the strong man must surely look back to Samson. The language can't just be accidentally similar (cp. <a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>). This means that the Lord saw Samson as the very epitome of Satan, even though ultimately he was a man of faith (<a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Thus the Spirit doesn't forget a man's weakness, even though ultimately he may be counted righteous.</p>


text:
<p>However the hair of his head began to grow again after he had been shaved-</p><p>The record seems to suggest there was a link between the growth of his hair, and God giving him strength again. This doesn't mean that there was some metaphysical link between his strength and his hair. Rather does it show how God responded to his faith and what was behind the growth of his hair, and therefore gave him strength to destroy the Philistines. It would seem that Samson decided to keep the Nazarite vow again. He was in no position to offer the inaugatory sacrifice which the law required; and yet he threw himself upon God’s grace, trusting that his zeal would be accepted by God; that he, the sinner and failure and shamer of Yahweh, could be allowed to make that special act of devotion in Nazariteship. And he was accepted in this, as witnessed by the great power of the death of Samson:&nbsp;</p><p>It must be emphasized that his strength was not tied up in his hair. He only ground in the prison a short time, until the great sacrifice was offered to Dagon in thanks for Samson's capture. In that time, his hair grew- but not very long, in such a short time (no more than months, <a href='B:70 16:22-23'>Jdg 16:22-23</a>). The growth of his hair is to be associated with his renewed determination to keep the Nazarite vow. He was reckoned by God as a lifelong Nazarite (<a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>); the time when his hair was cut was therefore overlooked by God. His zealous repentance and desire to respond to the gracious way in which God still recognized him as a lifelong Nazarite, although he wasn't one, inspired him to a real faith and repentance. It was this, not the fact he had some hair again, which lead to God empowering him to destroy the palace of Dagon.</p><p>The question arises: why did Samson tell Delilah that if his hair was cut, he would become weak? Surely he must have known within him that she would do it, in line with past experience? He went out as before to fight the Philistines, surely aware that he had been shaved, and yet assuming God would still be with him. He had come to realize that his long hair was not the real source of his strength, on some kind of metaphysical level. He saw that his strength was from the Spirit of God, not long hair or Nazariteship. He went out knowing, presumably, that his hair had been shaven, and yet still assumed he would have God’s strength. And even when his hair began to grow again, he still had to pray for strength (<a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>). He fell into the downward spiral of reductionism. He figured that if his hair was shaved, well it was no big deal. He was supposed to be a Nazarite all the days of his life, and yet perhaps he came to reason that because he had touched plenty of dead bodies, he therefore needed to be shaved anyway (<a href='B:40 6:9'>Num 6:9</a>). He thought that therefore God would accept him in principle as a Nazarite even though he had broken the letter of Nazariteship, and therefore losing his hair was only a surface level indicator of spirituality:&nbsp;&nbsp; And yet there is also good reason to think that there was an association in Samson's mind between his hair and his God-given strength. For why did he " tell her all his heart" by saying that if he were shaved, he would lose his strength? And of course, when his hair was cut off, then his strength went. Samson saw a link between being a Nazarite and having strength (<a href='B:70 16:17'>Jdg 16:17</a>). When Samson went outside from Delilah and shook himself as he usually did, was he not shaking his hair free before attacking the Philistines, as if he saw in his hair the source of his strength? However, this must all be balanced against the evidence that Samson originally realized that his strength came from God, not his hair. Whilst he even had this realization, theoretically, when he gave Delilah the possibility of shaving him, he also at this time had the conception that his strength was associated with his hair length. I would suggest that this can be resolved by understanding that although his strength was not in his hair, this is how Samson came to see it. And therefore God went along with this view, and treated Samson as if his strength was in his hair. And therefore He departed from him when he allowed his hair to be shaved. If Samson had really told Delilah the truth about the source of his strength, he would have said: 'Faith, causing the Spirit of God to come upon me to do His work'. Samson knew this, and therefore he allowed her to shave him; and yet it was also true that in his heart of hearts, he also at the same time believed that his hair was the source of his strength. So he was the victim of reductionism, as well as tokenism. He came to see the mere possession of long hair as a sign of spirituality. And yet at the same time he reduced and reduced the real meaning of Nazariteship to nothing. Difficult as this analysis may be to grasp, I really believe that it has much to teach us; for the latter day brotherhood is afflicted with exactly these same problems.</p>


text:
<p>The lords of the Philistines gathered together to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to rejoice, for they said, Our god has delivered Samson our enemy into our hand-</p><p>The Philistines didn’t kill Samson immediately; they wanted to prolong the agony of his death. It was evidently their intention to kill him. Perhaps it was their plan to torture him and then finally torture him to death at the feast to their god- cp. the Lord's planned death at Passover. The great sacrifice which they planned to offer (Heb. 'kill') was probably Samson. Dagon was the grain god, and Samson's burning of their grain would have been seen as a victory of Yahweh over Dagon. Now the Philistines were attempting to make Yahweh the loser against Dagon. Samson's desire to end his miserable life was nuanced against his desire to vindicate Yahweh. And Yahweh gave him the strength to do so.</p>


text:
<p>When the people saw him, they praised their god. They said, Our god has delivered our enemy, the destroyer of our country who has slain many of us, into our hand-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 14:14'>Jdg 14:14</a>. Gentiles praising their gods, mocking Yahweh, and then suddenly being destroyed was a scene repeated in <a href='B:340 5:4'>Dan 5:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When their hearts were merry they said, Call for Samson so that he can entertain us. They called Samson out of the prison, and he performed before them. They set him between the pillars-</p><p>Samson suddenly called up out of the prison house (16:25) recalls Joseph (<a href='B:10 41:14'>Gen 41:14</a>) and John the Baptist (<a href='B:470 14:9'>Mat 14:9</a>). The same Divine hand was at work in such different lives, leaving the same hallmarks behind in the record. And the more familiar and thoughtful we are about Biblical history, the more we too will perceive this. LXX "they smote him with the palms of their hands, and set him between the pillars". This has strange relevance to the Lord's experience, also smitten with the palms of His tormentors, and put to death between two poles / crosses.
"Entertain us" is literally 'make sport'. I discussed on :21 the sexual aspects to Samson's humiliation. The same word is used in a sexual context in Gen. 26:8, when Isaac is observed 'sporting' with Rebekah.
</p>


text:
<p>and Samson said to the boy who held him by the hand, Allow me to feel the pillars on which the house rests so that I can lean on them-</p><p>A read through all the recorded words of Samson will reveal a growing humility and spirituality. "Suffer me that I may... that I may" (16:26 AV) reflects a courtesy and humility distinctly lacking in his previous recorded speech. His growth came to its intended climax in the repentance and final peak of spirituality which he achieved in his time of dying. Or it may be that the utter exhaustion of Samson from their afflictions (prodding with sticks?) is revealed when he asks the lad "Suffer me..." (Heb. 'allow me to rest / take a break'). This pointed forward to the Lord's physical exhaustion, driven to the limit of human endurance, must be imagined.</p>&nbsp;<p>God patiently worked through the weakness of Samson to achieve not only a great final victory over the Philistines, but also Samson's own salvation. The way Samson asked the lad to guide him to the pillars in the Philistine language, learnt in his mis-spent relationships with women, the way he knew the architectural structure of the Dagon-temple, where presumably he had been in his earlier love-hate affair with the Philistines- God didn’t reject him for these earlier failures, but worked with him, making use of the knowledge and experience which Samson had picked up along the road of earlier failure. This is how God works with us, too- if only we would have the humility to realize it. And the least we can do is to replicate it in our dealings with our failing brethren.</p><p>Samson dying between the two pillars is broadly similar, as a kind of silhouette, to the Lord's death between two other crosses. The way the lad (also a Hebrew? for they spoke the same language?) "held" Samson's hand is significant, for the same word is translated 'to strengthen / encourage'. Perhaps the lad strengthened Samson as the repentant thief did the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Now the house was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there, and on the roof there were about three thousand men and women watching while Samson performed- </p><p>The destruction of them all would have left a huge hole in Philistine power. And yet still Israel failed to capitalize on this victory, for by Saul's time, Israel were effectively in bondage to them again.</p>


text:
<p>Samson called to Yahweh and said, Lord Yahweh, remember me please, and strengthen me please, just this once oh God, that I may with one blow be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes-</p><p>Heb. “that I may avenge myself the revenge of one of my two eyes”. His idea was that the death of all those Philistines would only avenge the loss of one of his eyes. The fact he had lost two of his eyes required, he implied, a revenge beyond revenge. He died very bitter. Or we can understand him to desire vengeance for one of his eyes,  believing that the vengeance for the other eye would come at the last day. In this case he still fails, even right at the end, to appreciate his sinfulness with his eyes and the rightful judgment for this. And yet still he will be saved, along with many others who likewise refused to appreciate their own sinfulness and resented their sufferings resultant from that.
Samson's name was an allusion to the sun god. The sun was thought to be the 'eye' of Heaven. Samson's dying request that he be avenged for the loss of his eyes suggests he died still with a strong sense of association with the sun god. See on :13. 
We think of other spiritual heroes who made a suicidal death wish: Elijah, Jeremiah, Jonah and Job, along with Tobit and Sarah in the Apocrypha. But God only grants this wish to Samson. Again we have an anomaly in the story. The Samson story ends as it began, with God working through human weakness to achieve His purpose. And the weakness of the person, in Samson's case, isn't a deal breaker for their final salvation. There is such huge encouragement in this. We are left to ponder the motives for Samson's suicide. Suicide is usually assumed to be a case of the victim concluding they have no better reason to continue living. And Samson's miserable state, grinding eyeless in Gaza under cruel abuse, would certainly fit that scenario. We can connect Samson's suicide with the way that he knowingly gives Delilah the secret to his strength. That was in a way suicidal, because he knew what was going to follow. From that point onwards, he considered his life not worth living- because her psychological bullying of him led him to suicide: "When she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, he became tired to death" (:16). Possibly at that point he decided his life wasn't worth living. The love of his life was pressing him to death. And he gives in, setting in process a path that he knew would lead to his death.
But in a case like Samson's, it has to be factored in that a man may end his life because he considers his objective at the time to be of greater value than his own life. A soldier may charge the enemy knowing he will lose his life but kill many of their soldiers by doing so. This too was clearly present in Samson's decision. So again we are left with mixed motives, right at the end. And yet he will still be saved. God sees the good. 
Samson desired vengeance for the loss of his eyes, and as such hints at his earlier comments that he had done to the Philistines as they had done to him, and he felt his behaviour to them was somehow in terms of an eye for an eye, the lex talonis: "If you do this will I not be revenged against you, and after that I will cease?" (Jud. 15:7). "As they have done to me, so I have done to them" (Jud. 15:11). He kills 30 men because his wife betrayed him. He burnt up the corn harvest because the wife he had abandoned had remarried. His expectation that he has the right to sex with her after her remarriage is unreasonable and betrays a sense of over entitlement. He kills many people because his ex-wife had been executed by the Philistines. He kills a thousand men with a jawbone because the Philistine authorities tried to arrest him. He wrecks a city gate because he was angry with himself for sleeping with a whore. Now he wants to kill 3000 people because he has lost his sight. The revenge he took was always far more than an eye for an eye, even though he sees it all as justified, legitimate revenge within the terms of lex talonis ["If you do this will I not be revenged against you, and after that I will cease?" (Jud. 15:7)]. The Mosaic examples of an eye for an eye are always careful to insist that any such punishment must never exceed the harm initially done. Samson seems to have had a sense of over entitlement and a genuinely warped sense of equality / measure for measure. Possibly an overbearing mother and distant, weak and ineffective father contributed to this narcissism. We note of course that the Lord's teaching was that "an eye for an eye" was not anyway the ideal standard of spirituality. And yet God worked through this, to begin the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines. 
Like Paul and the crucified thief, Samson by his death came to a deep realization of the reality of judgment to come: "Remember me" must be read in this context. It carries the connotation of 'remember me for good and therefore forgive me at the judgment' in <a href='B:230 25:6-7'>Psa 25:6-7</a>; <a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a>. It seems that Nehemiah was inspired by this at his end (<a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>; did he too come to a finer realization of his failures at the end?). "Remember me" was a cry only used prior to Samson by men in weakness: <a href='B:10 15:8'>Gen 15:8</a>; <a href='B:60 7:7'>Jos 7:7</a>; <a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a> (Gideon, Samson's hero, had used it). Yet now Samson appropriates it to himself in faith that he will be mercifully treated at the judgment. And his example in turn inspired Nehemiah. The intensity of Samson's repentance was quite something. It must have inspired Manasseh (<a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a>), who like Samson was bound (16:21) and humbled (<a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a>; <a href='B:70 16:19'>Jdg 16:19</a> AVmg:)- and then repented with a like intensity. And Zedekiah went through the same basic experience, of capture by his enemies, having his eyes put out, his capture attributed to false gods; and he likewise repented (<a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>). &nbsp;</p><p>Samson is therefore listed amongst those who out of weakness were made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>). A character study of Samson must remember this about him. This could suggest that he was even weaker than a normal man; or it could be a reference to the way in which out of his final spiritual weakness and degradation he was so wonderfully strengthened.</p><p>But Samson's death plea for vengeance against the Philistines for his two eyes sounds woefully human. Indeed, the RSV and RVmg. speak of him asking for vengeance "for one of my two eyes", as if he felt that even if God gave the destruction he asked for, this would only half avenge him. This would indicate a real bitterness, an unGodly hatred of both sinner and sin. In some ways, for all the intensity of weeping before God in repentance (16:28 LXX), Samson had not progressed much from his attitude in <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>, over 20 years before- where he once again had admitted that his motive for 'seeking occasion against the Philistines' was partly just personal revenge. The spirit of not avenging oneself but leaving it to God to do was evidently something he never quite rose up to in his life (<a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a>). "That I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes" seems to be quite without any desire for the vindication of God’s Name. Although it seems to me it was wrong, and betrayed some unspirituality, yet it is taken as the epitome of the desire of all the faithful for vindication through the coming of Christ (<a href='B:730 6:10'>Rev 6:10</a>). Samson died therefore with some unconquered weakness, just as we will and as will our brethren. Yet we are assured in <a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a> that he will be saved in the end.</p><p>In the time of his humbling and mocking, in the wake of years of spiritual self-assurance, Job set such a clear prototype of Samson that Samson surely must have realized this, as he ground in the prison house. Job too suffered from blindness in his afflictions (<a href='B:220 11:20'>Job 11:20</a>; <a href='B:220 17:5'>Job 17:5</a>; <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>; <a href='B:220 30:12'>Job 30:12</a>).</p><p><a href='B:220 30:1'>Job 30:1</a> mocked by youth = <a href='B:70 16:26'>Jdg 16:26</a></p><p><a href='B:220 30:6'>Job 30:6</a> The wicked dwell in the rocks = <a href='B:70 15:8'>Jdg 15:8</a></p><p><a href='B:220 30:9'>Job 30:9</a> "Now I am their song, yes, I am their byword" = <a href='B:70 16:25'>Jdg 16:25</a></p><p><a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a> "He has loosed my cord and afflicted me" = In <a href='B:70 16:8'>Jdg 16:8</a> the same word is used of the cords with which Samson was bound, and which the Philistines loosed. Only a short time later God was afflicting him through Delilah (16:19)</p><p><a href='B:220 30:12'>Job 30:12</a> "Upon my right hand rise the youth; they push away my feet... they mar my path, they set forward my calamity". This indicates Job's poor eyesight and how the youth abused him. = This is exactly what happened to Samson. The lad made him dance, according to Jewish tradition, by poking Samson with sticks (16:25,26)</p><p><a href='B:220 30:17'>Job 30:17</a> "My bones are pierced in me in the night season: and my sinews take no rest". = Both Samson and Job came to fellowship something of the Lord's future cross: the unnatural darkness, the pierced bones, the constant ache of sinews: as Samson ground and danced, and as the Lord heaved Himself up and down on His sinews to breathe.</p><p><a href='B:220 30:19'>Job 30:19</a> "He has cast me into the mire (sometimes an idiom for prison), and I am become like dust and ashes" = As Samson in prison came to be like an ordinary man (dust and ashes; 16:11).</p><p><a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a> "I cry unto You... I stand up" = Samson cried to Yahweh, standing up (16:28)</p><p><a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a> "Howbeit he will not stretch out his hand to the grave" = Samson likewise would have come to the hope of personal resurrection.</p><p>According to Samson's appreciation of these links, so he would have reaped encouragement and hope. Job's last words were followed by a final humbling, and then the glorious justification of himself and the judgment of his enemies, to culminate in his future resurrection. One hopes that Samson saw the point and grasped hold of the hope offered. And this is not all. There were other words in Job which would have so comforted Samson at the end: "Behold, God is strong... He withdraws not His eyes from the righteous... and if they be bound in fetters, and be held in cords of affliction; then He shows them their work, and their transgressions that they have exceeded. He opens also their ear to discipline, and commands that they return from iniquity... but the hypocrites in heart... cry not (as Samson did) when He binds them" (<a href='B:220 36:5-13'>Job 36:5-13</a>).</p><p>There is further evidence, from later Scripture, that Samson's zeal was born from the word. A character study of Samson needs to consider what later Scripture implies about him. It seems that Jeremiah was one of several later characters who found inspiration in Samson, and alluded to him in their prayers to God, seeing the similarities between his spirit and theirs:</p><p>"O Yahweh [Samson only used the Yahweh Name at the end of his life], You know: remember me [as Samson asked to be remembered for good], and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors ["that I may at once be avenged of the Philistines"]... know that for Your sake I have suffered rebuke [the Philistines doubtless mocked Yahweh as well as Samson]. Your words were found, and I did eat them [cp. Samson loving the word and eating the honey which he "found" in the lion]: and Your word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart... I sat not in the assembly of the mockers... I sat alone because of Your hand [Samson's separation from an apostate Israel]... why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable?" [the finality of his blindness] (<a href='B:300 15:15-17'>Jer 15:15-17</a>). If these connections are valid, Samson's love of the word was a very big part of his life.</p>


text:
<p>Samson took hold of the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and leaned on them, one with his right hand and the other with his left- </p><p>The way he chose to destroy the Philistines at the end by bringing down the posts of their temple (16:29,30) has some connection with the way he chose to take up the posts of Gaza. Perhaps he remembered his earlier failure and repentance in Gaza, and now he was back there (16:21), he repented again and wished to replicate his earlier repentance and victory for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines! He pushed with all his might and the house fell on the lords and on all the people who were there. So he killed more in his death than he killed in his life-</p><p>Perhaps here we have finally some repentance in Samson. The request to die with the Philistines may be a statement that he recognizes he had wrongly married and given his heart to Philistine women, and he deserved to die with them. 
Samson's desire to die with the Philistines could be read as suicidal. In this case, he had elements of weakness at the end, and yet he was accepted as dying in faith. Or it could be understood that he wanted to die because he believed that through his death, he would achieve God’s plan for taking the gates of his enemies. In this case he would have had the spirit of Christ.</p><p>Samson's death was died in faith, and at his time of dying he had been made strong out of weakness, on account of his faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>). "Let me ('my soul', AVmg:) die with the Philistines" was surely a recognition that in his heart he had been a Philistine, for all his hatred of them and despising of them as uncircumcised, and thus outside the covenant (15:18). It could be that he was too hard on himself. Yet Samson wanted to receive the just desert for his life: to die with the Philistines. His mind may well have been on Scripture as he died, such as <a href='B:60 23:10-11'>Jos 23:10-11</a>, which spoke of how one man would chase a thousand (he had earlier appropriated this to himself in <a href='B:70 16:7'>Jdg 16:7</a>)- if Israel took good heed to their souls (AVmg:). And perhaps Samson realized that he hadn't taken good heed to his soul, and therefore had ultimately been unable to chase a thousand men. And yet he died in faith, even though with a deeply appreciated recognition of his sinfulness. As with Paul and Jacob, deep recognition of personal sinfulness was a feature of their spiritual maturity. And as with Jacob, Job and Moses, Samson seems to have reached a progressively higher appreciation of the Name of God. His calling on Yahweh Elohim at the end, weeping before Him, was the first and only time he ever used that title; and the first time we actually read the covenant Name on his lips (cp. <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>).</p><p>Samson's recalls the words of <a href='B:650 2:14-15'>Heb 2:14-15</a> about the Lord Jesus: "through death he (destroyed) him that had the power of death". Through His own death, Christ destroyed the power of sin, epitomized in the dead Philistines. <a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a> goes on to say that the Lord delivered "them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage". Those words are packed with allusions to the time of the judges- Israel in hard bondage to their Philistine masters, living in fear, until judges or 'deliverers' like Samson delivered them from their oppressors. The same great relief which Israel felt after Samson's deliverances of them, can be experienced by us spiritually. The sins, the doubts, the fears which we all have as we analyze our spiritual standing, should melt away when we recall the great deliverance which we have received.</p>&nbsp;<p>The final effort of Samson, both to speak and to act, bowing himself (Heb. 'stretching himself out to his full extension') with all his spiritual and physical energy: this was the final effort of the Lord. Again, we see in both how we are lead to a final crescendo of spiritual effort at the end of life, although this may be articulated in various forms.</p><p>Samson died with a confession of unworthiness on his lips- in his case, that he deserved to die the death of a Philistine (<a href='B:70 16:30'>Jdg 16:30</a>)- but he will actually be in the Kingdom (<a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then his brothers and all the household of his father came down and took him, and brought him up and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the burial site of Manoah his father. He had judged Israel for twenty years-</p><p>The way the body was taken up by brave Israelites after Samson's death recalls the action of Joseph and Nicodemus:&nbsp; It was no accident that he was buried in the very place where his conscience was first awakened (<a href='B:70 13:25'>Jdg 13:25</a>); he maybe asked for this burial place, to show he had at last returned to his innocent spiritual beginnings. And yet we reflect that it was that small area which he had been called to liberate from the Philistines. His ministry began there, and we read a few incidents of his lashing out at Philistines in that area. But he didn't fulfil his mission potential. He was intended to liberate that area, and this would be the beginning of deliverance of all Israel from the Philistines. But he failed, and died there. And in Jud. 18 the people of the area flee northward from the Philistines. Yet despite not living up to the potential which he could, should and might have attained... he will still be saved. 
Or we can reflect how the Philistines themselves described him as "our enemy, the destroyer of our country who has slain many of us" (Jud. 16:24). Which encourages us to think that in God's wisdom, He has intentionally chosen to just record Samson at his worst, the low points of his life. To demonstrate that a believer [as Hebrews 11 treats Samson] may have very low moments, poor motivations etc. and yet still be a believer. It's no bad exercise to mentally write a spiritual autobiography of yourself, recording only you at your lowest moments. And yet by grace through faith, you too will be saved eternally. 
</p>


text:
<p>There was a man of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah- </p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. <a href='B:70 18:30'>Jdg 18:30</a> speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and <a href='B:70 20:28'>Jdg 20:28</a> of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7. Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). See on <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>.</p><p>However, my considered take is that although there was an earlier migration of Danites from their inheritance as mentioned earlier in Judges, we will now read in Jud. 17,18 of the migration northward of just those Danites who lived in Samson's home area of Eshtaol. This is tacit acceptance that Samson had failed to liberate his local area, although God had set him up potentially to achieve this. So the record continues directly in the context of the Samson history. We note that in Deborah's time, the tribe of Dan at that time still remained in ships (Jud. 5:17), suggesting the Danites generally at that time had not yet left the territory assigned it by the sea.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his mother, The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which I heard you utter a curse - I took them. His mother said, Yahweh bless you my son-</p><p>One theme of the history of Dan is the mixture between flesh and spirit, and this was to come to full term in the life of Samson. His idolatrous mother blesses him by Yahweh, and she is an idolater. 1100 pieces of silver would imply that this woman was very wealthy, for 10 pieces of silver a year was a good salary (:10), and so the apostacy we are to read of would likely have been amongst the wealthy leadership class. She had cursed the thief, but when she found it was her son, she turns the curse into a blessing. We compare this with how Jephthah didn’t feel he could change such an oath once uttered. 1100 pieces of silver was exactly the amount of money which each prince of the Philistines was to pay Delilah for Samson's betrayal (<a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>). We wonder whether this woman may have been Delilah, or connected with her; for I gave some reasons for believing she was perhaps an Israelitess. Women typically didn't have money of their own; but this woman does, and Jud. 16 explains just how this may have come about. Sorek was on the border between Israelite and Philistine territory; and Samson grew up in Zorah and Eshtaol, on the northern sides of that valley. She refers to "the Philistines be upon you, Samson" as if neither she nor Samson were Philistines. Jud. 16:5 says that the Philistine leaders “went up” to her. We note that the camp of Dan, Zorah and Eshtaol are mentioned in Jud. 18:2,8,11,12, just as they are in Jud. 13. This also suggests that the storyline continues after Samson's death. Both Micah and Samson were from the tribe of Dan. We note too that the Hebrew translated "that were taken from you" could as well be rendered "that were taken by you". This would be so appropriate to Delilah. Yet they had been apparently stolen- and Micah admits to being the thief. It is quite credible that he would have been revolted by his mother's behaviour and therefore stole one of the 1100 shekel payments. 
If indeed the woman here was Delilah, it is also possible that Micah was the son of Samson and Delilah. It is psychologically credible that he resented what his mother had done to his father, and therefore stole the money paid to her. 'Delilah' uses the Yahweh Name, and Micah means 'Who is like Yah?'. The engraved and molten image[s] made with the money appear to be teraphim, and such family gods were usually made in memory of a dead father or ancestor; they were thought to be representations of their deceased spirits. Teraphim are associated with household worship in Gen. 31:19,34,35 (Rachel) and 1 Sam. 19:13,16 (Saul's daughter had teraphim in the form and size of a man, and placed it in a bed to double as her husband). It seems reasonable to guess that Micah's father had recently died... again inviting us to see the father as Samson, and the story of Jud. 17 following right on from the death of Samson in Jud. 16. The claim is often made that Jud. 17-21 come after Jud. 16, largely based on the account of Dan migrating northwards earlier in Judges. I suggest not all of them did, and the Danites around Samson did so only in Jud. 18. Higher critical theory is always seeking to argue for dislocation of Biblical texts, but careful reading usually shows this is all totally unnecessary. On the contrary, we see Jud. 17 and the rest of the story following on in perfect context from Jud. 16.
Micah stole money to make a molten image, but that image was in turn to be stolen from him by his Levite, one he trusted as his spiritual father and who was to him as a son (:11).
</p>


text:
<p>He returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother and she said, I solemnly dedicate my silver to Yahweh for my son to make an engraved image and a molten image. Then I will give it back to you- </p><p>The grammar is ambiguous. It could be a past perfect, “I indeed had dedicated”, or a performative perfect “I hereby solemnly dedicate". She had cursed her own son, although inadvertently, not knowing he was the thief. And curses were held to be of absolute power and veracity. This would explain why she immediately wants to spend the money on Yahweh and also on a molten image- to somehow reverse her curse she had placed on her own beloved son. Her comment in :2 "May Yahweh bless you" was a way of saying that she wished Yahweh to reverse her curse she had placed on her son, and replace it with a blessing. And yet in the end she only gives 200 of the silver pieces to this project. There are many Greek and Roman stories of a thief being cursed, fearing the oath and returning the stolen property- a part of which is then dedicated to a god. This could explain the ambiguity of "I solemnly dedicate / I had solemnly dedicated" the silver to Yahweh. She had dedicated 1100 to Yahweh, but her son stole it, she cursed him, he returned it- and so she now gives part of the sum to idol worship. And presumably the other 900 to Yahweh. We see how mixed were her motives and loyalties. Which is exactly the theme of the Samson story and this last section of Judges [Jud. 17-21]. 
It seems the idol was made from melting down the 200 silver pieces. The idol was therefore made from stolen silver, immediately casting a cloud over whether it could ever be legitimate in any religious context.
The idea seems to be that she would dedicate the money but somehow retain it within her power. His repentance therefore cost him nothing, and neither really did her supposed sacrifice to Yahweh; whereas it is a principle of sacrifice that it must cost us something, we must be left in deficit after it, in real terms (<a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>). We see how deeply Israel had fallen into thinking that idolatry was justified, because it was a form of Yahweh worship. Their later placing of idols in the temple of Yahweh could only really have happened on that basis. And this has been the abiding temptation and tendency for God’s people; to mix the flesh and the Spirit, to have a little of both, rather than making wholehearted commitment to Him. And it is seen too in the mixture of paganism with Biblical truths in the theology of standard Christianity.</p>


text:
<p>So he returned the money to his mother and she took two hundred pieces of it and gave them to the silversmith, who made it into an engraved image and a molten image, and they were put into Micah’s house- </p><p>And then the rest of the money she returned to Micah (see on :3). "Micah" means 'who is like Yah!'. His mother had named him like this and he probably would have agreed with his name, hence he kept it; but this was the mere externality of religious devotion. For clearly they were idolaters, wrongly claiming to serve Yahweh through serving idols. See on :3.</p><p>Or we can translate: "So he restored the money to his mother (and his mother took two hundred shekels), and she gave it to the founder". The 200 would be roughly one fifth of 1100, which means he may have given this to his mother in obedience to the Mosaic command of <a href='B:30 6:5'>Lev 6:5</a> for a thief to return the stolen goods with a one fifth restitution.. In which case we see how confused they all were, keeping parts of God’s law and having a genuine conscience towards God; whilst being idolaters and very ignorant of His ways.</p><p>Another reading is that the woman said she would give the 1100 shekels to make an image, but in reality she only gave two hundred shekels for this and kept the rest. There is a connection with how Achan keeps Babylonian idol paraphernalia and also 200 shekels of silver (Josh. 7:21).
The Hebrew word for "Micah" in :1 and :4 is Micayahu, who is like Yah. But after he has established his shrine / house of gods, he is called Mica, without the 'yah' suffix. His best efforts to apparently serve Yahweh meant that in fact Yahweh was removed from him. And that is the paradox of so much religiosity.


text:
<p>This man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and household gods and consecrated one of his sons to be his priest- </p><p>Micah was clearly a passionate religionist. The apostacy of such people was partly due to the failure of the priesthood. He therefore consecrated one of his sons to be a priest. Part of his apostacy, making his own holy place and ephod, was perhaps due to the fact that the sanctuary of Yahweh wasn't functioning properly. It was still in Shiloh (<a href='B:70 18:31'>Jdg 18:31</a>), but perhaps being abused as it was at the time of Eli, so that people didn’t wish to attend it. Individual failure is always personally culpable, but this isn't to say that spiritual leaders aren't also to be held accountable by God for it.</p><p>"Had a shrine" could suggest Micah already had a place for his idols, and he added the ephod and teraphim constructed with the stolen money. "A shrine" is better as AV "an house of gods". But a bait elohim could as well mean "a house of God" as "an house of gods". The very same phrase is found in Jud. 18:31 "the house of God that was at Shiloh". This ambiguity continues that noted earlier on :3. He worships both Yahweh and many gods, in the same house. "And he made..." suggests that in addition to the 200 pieces of silver melted down to make an idol, he additionally made an ephod and teraphim. Quite possibly with his mum's money. Bethel and Shiloh were nearby, famed for their sanctuaries, and Jud. 20:18-28 shows that the sanctuary at Bethel was in use at the time. But Micah wanted his own sanctuary and priest.
The record is clearly allusive to Dt. 27:14,15: "The Levites shall proclaim aloud to all the men of Israel, “Cursed is the man who makes a statue and molten image, an abomination to Yahweh, the work of an artificer’s hand, and places it in an occult place!”. All the people will respond and say, “Amen”". The Levite instead is blessing and participating in worship using a statue and molten image. Nah. 1:14 likewise refers to an idolatrous 'statue and molten image' within a 'house of god / elohim'. We recall that the Levites were chosen because they alone in Israel had killed Israelites who worshipped a molten image (Ex. 32:4,8). The Levite was a far cry from the intention for the Levites in Dt. 33.10: "They will teach Your decrees to Jacob and Your law to Israel, they place incense under Your nostrils, and a sacrifice on Your altar", at the place Yahweh chose- not the altar of an idol shrine.


text:
<p>In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes- </p><p>The contrast is with how they did evil in the eyes of Yahweh (Jud. 3:7). Their eyes were seeing the opposite of God's eyes. And that is exactly what we are reading here in this story of Micah. What they thought was right in their eyes was evil in God's eyes. </p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn’t want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn’t base their view upon God’s word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p>


text:
<p>There was a young Levite who had been living in Bethlehem Judah- </p><p>Note the triple mention of the fact this Levite was from Bethlehem Judah, which wasn't a priestly city. Nor is he presented as living near any of the noted sanctuaries of Yahweh: Shechem, Shiloh, Gilgal, Mizpah, Bethel, Penuel or Hebron. We note the surprise of the Danites when they learn he is a Levite: "Who led you here? What are you doing in this place? What do you have here?” (Jud. 18:3).  They are surprised to find a Levite not in a Levitical city nor at a sanctuary. He is repeatedly characterized in the record as not really being a Levite in practice. We could render "from the tribe of Judah". Yet he was also a Levite, a potential king-priest, seen as of great significance. And yet we will learn in Jud. 18:31 he was descended not from Aaron but from Moses, and therfore unqualified to act as a Levite.
I suggested on :3-5 that the apostacy of Micah and others like him was partly a result of the Levites to teach them a better way. And the absence of Levitical teachers, and the apparent non functioning of the sanctuary, would in turn have been a result of the people not paying tithes to the Levites so that they could do this teaching work. And so everything had spiraled downwards. Bethlehem was not a priestly city, and so this Levite had been living there but not working as a Levite. Presumably because his home city was a place where the tithes were not paid, this Levite had gone to live in Bethlehem looking for work.</p>


text:
<p>and he left the city to find a better place, and came to the hill country of Ephraim to the house of Micah- </p><p>A Levite leaving Bethlehem is exactly what we have in Jud. 19. The clear connection is perhaps to suggest that in fact nothing was learnt from these tragic events in Jud. 17,18, and the mistakes were repeated.
The Levites had no inheritance of land, and so life was extremely difficult for them when they were not paid tithes by the other Israelites. They became like this man, wandering labourers who went looking for any kind of work just to keep them alive. He perhaps went to the house of Micah because he was evidently wealthy; for his mother had 1100 pieces of silver to spend on religion, when&nbsp; a good salary was 10 pieces / year. That money was 110 years of good salary. The Levite likely went there in the hope of finding work in the house of a rich man.</p>


text:
<p>Micah said to him, Where have you come from? He said to him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem Judah, and I am looking for a place to live- </p><p>Not having their own land, the Levites were homeless when the tithes weren't paid, or if their priestly allotment was taken from them by the tribe where the priestly city was. I noted on the distribution of the priestly cities in Joshua that many were in areas not subdued by Israel, or in remote, peripheral regions. So the Levites became landless labourers, often homeless.</p><p>Quite possibly there is the intended contrast with the command for the Levite to travel to the place Yahweh would choose, and serve there: "If a Levite comes from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he lives as a foreigner, and comes with all the desire of his soul to the place which Yahweh shall choose, then he shall minister in the name of Yahweh" (Dt. 18:6,7). This Levite is just wandering around looking for a job in any place. Time and again, this Levite is presented as doing and being the exact opposite of what a Levite was intended to do. The implication of the record is that he was looking for a paid position as a priest, whereas the Levites were to live from the tithes of the people.
The allusion is to how Eli's descendants would beg for a piece of silver in return for priestly work (1 Sam. 2:36). This man was not blessed. The priests were intended to live from their portion of the sacrifices, but clearly they wanted payment in cash not kind and so had departed from those commands. 


text:
<p>Micah said to him, Live with me and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver per year, a suit of clothing and your food. So the Levite agreed-</p><p>Micah asked the young Levite, who was “unto him as one of his sons”, to “be unto me a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 17:10-11'>Jdg 17:10-11</a> - note the paradox), resulting in others likewise asking him to “be unto us a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 18:19'>Jdg 18:19</a>). The point is, no matter how unqualified a person may be for the job, they may be pressed into being leaders because that’s what nominally religious people so desperately need. They need someone to call 'father'; and it seems Pharaoh treated Joseph in the same way (<a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a>). It is very noticeable amongst those who are themselves senior or heads of some kind of group, be it domestically or in the workplace. The way the Lord forbad this (<a href='B:470 23:9'>Mat 23:9</a>) was therefore tantamount to disallowing any merely 'religious' approach to God. He personally was to be understood as Father, and a personal relationship developed with Him.</p><p>The priests were to be from the line of Aaron, whereas this Levite was a descendant of Moses (Jud. 18:30). Not all Levites were priests. Again we see how the whole situation was only an appearance of obedience to Mosaic law when in fact they were all being totally disobedient. It's not hard to see the similarities with various forms of high church Christian religions. But we need to look at our own lives and possibilities of being the same. For this is the difference between religion and spirituality. The prophets condemn priests selling their services (Hos. 4:4-10, Mic. 3:5-8). But Micah's hiring of the Levite was seen by him as his generosity to Yahweh. Again and again we see this mixture of flesh and Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The young Levite was content to dwell with the man and became unto him as one of his sons- </p><p>The paradox is that this young man was wanted by Micah as a father to him. Even though he was of an age and maturity to merely be Micah's son. It was as if Micah's religious impulse led him to by all means want someone to be his spiritual senior, no matter how young or unqualified they were. And we see precisely this mentality in all cultures of our world today.</p><p>These words are an exact quotation of Ex. 2:21: “And it pleased Moses to dwell with the man”. The Levite was a descendant of Moses (Jud. 18:30). We are again given the impression of a man externally imitating a righteous man, but out of context- and in fact going against the spirit of that righteous man.</p>


text:
<p>Micah consecrated the Levite, and the young man became his priest, living in his house-</p><p>It was priests who were to consecrate Levites; but Micah is just taking bits and pieces from God’s true religion and making them part of his own do it yourself religious system. And we see this going on all the time, both now and historically. Biblical verses and precedents are taken quite out of context, and mixed in with paganism and human ways. And every reference to consecration of priests so far in the Bible have referred to consecration of the descendants of Aaron (Ex. 28:41; 29:9,33,35; Lev. 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num. 3:3). But the Levite was descended from Moses not Aaron (Jud. 18:30). He was also of mixed stock, also being from Judah. He wasn't even a pure Levite. But he lived in Micah's house, probably meaning he was accepted as part of Micah's household. The record often speaks of Micah's "house", whereas worship was meant to be in God's house.</p>


text:
<p>Then Micah said, Now know I that Yahweh will do good to me, since I have a Levite as my priest-</p><p>We feel almost sorry for Micah. He had a basic conscience, feeling struck by guilt that he had stolen a huge sum from his mother, equivalent to 110 years of good salary. He wants Yahweh in his life and His blessings, but he thinks it can be attained by mere externalities, and through worshipping other gods. He was desperate for teaching; and the Levite failed him in this, perhaps because he too had not been taught God’s ways and law. This relief that he is now blessed by God is as noted on :3- a relief that now his mother's curse on him as a thief has been cancelled out by Yahweh. Or so he thinks, because he predicates the removal of the curse upon Yahweh accepting his idol shrine now he has a Levite as a priest. The curse had no real power, and neither did his scheme to have it reversed. If he had believed solely in Yahweh, rather than in Yahweh plus evil powers and gods, he would have made less mistakes and had far greater peace. Just as for many today. But in this case, both the Levite and the molten image were removed from Micah- in God's higher purpose, to try to lead him to repentance before God, and trusting in Yahweh's directly mediated blessing. There is intentionally no comment as to whether this achieved the intended end. We are left to ponder that, because that is one of the intended lessons of the story.
</p>


text:
<p>In those days there was no king in Israel- </p><p>This seems to repeat <a href='B:70 17:6'>Jdg 17:6</a> "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes". &nbsp;</p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn’t want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn’t base their view upon God’s word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p><p>And at that time the tribe of the Danites looked for a place to live in, because up until then they had not come into their inheritance among the tribes of Israel- </p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God’s punishment of Israel. Likewise "the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>). In similar vein, He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there.</p><p>I suggested on Jud. 17:1 that the story line continues directly from the death of Samson to Delilah and her son making an idol. We note that the camp of Dan, Zorah and Eshtaol are mentioned in Jud. 18:2,8,11,12, just as they are in Jud. 13. The Spirit of God had moved Samson to deliver his tribe Dan from the Philistines in that very area (Jud. 13:25), but he hadn't lived up to that potential. In Samson's time, the tribe of Dan had not possessed the land given to them (Josh. 19:47,48). In Jud. 18 we read of how they gave up, and went up north to drive the people of Laish out of their territory, rather than dealing with the Philistines and having their intended  tribal allotment. Samson was their potential means for inheriting the land they were supposed to. The Spirit moved him to be sensitive to this. Yet as we see in Jud. 15, they were prepared to live with the Philistines reigning over them. Samson perceived the potential and wanted to realize it; but his people didn't. And he himself failed to realize his own personal potential. Had he liberated Dan from the Philistines as God potentially enabled, the whole miserable story of Jud. 17-21 need never have happened. Yet he still will be saved, according to Hebrews 11.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Dan sent five men of their family, men of valour, from Zorah and from Eshtaol, to spy out the land and to search it, and they said to them, Go, explore the land! They came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, and lodged there- </p><p>Zorah was Samson's hometown, and I suggested on <a href='B:70 17:1'>Jdg 17:1</a> that Judges 17-21 is further background about Samson. We see then that Samson's people had not inherited the land intended because they had not driven out the local inhabitants as God intended, and as was therefore potentially possible. And therefore they were looking to get more living space by settling another area which was easier to take over, taking a short cut to the Kingdom. The invasion of Laish (:7) was because "The children of Dan did not drive out the Amorite who afflicted them in the mountain; and the Amorite would not suffer them to come down into the valley, but they forcibly took from them the border of their portion" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> LXX).</p>


text:
<p>When they were near the house of Micah they recognized the voice of the young Levite, so they went in there and said to him, Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? Why are you here?-</p><p>"Regarded the voice" may mean they noted that he had a different accent, and this corroborates with the way Ephraimites had a different accent to other Israelites (<a href='B:70 12:6'>Jdg 12:6</a>). Such internal harmony within the Biblical records is to me the clearest evidence of Divine inspiration.</p>
<p>We note the surprise of the Danites when they learn he is a Levite: "Who led you here? What are you doing in this place? What do you have here?” (Jud. 18:3).  They are surprised to find a Levite not in a Levitical city nor at a sanctuary. See on Jud. 17:7.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, This is what Micah has done with me, and he has hired me to be his priest-</p><p>This presumably implies that he showed them the ephod and other imitations of the tabernacle which Micah had made. The reference to the priest as a hireling is negative; for the Lord speaks of false shepherds as hirelings in Jn. 10. The way he quits Micah for the Danites presents him as a mercenary with no real care for his flock, and certainly not the spiritual 'father' that Micah hired him as. One cannot buy such relationships.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, Please enquire of God to find out whether our journey will be successful-</p><p>We see again the deep religious conscience within these men of Dan, although it was so misplaced and mixed with idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>The priest said to them, Go in peace. Your way has the approval of Yahweh- </p><p>We get the impression that he just said this without making any semblance of looking at the mock ephod and urim and thummim which Micah had made. To claim to give Yahweh's approval in such an arbitrary way was really quite blasphemous. We think of how Nathan too quickly assumed God wanted to approve David's plan to build a temple; and how Micah initially told the king "Go up and prosper; and Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king" (1 Kings 22:15) when in fact this was not God's word. We too can assume we know God's will when in fact we don't. "Your way is before Yahweh" could be read as the Levite saying that Yahweh and not the elohim / idol gods could know their way. He uses a Hebrew word which can mean "in front of" or “opposite”. He is hedging his bets and being purposefully ambiguous. He does not in fact have a prophetic word from God. Priests were consulted before warfare (1 Sam. 14:41; 23:9–13; 30:7,8; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19). They were intended to give inspired oracles from God, but using the urim and thummim: "Of Levi He said, Your Thummim and your Urim are with Your holy one" (Dt. 33:8). But here this Levite, who is not a priest, apparently gives God's word of blessing for warfare against their own brethren; and he does so without Urim and Thummim, the stones which were attached to the breastplate. Again we see how form has eclipsed content.</p>


text:
<p>Then the five men departed and came to Laish. They saw that the people there lived in security like the Sidonians, quiet and unsuspecting, and they were prosperous, lacking nothing- </p><p>See on :2. <a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a> says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (<a href='B:60 18:27'>Jos 18:27</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7'>Jdg 18:7</a>). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p><p>Also they were far from the Sidonians and had no dealings with anyone else-</p><p>"With anyone else" could be "with Syria". They were on the very border of Syria. The idea would be that they were too far from Sidon to be helped by them, and had nothing to do with Syria over the border. This change to "Syria" requires only a 'daleph' and 'resh' to be confused in the Hebrew alphabet; and these letters have only a miniscule difference which in early printed form is often obscure. This would be an example of the Divinely inspired Bible being infallible apart from having some errors caused by copyists.</p><p>"Had no dealings with any man" could be rendered "There was a dearth of heirs", and therefore nobody to dispute the theft of their inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>The men returned to their brothers to Zorah and Eshtaol, and their brothers asked them, What did you find?-</p><p>The business of sending out spies, who return with a good report which is eagerly believed by their brethren, all has a kind of similarity to the spying out of the land of Canaan at the conquest. LXX "what did ye bring back?" recalls the fruit of the land being brought back to show the Israelites by Joshua and Caleb. And so is developed the theme of misplaced idealism. For they ought to have taken the land allotment which God gave them. But they didn’t and sought an easier way, by attacking softer targets elsewhere. Samson himself had shown this mixture of spirituality and human thinking.</p>


text:
<p>They said, Come on, let us go up against them, because we have seen the land, and it is very good. Do you doubt? Don’t hesitate; go in to take possession of the land- </p><p>As discussed on :2,8, they are mixing the flesh and the Spirit. They quote the words of Moses and Joshua about the land of Israel being a good land, and urge each other to take possess "of the land". But they had ignored that commandment and had not taken possession of "the land". Instead they were using those words to encourage themselves to massacre a group of unsuspecting people in a very limited "land".</p>


text:
<p>When you get there, you will find an unsuspecting people, and the land is large. God has given it to you, a place where there is no lack of anything that is in the earth- </p><p>The men of Dan here quote the words of <a href='B:50 8:9'>Deu 8:9</a>, but out of context. Those words were true of the entire land promised to Abraham. But the men of Dan didn’t drive out the tribes from the land. Instead, they applied these words to a tiny, remote part of it in Laish, and encouraged themselves on the basis of these words to go and massacre a group of unsuspecting people and take their land- with the blessing of Micah's false gods. We note that the Danites are wrongly confident of God's blessing; just as Micah was, when he says he is sure Yahweh will bless him because he has a Levite as a priest for his shrine of idols (Jud. 17:13).</p>


text:
<p>Six hundred armed men of the family of the Danites set out from there, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol- </p><p>I have noted on previous verses that the Danites were liking to imagine that they were as Israel going up from Egypt to inherit the land of Canaan. In fact, they were leaving the area in the land they had been faithless to inherit, and were going to inherit just a tiny area where the people were weak. But they encourage themselves by alluding to the words of Joshua and Moses about inheriting the entire land. We therefore note that the 600 men "armed" or 'in ranks' may be seen as intended to imitate the six hundred thousand 'men in ranks' of Israel as they marched toward Canaan (<a href='B:40 11:21'>Num 11:21</a>). However, a group of "six hundred men" is found so often in the records that we suspect that it may not be literal, but rather refer to a military unit or subdivision (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>; <a href='B:70 18:11'>Jdg 18:11</a>; <a href='B:70 20:47'>Jdg 20:47</a>; <a href='B:90 13:15'>1Sa 13:15</a>; <a href='B:90 14:2'>1Sa 14:2</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 27:2'>1Sa 27:2</a>; <a href='B:90 30:9'>1Sa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:100 15:18'>2Sa 15:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They went up and encamped in Kiriath Jearim in Judah. That is why they called that place The Camp of Dan, to this day; it is behind Kiriath Jearim- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God’s Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God’s word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>They went from there to the hill country of Ephraim, and came to the house of Micah-</p><p>For 600 men to visit Micah would suggest that he was a well known leader in the area. We noted earlier that his mother gave him 1100 shekels of silver at a time when a good salary was 10 shekels / year:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the five men who went to spy out the country of Laish said to their brothers, Do you know that there is in these houses an ephod and household gods, an engraved image and a molten image? Now therefore consider what you have to do- </p><p>The five spies had come to Micah for blessing on their journey, and obviously thought that Micah's set up of false gods modelled around imitations of Yahweh's sanctuary, along with a Levite for a priest, was all pretty cool. And they coveted it all for themselves. As in :25, they speak of their criminal and violent intents in an indirect way.</p>


text:
<p>They turned in there and came to the house of the young Levite, to the house of Micah, and asked him how he was- </p><p>They focus upon the Levite; he was clearly aware of their intentions, and was eventually not against them, as he saw he would get more income from being a spiritual father to a larger group. The landless Levite labourer who had come looking for work with Micah... became covetous and ended up with an excellent income.</p>


text:
<p>The six hundred armed men of Dan stood by the entrance of the gate- </p><p>They clearly so coveted Yahweh's supposed presence and help through the idols that they were willing to steal and kidnap to get it. They show the mixture of flesh and Spirit, of misplaced ideals, which were so typical of Samson their judge.</p>


text:
<p>The five men who had gone to spy out the land went in there and took the engraved image, the ephod, the household gods and the molten image; and the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred armed men- </p><p>The idol paraphernalia required five men to carry it. It was not therefore huge.</p>


text:
<p>When these men went into Micah’s house and fetched the engraved image, the ephod, the household gods and the molten image- </p><p>The ephod was an imitation of the high priestly breastplate. The Hebrew reads strangely, as if the engraved image was the ephod, or closely associated with it. We fear that they had actually made an idolatrous image of Yahweh, exactly what he had forbidden. And they were worshipping the Baals in the name of Yahweh worship.</p><p>The priest said to them, What are you doing?- </p><p>The Levite was initially shocked, but soon went along with their evil plans. Although effectively they kidnapped him (:19).</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, Keep quiet, put your hand on your mouth and go with us, and be unto us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and a family in Israel-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 17:11'>Jdg 17:11</a>. Micah had asked the young Levite, who was “unto him as one of his sons”, to “be unto me a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 17:10-11'>Jdg 17:10-11</a> - note the paradox), resulting in others likewise asking him to “be unto us a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 18:19'>Jdg 18:19</a>). The point is, no matter how unqualified a person may be for the job, they may be pressed into being leaders because that’s what nominally religious people so desperately need. They need someone to call 'father'; and it seems Pharaoh treated Joseph in the same way (<a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a>). It is very noticeable amongst those who are themselves senior or heads of some kind of group, be it domestically or in the workplace. The way the Lord forbad this (<a href='B:470 23:9'>Mat 23:9</a>) was therefore tantamount to disallowing any merely 'religious' approach to God. He personally was to be understood as Father, and a personal relationship developed with Him.</p>


text:
<p>The priest’s heart was glad, and he took the ephod, the household gods and the engraved image, and went with the people- </p><p>Why was he glad? Probably his motives were mixed, for that is the theme of this history of the tribe of Dan at this time. He was glad he could 'serve' more people, in his mixed up way, even though he was an idolater; and also glad at the offer, presumably, of more money than he was previously earning.</p><p>The ephod was only worn by the High Priest and had the urim and thummim within it to give answers. The priest gave a supposed answer from Yahweh to the Danites, using an ephod without the urim and thummim. The hollowness of spirituality is apparent.
"With the people" is literally “went in the midst of the people” - perhaps for his personal security; but more probably in imitation of the place appointed for the priests and the ark, in the middle of the congregated tribes, on the marches through the wilderness. Again we see the theme of surface level spirituality and allusion to Biblical ideas, but out of context and in fact as a front for sinful behaviour.
</p>


text:
<p>So they turned and departed, putting the little ones, the livestock and the goods in front of them- </p><p>Fearful that Micah would chase after them and attack them from the rear. Although Micah was outnumbered, he was so passionate about his idols and his priest that he was deemed capable of a very vicious attack upon them. Again we see the mixed motives of men at this time, burning down one side for Yahweh, and down the other for the flesh and idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>When they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men who were in the houses near to Micah’s house were gathered together and overtook the Danites- </p><p>Not only Micah but the folks in his village were passionately devoted to those idols. It wasn't a case of just making some more, but rather were they very deeply devoted to them. Again we see the mixed motives in them all. Chasing after those who had stolen teraphim is an exact repeat of Laban's behaviour against Jacob. But whilst Micah was open to vague Biblical allusions to support his apostasy, he failed to see the more pointed personal parallels between himself and the unspiritual Laban. We note the positioning of the "little ones" and goods (:21), recalling Jacob's great "company", the word used in :23. Clearly Jacob and Laban are in view here, but Micah doesn't get it.</p>


text:
<p>They shouted after the Danites, who turned round and said to Micah, What is the matter with you that you come with such a company?-</p><p>Although they were just presumably a few houses, all the men must have armed themselves and charged out against this far superior force. As noted on :22, they were so passionate about their idols.</p>


text:
<p>He said, You have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and have gone away, and what else do I have? How then can you say to me, ‘What is the matter with you?’- </p><p>Despite his wealth and position within society, Micah told the truth when he said that his own little religion, paganic and perverting of Yahweh worship as it was, was everything to him. "What else do I have?" he dolefully and truthfully lamented. And we see this attitude in so many people. Their religion is by far the most powerful passion in their lives. But this doesn't thereby justify them as true believers, for Micah was far away from true worship of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The Danites said to him, Don’t argue with us, or angry fellows might attack you, and you will lose your life, with the lives of your household- </p><p>As in :14, they speak of their criminal and violent intents in an indirect way. They speak as typical criminals. 'You might just get attacked by a bunch of angry yobbos around here, you know. Best to go home, or else such a gang might not only kill you, but go to your houses and then murder all your families'. And yet they made this threat because they were so desperate to have those idols, which they thought meant Yahweh's blessing upon them. Again, we see how hopelessly mixed were their motives.</p>


text:
<p>The Danites went on their way, and when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back to his house- </p><p>Micah was willing to fight for his idols, such was his passion. But he realized he was outnumbered. A true believer in Yahweh would have believed that one in covenant with Yahweh could chase a thousand; and Judges has several examples of small groups defeating much larger armies. But Micah, for all his professed belief in Yahweh, was not a true believer, and assessed things in purely secular terms.</p>


text:
<p>They took what Micah had made and his priest and came to Laish, to a people unsuspecting and secure, and attacked them with the sword, and they burnt the city with fire- </p><p>Although Micah had paid for some of his idol paraphernalia to be made by others, he was ultimately the maker of it. The stress is that these things were what his hand had made. And there is an intended juxtaposition between their having the idols and the priest with them, and then slaying unsuspecting people without giving them the chance to first make peace and accept the God of Israel, as required in the law of Moses. They burnt the city with fire as if they were replicating Joshua's conquest of the land, again reflecting their terrible mixture of motives and desire to just take bits and pieces from Yahweh's ways and ignore the rest. Just as many do today. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>There was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon and they had no dealings with anyone else- </p><p>See on :7, probably "with Syria", the neighbouring power just over the border.</p><p>It was in the valley that lies by Beth Rehob. They built the city and lived there- </p><p>If they intended to live there, we enquire why they first burnt the city and then rebuilt it- when they could have lived in the houses already standing. I suggest that they burnt it because they wanted to appear to be following the law about devoting a city to Yahweh, and copying Joshua's example of burning some of the cities he took. But as explained in :27, they were utterly oblivious to whole masses of basic Mosaic teaching. Like many today, they thought that just obeying a few out of context Biblical principles would justify them living like any other unbeliever.</p>


text:
<p>They called the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born to Israel, but the name of the city before was Laish- </p><p>Unlike how Israel very often did, they didn’t allow the old names to remain, but renamed this after their ancestor Dan, meaning 'judgment'. Again we see an attempt to follow the culture of their Israelite religion on a surface level, when their hearts were far from it.</p>


text:
<p>The Danites set up for themselves the engraved image, and Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of Moses and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the time of the captivity of the land-</p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. Here, <a href='B:70 18:30'>Jdg 18:30</a> speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and <a href='B:70 20:28'>Jdg 20:28</a> of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7.</p><p>"The land" is "the ark" in some manuscripts. See on :31. But I see no reason why the Assyrian or Babylonian captivities are not in view; for Judges was rewritten or edited under Divine inspiration during the captivity. This would mean that the Danites in this peripheral location on the very borders of the land quietly continued their apostacy all through the various reforms of the kings, as well as the time of David. And this is really what we understand from the many laments that Israel had persistently and consistently worshipped idols throughout their generations.</p>


text:
<p>So they set up for themselves Micah’s engraved image which he had made, using it all the time that God’s house was in Shiloh- </p><p>Here and :30 emphasize the "engraved image", and I suggested on :18 that this could have been an image of Yahweh- exactly what was prohibited so strongly. Clearly they didn’t bother going to the sanctuary because they considered that they had their own absolutely legitimate sanctuary to Yahweh, replete with a direct descendant of Moses as priest. Even though he would not therefore have been a Levite. And they worshipped an image for Yahweh.</p><p>It is tempting to think that "until the captivity" in :30 is effectively parallel with 'the time God’s house was in Shiloh'. I noted on :30 that the captivity in view may have been of the ark, and not of the people to Babylon or Assyria. The house or sanctuary of God was in Shiloh only until the time of Saul. When the ark went into captivity with the Philistines, and the sanctuary moved to Nob and then to Gibeon in the time of David, the time period in view may have finished. However I suggest that out of the three recorded places where the sanctuary was located (Shiloh, Nob and Gibeon), Shiloh was the nearest of them to Dan. The idea may therefore be that even when the sanctuary was relatively near them, they didn’t go to it. They had their own sanctuary right in their own town. We note again the description of the sanctuary as "the house", even though no temple was then built- another reminder that these records were rewritten after the temple had been built, probably during the exile.</p><p>We must recall that Shiloh was nearby. The point is that despite having God's house close by, Micah seeks to build his own idolatrous house of God, and considers that he is worshipping Yahweh by so doing. The warning is to all who have a form of Godliness but deny the power / Spirit thereof (2 Tim. 3:5).  </p>


text:
<p>In those days, when there was no king in Israel-</p><p>This seems to repeat <a href='B:70 17:6'>Jdg 17:6</a> "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes". </p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn’t want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn’t base their view upon God’s word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p><p>There was a Levite living on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah- </p><p>Not having their own land, the Levites were homeless when the tithes weren't paid, or if their priestly allotment was taken from them by the tribe where the priestly city was. I noted on the distribution of the priestly cities in Joshua that many were in areas not subdued by Israel, or in remote, peripheral regions. So the Levites became landless labourers, often homeless. This Levite appears to have been somewhat better off, and had a relationship with a woman other than his wife from Judah, far from where he was living. He had presumably met her in his various travels as a landless man. But immediately we get the impression he is not going to be a spiritual man- for he had another woman apart from his wife.</p><p>This Levite is presented as very similar to that of Jud. 17,18. I suggest the following connections are too specific for this to be unintentional. Both are introduced with the comment that there was then no king in Israel. This Levite is a "wayfaring man", a traveller always on the move, who was living temporarily ["sojourning"] in mount Ephraim, and his concubine was from Bethlehem. The Levite of Jud. 17 is also presented as a traveller, a man of the road looking for a better deal. He too lived temporarily in mount Ephraim, at Micah's home. He too had lived in Bethlehem, which is where the Levite's concubine came from in Jud. 19. It's quite possible that the young Levite of Jud. 17 has now grown up, and his sons had become priests at Dan (Jud. 18:30). But he for whatever reason is now travelling again, possibly returning to live with Micah in mount Ephraim. We suggested earlier that Micah's parents were Samson and Delilah. In this case we see how the semi-spirituality of Samson led to the tokenistic version of spirituality of Jud. 17 and 18; and now that theme continues in Jud. 19-21. Here again we will see God's people doing externally the right thing, with allusion to God's law- when they were in fact just following their own flesh. Although Samson will be saved, his bad behaviour as a judge / leader of Israel for 20 years sowed these bad seeds. For he too was a complex mixture of flesh and Spirit, although God judged the "Spirit" side to be finally dominant. But those who followed his bad examples didn't have that strand of sincere faith and spirituality- and we see in Jud. 19-21 where that leads.</p>


text:
<p>His concubine was unfaithful to him, and went away from him to her father’s house to Bethlehem Judah, and was there for four months- </p><p>Again the impression is reinforced that neither this Levite nor his woman on the side were very spiritual people. He was effectively unfaithful to his wife, and she was unfaithful to him. The fact she left him and returned to her family may have been because she feared he would physically abuse her- which he eventually does by cutting up her body into parts, showing himself no better than the men who raped her to death. And suggesting she indeed had reason to fear his abuse. Her unfaithfulness to him could have been punished by death. And yet the huge fuss made about her death therefore seems inappropriate to the fact that in God’s book, she deserved death anyway.</p><p>"Unfaithful" is LXX "she scorned him". The record paints the Levite as someone the reader is also intended to scorn. The Hebrew can also be read as "she rejected him". It could be argued that the account sets up sympathy for the woman, although she has been unfaithful. People are unfaithful for a reason, and the reason is explained at length- the Levite was a sociopath and effective murderer, probably an alcoholic, a pig of a man despite his religiosity. Possibly the four months wait was to determine whether or not she was pregnant. It's possible that the trauma the woman went through was all the worse because she was pregnant. What appears to be the case on the surface is going to be revealed to be the very opposite- and that is a theme of Judges 13-21, that surface level spirituality conceals very raw flesh.
In the whole miserable story in Jud. 19-21, I personally have sympathy for none of the characters. They present as sinful and fully culpable for the consequences of their sins. But I do have sympathy for the concubine, and I suspect that's the intention of how the inspired narrative is written. She goes to her father for protection, but he hands her back to her husband. Her father presents as totally obsessed with socializing with the Levite rather than caring for his daughter. She is taken with the Levite probably against her will; for she has run away from him. She is presented as having no say in anything. She is grabbed [Heb.] by her husband and thrown out to a gang of rapists. She is used by them and then returns to her husband for protection. He doesn't even open the door. He is 'making merry' with the old man, the host; or possibly keeping a religious feast using bread and wine. She collapses on the doorstep. Her husband tells her to get up. But she is either dead or unconscious. She is taken by her husband and then cut into pieces to make a point. She is unloved, used and abused. And the men who were supposed to care for her actually abused her and failed her. But our first encounter with her is when we learn she has committed adultery and returned to her father. Adultery is of course wrong. But how many times has an adulterer been judged harshly and their partner praised as virtuous. When we know that the sins of the apparently innocent partner were very great, far greater than the adultery they provoked their partner to. And so it is here, I suggest. And so we go on through life, finding patience and comfort in these scriptures as we see basic human life repeat; there's nothing new under the sun. A misjudged woman 3000 years ago resonates with misjudged people in our age.
</p>


text:
<p>Her husband went after her to persuade her to return. He had his servant with him and a couple of donkeys, and she brought him into her father’s house. When her father saw him, he was pleased to meet him- </p><p> "To persuade her" is Heb. 'to speak to her heart'. The phrase is always used of sincere love or grace, given to one who didn't deserve it: God to unfaithful Israel (Is. 40:2; Hos. 2:14), Joseph to his brothers (Gen. 50:21), Boaz to Ruth (Ruth 2:13). Perhaps this is being described from his perspective; it was how the Levite wished to present himself as acting. Quite possibly he took this approach because he recognized that it was his behaviour which had driven her to her actions. We will soon read that he doesn't love her at all; and anyway, he spends his time drinking and feasting with her father rather than speaking to her. We are set up to see the Levite as insincere. I noted on :2 that the Levite hardly loved his concubine. And yet it seems that on another level he did. This is typical of the theme of mixed motives in Judges. We note too that girl's father seemed to like her married lover. We get the impression that this was a case of male drinking partners getting on well with each other, and not interested in the fact she had been unfaithful; they just wanted to get the family relationship back together. She may well have been pregnant by the Levite- hence his interest in having her back. ; he visits her after four months to see if she's pregnant, finds she is, and so he wants her back. For he couldn't have really loved her to cut up her body as he later does. The "couple" of donkeys were literally two donkeys (:2). As he was wealthy enough to have a concubine, a servant and donkeys, we wonder why he didn’t bring a third donkey- for the concubine to ride on. The conclusion is surely that he didn’t care for her; and his desire to get her back may well have been because she was pregnant with his child.</p><p>We note the similarities with the previous Levite just described in Jud. 17,18. He appears on the surface to do the right thing when he is hollow inside. So here, this Levite appears to do the right thing by ensuring he safely returns home his wife who had cheated on him. But his heart is very far from that. His apparent spirituality and love is just a disguise; the way he seizes her and pushes her out to her rapists, the way he talks to her limp body on the doorstep, the way he cuts her up and never laments her... shows he had only hatred and not love for her. The joyful father in law and apparent happy fellowship between the Levite and his  father in law... all belies his real feelings. The father of the concubine likewise presents as uncaring for his daughter. He may simply have been happy the marriage was going to be restored so he didn't have to return the bride price.

</p>


text:
<p>His father-in-law, the girl’s father, persuaded him to stay, and he stayed with him three days, eating and drinking and sleeping there-</p><p>Eating and drinking are associated with illicit sexual behaviour, so we wonder whether the "sleeping" was also in this area. Hence in :6 "enjoy yourself" comes after eating and drinking. We can assume that the drinking involved drinking alcohol to excess, and we note that the Levite mentions that he is carrying plenty of wine with him in :19. It all builds up the impression that this Levite is not a very spiritual person; and neither is his concubine nor her family.</p><p>"Persuaded" is literally to grasp or to force in some way. It is the same word used of how the Levite grasps / takes / forces the man's daughter and throws her out to the mercy of her rapists (:25) and how he grasps / takes her body and cuts it up. The same word is used of how Amnon seized / grasped Tamar to rape her (2 Sam. 13). The English translations blur these connections. The word definitely has the idea of forcing; Saul takes / grabs Samuel's robe until it tears (1 Sam. 15:27). We wonder if the father of the woman, possibly under the influence of alcohol, somehow forced the Levite, possibly in homosexual rape. For he forces the Levite to 'sleep the night'. The Levite's response to the man's daughter, his concubine, is therefore an understandable psychological response- although obviously so wrong. He would have gone his way so angry with the man, and with his daughter, his concubine. In this case, we can understand why someone commits a gross sin, we can discern the anger issues behind it, we can detect how he has transferred his anger onto the victim [in this case anger with the father was transferred to his daughter]... but perceiving the processes going on doesn't make the sin any less culpable. Be it theft, love of wealth, sexual perversion, unlove in any form...
However, we note the strong desire of the girl's father to entertain the Levite and restore the marriage. Quite possibly he was like Micah in the previous story- he thought that having a Levite in the family was sure to bring blessing. Again we see a case of form without content.
</p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day they arose early in the morning, and he got ready to depart- </p><p>LXX "he stood up to depart" could imply he had been drunk before that.</p><p>And the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, Strengthen yourself with something to eat and then go on your way- </p><p>The man clearly likes the Levite and wants him to stay with him at all costs, recalling the apostate Micah of Judges 17 by all means wanting the unspiritual Levite to stay with him.</p>


text:
<p>So they sat down, ate and drank together, and then the girl’s father said to the man, Please stay another night and enjoy yourself- </p><p>"Enjoy yourself" clearly suggests these men were drinking to excess and possibly misbehaving sexually; see on :4. AV "let thine heart be merry", the phrase used of the apostate Levite in <a href='B:70 18:20'>Jdg 18:20</a>  whom we have suggested may have been the same Levite: "The priest’s heart was glad". </p>


text:
<p>When the man got up to go, his father-in-law urged him to stay, so he stayed there again- </p><p>We get the impression that the Levite just couldn't resist the temptation to drink.</p>


text:
<p>On the fifth day he got up early to leave, and the girl’s father said, Please refresh yourself and stay until the afternoon; and they ate together- </p><p>They ate but didn’t drink together as planned. The girl's father managed to delay him until afternoon, when the logical time to start the journey was in the morning (:9). But the Levite can't make an early start because he is always so drunk the night before, and can't get up early. That is the clear implication. We get the impression of weak will and carnality in this man. The record focuses upon the two men; the girl, who may well have been pregnant which was why he wanted her back so as to claim the child, didn’t feature in their behaviour. The Levite is presented as not caring for her- building up to the impression that what he will do with her body and the fuss he will make is all hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>When the man, his concubine and his servant got up to leave, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, Look now, it’s nearly evening; please stay all night. Stay here and enjoy yourself, and tomorrow set off early and go home- </p><p>Afternoon was an unwise time to start the journey, as they would need to find somewhere to stay at night; and travel was dangerous and lonely after dark. The truth is, this Levite is so alcoholic that he was always drunk at night, and so early morning starts weren't what he was capable of.</p>


text:
<p>But the man wouldn’t stay that night; he got up and departed, and went towards Jebus (that is Jerusalem) with his two saddled donkeys and his concubine- </p><p>We are left to wonder as discussed on :3 why a man wealthy enough to have a servant, a concubine and donkeys didn’t bring a third donkey for the (pregnant?) concubine to ride. We get the impression from "his two donkeys and his concubine" that the concubine had to walk whilst he and his male servant rode the donkeys. Continually the impression is built up that he didn’t really care for the girl at all, and the outcry he was to make was hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>When they were near Jebus, the light was almost gone, and the servant said to his master, Please come and let us go into this city of the Jebusites, and stay the night there- </p><p>The servant was clearly fearful of travelling at night, knowing the dangers from wild animals and robbers. He had no particular fear of the Jebusites, showing that Israel was reconciled with the local inhabitants- because they worshipped the same gods.</p>


text:
<p>His master said to him, We won’t go into the city of a foreigner whose people are not Israelites; we will go on to Gibeah- </p><p>Again we see the theme of mixed hearts in Judges. The Levite is presented as very unspiritual; but he refuses association with non Israelites. He will not even sleep a night in a Gentile inn- although there was no Mosaic prohibition of coming into the home of a Gentile. We recall at the time of Peter that New Testament Judaism had made entering the home of a Gentile an unlawful thing. And it was the same hypocrisy behind this Levite here. The unspiritual Levite with his donkey is the image used by the Lord in His parable of the good Samaritan, and it also features an inn which the Levite refused to use to assist the injured man. The Lord therefore presents this Levite in a bad light.</p><p>We note the Levite left Bethlehem, David's home town, and encountered disaster at Gibeah, Saul's home town. Perhaps the idea is that departing from the house of David will lead to disaster. </p>


text:
<p>He said to his servant, Come and let us get to one of these places; we will spend the night in Gibeah or in Ramah-</p><p>These were about two or three hours journey further on from Jerusalem where they were.</p>


text:
<p>So they went on and towards evening they were near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin- </p><p>This was to be the "Gibeah of Saul". We note Saul was from such an unspiritual place with such an awful spiritual history. But for all that bad background, the Spirit of God would have turned him right around- had he wished it. For bad background is no obstacle to the transforming work of the Spirit. Gibeah was intended to be one of the Levitical cities and possibly one of the extra cities of refuge (Josh. 21:17 AV "Geba" is Gibeah). Josh. 24:33 ESV confirms this: "Eleazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him at Gibeah, the town of Phinehas his son, which had been given him in the hill country of Ephraim". The Levite went there expecting support, but didn't find it. He experienced what his wife did from her father. Yet "the Levite" is listed along with the widow, alien and orphan for whom all Israel had a special duty of care (Dt. 12:12,18,19; 14:27-29; 16:11-14; 26:11-13). We see the dysfunction and failure of religion. And how we experience in essence what we do to others, not as karma, but so that we might ourselves learn and repent. In this sense, God was even trying with that miserable Levite, to lead him to repentance. The men that should have provided him with support actually want to rape him. They act just like the men of Sodom. We are left to conclude that the Levite would have been better off staying with the Gentiles in Jebus than with the Israelites of a priestly city.</p>


text:
<p>They stopped there to spend the night in Gibeah. They went in and sat down in the street, because no-one took them into his house for the night-</p><p>Again (see on :12), the Lord may have this incident in mind when He says that He will condemn those at the judgement who in this life did not take in strangers (<a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a>). We are intended to reflect that he would have been better treated had he arrived in Jebus that night than he was amongst the Israelites in Gibeah. The fact nobody showed hospitality was a reflection of the unspirituality of Gibeah. "The street" is better 'the square'.</p>


text:
<p>In the evening there came an old man from his work in the field. He was from the hill country of Ephraim and he lived in Gibeah, but the men of the place were Benjamites- </p><p>He was therefore from the same area where the Levite was living (:1). This was surely Divine providence. Perhaps the men of Gibeah were so xenophobic that they also hated even this old man who was from another tribe. And the old man, being a stranger himself, was moved to show kindness to strangers. The more we perceive our own condition, the more natural it will be to reach out to others in that same condition. If we are convicted of our sin and God's grace towards us, we will more naturally and easily reach out with God's grace to other sinners. </p>


text:
<p>When he saw the traveller in the street the old man said, Where are you going? Where have you come from?- </p><p>These words are a direct quote of the Angel's words to Hagar, when she is fleeing from Sarah and has nowhere to go, and faces death and danger alone in the desert (<a href='B:10 16:8'>Gen 16:8</a>). Clearly the old man was faithful to Yahweh and immediately thought in terms of Biblical and spiritual precedent, and wished to act as the Angel had acted to Hagar when He 'found' her. We should be the same, always thinking in terms of Biblical precedent. But it is also the old man who offers the mob his daughter and the Levite's concubine; so concerned is he to follow the culture of hospitality and preserve his own pride of face. </p>


text:
<p>He said to him, We are on our way from Bethlehem Judah to the far side of the hill country of Ephraim. I am from there and I have been in Bethlehem Judah. I am going to the house of Yahweh, and no-one has taken me into his house- </p><p>This was a lie; the man was returning home, and not going to Bethel or to the sanctuary of Yahweh. We note the term "house of Yahweh" again indicates the records here were edited [under Divine inspiration] during the exile, or at least after the temple had been built. The Levite may mean that he was a Levite who served in God’s house, and therefore Israel ought to have taken him into their houses; but they were so apostate and even against Yahweh's sanctuary and the Levites that they did not. He may also be implying that it was because he served in Yahweh's house that these apostates wouldn't have him in their houses. Which may have been true, but was very hypocritical for a man who has been drunk the last five days. Maybe indeed the Benjamites despised the sanctuary of Yahweh, and the Levites; and this was the real reason why Yahweh allowed their destruction at the hands of the brethren.</p>


text:
<p>Yet we have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine also for me and for the maidservant and for the young man who is with us. We don’t need anything- </p><p>The fact the Levite mentions he has plenty of wine with him suggests he may well have been an alcoholic; for we recall him drinking wine to excess with his woman's father for some days before this journey. It all builds up the impression that this Levite with his donkey is not a very spiritual person, and the Lord's parable of the good Samaritan may well have this Levite in view- presenting him as an unspiritual man. Even worse, the bread and wine and ample provision could suggest that the Levite suggests that they enjoy spiritual fellowship and keep some kind of religious feast, presumably to Yahweh. They were interrupted in doing so by the mob, pushed their women out of the door to be gang raped... whilst they got on with their religion. Again we see how form had eclipsed content.</p>


text:
<p>The old man said, Peace to you! But I will provide for you; don’t stay all night in the street-</p><p>The story is clearly a repeat of the actions of Lot toward the Angels he met on the streets of Sodom. Again we are asked to see that situations repeat within the lives of God’s servants. And we are to perceive this, being always comforted that we are not alone; the biographies we have in the Bible are to comfort us that we are not travelling unchartered territory, no experience is not completely unique to us. We begin thinking that the old man is going to be a kindly Godly figure. But again we are disappointed- for he offers his own daughter to the mob, and does nothing to help the abused concubine who collapses with her hands on his doorstep, begging for shelter in his house- and doesn't find it from her. Like the concubine's father, the old man is eager to provide hospitality to the Levite, but couldn't care for his concubine. </p>


text:
<p>So he brought him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder, and they washed their feet and ate and drank-</p><p>The old man comes over as spiritually minded (:17) and although an old man, like a true seed of Abraham, still entertaining strangers:&nbsp;  But as discussed on :20, this was all just a surface appearance. Constantly in these accounts we find that first impressions aren't true. </p>


text:
<p>As they were enjoying themselves- </p><p>The same phrase is used about how the Levite got drunk repeatedly with his father in law. The Levite basically tells the old man that he has wine with him and they can have a nice time together with it, if he stays at his place (:19).</p><p>The wicked men of the city surrounded the house, beating on the door; they said to the owner of the house, the old man, Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may have sex with him!-</p><p>This is a repeat of the situation in Sodom, and "that righteous man" Lot is paralleled in the old man- weak, but spiritual and with God in his heart. The Hebrew stresses: "Some of the wicked men of the city". Not all the men of the city, nor all of the wicked men, just some of them. One lesson from the story is that the a whole community should not be punished for the sins of a minority. As a result of this surrounding of one house, Gibeah was to be surrounded and totally destroyed (Jud. 20:29).
The desire to rape the Levite was not merely a matter of sexual lust. If a man raped a man, the victim was seen as feminized, and the rapist had thereby shown his power over the victim. The desire to rape was therefore also related to xenophobia and hatred of the Levite. And yet Gibeah was supposed to be a priestly city, where the Levite should get a warm, supportive welcome. Just as his wife's father's home ought to have been a safe space for her.
</p>


text:
<p>The owner of the house went out to them and said to them, No my brothers, please don’t act so wickedly; since this man is my guest don’t do this disgraceful thing- </p><p>The culture of protecting guests was very strong, and the care of the man was partly from pride, and partly from genuine concern to protect a Levite. Again, as always in Judges 17-21, a case of mixed motives. The man says that to rape his visitor would be "wicked" and a "disgraceful thing". But he apparently thought that the mob raping his daughter and the visitor's wife would not be anything like so "wicked". Even though the term for "disgraceful thing" is used in God's word about rape and sexual immorality (Gen. 34:7; Dt. 22:20,21). Possibly he thought that the example of Lot ["that righteous man"] justified him. Lot offered two women to the mob, his two daughters. Maybe that's why the old man offers not only his daughter but another woman, the Levite's concubine. This would continue the theme of merely following Biblical precedent in a cardboard, lifeless way, whilst ignoring the Bible's deeper moral teaching- in this case, that rape of a woman and sexual immorality is a "disgraceful thing". </p>


text:
<p>Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out now and you can use them and do with them what seems good unto you, but don’t do any such disgusting thing to this man- </p><p>The old man perceived, surely, the similarities with Lot in Sodom. For we saw on :17 how he knew the book of Genesis very well, and had already quoted from Genesis 17. And the events of Lot in Sodom were only a little later, in Genesis 19. So it may be that he made this desperate offer thinking that he was justified in it by Lot. He failed to perceive that the Biblical characters are not at all spotlessly righteous, and it is for us to perceive that and learn from their mistakes- rather than taking a simplistic approach which considers them all as pale faced, perfect saints. The wrath of Israel was upon Benjamin and Gibeah for what was done. But they were overlooking the fact that this man of Ephraim, with the full consent of the Levite, had in fact offered the Levite's concubine to these men. They had even invited them to do "whatever seems good unto you". And the men did so. And yet Israel's wrath ignores all this and focuses instead upon those they wish to focus their wrath upon. There is very much injustice and lack of consideration of all factors in their judgment of the situation. And one of the lessons from the errors all around in this narrative is that we are not to judge- simply because we cannot judge. We are incapable of factoring in everything. The similarities with Gen. 19 are clear:
- Travellers arrive in the city in the evening.
- A man who is himself an alien notices them in the street / square
- The travellers plan to spend the night in the open 
- At the insistence of the host, the travellers agree to spend the night in his house.
- The host washes the guests’ feet (implied in Gen. 19:2,3) 
- Host and guests share in a fellowship meal.
- Base men of the city surround the house.
- They demand that the host "bring out" [both times] his male guests ["them that have come to you" used both times] to them that they might commit homosexual gang rape.
- The host protests this display of wickedness.
- When the protests prove futile, the hosts hand over a substitute female, a "virgin" involved both times, inviting the mob to "do to them what is good in your eyes", but not to the guest[s]. Both Lot and the old host "went out to them". Both times, the offer doesn't satisfy the mob.
- Both men use hospitality culture as an excuse to do the wrong thing.
The clear similarities and points of contrast with the scene in Gen. 19 invite us to see an inversion of things. The visitors were not Angels, here they are a Levite and his wife. The old man offers his guest's wife and not just his daughter to gratify them (:24). Indeed in :24 he uses the word for "rape", which Lot doesn't do. On one hand, he seeks to show himself a wonderful host. But offering your guest's wife to rapists rather undermines that image. His apparent extreme hospitality culture is undercut by his failure to be even basically hospitable. And he is only externally, mechanically following the similarities with Lot. Lot was threatened personally, with the door shut behind him, talking to the mob. The old man isn't personally in such danger as Lot was.
The Hebrew is literally "do to them what is good in your eyes". This continues the theme of Judges, that without a king, Israel did what was good in their own eyes. And that "good" was shown here to be gang rape. Clearly and powerfully the point is made: If man is left to do whatever he finds good in his eyes, then this is where it leads. There has to be some moral restraint and submission beneath good moral leadership.
We note it was the old man who offered the Levite's concubine to the mob. Our first impression of a kindly, hospitable old man is again questioned. Presumably the Levite had presented his concubine to the old man as a woman he didn't love, who had been unfaithful to him and was worthless to him. And the Levite makes no attempt to persuade the host to solely offer his own virgin daughter to the mob. Again and again we see how surface level impressions are shown as a thin veneer. And we are thereby constantly bidden to self examination.
</p>


text:
<p>But the men wouldn’t listen to him, so the man took his concubine and brought her out to them and they raped her and abused her all night until the morning, and when the day began to dawn they let her go- </p><p>This fact was not given its full weight. It was the Levite who had given his concubine to them. Instead of giving his life for his wife, he gave her to humiliation and death in order to save his own skin. Again we see that the Levite didn’t love the woman. And if he had, he would not have cut her body up. Perhaps he justified himself by thinking of how Abraham and Isaac had [wrongly] given up their wives to save their own skin. Again, Biblical precedent was used wrongly. The men of Gibeah "wouldn't listen" and the same term is used of the whole tribe of Benjamin in Jud. 20:13. "Took" is literally "seized". The Levite forced her to go out to them, possibly to her death. And yet he and all Israel were to demand that Benjamin "hand over" the men of Gibeah as if they had been her murderers (see on Jud. 20:13). See on :29. "Abused" is the word used in Jud. 20:45 of how the men of Benjamin were "abused" [NEV "killed", AV "gleaned"] to the end by the men of Israel. It seems so out of proportion- terrible as was the abuse of the woman, the abusing of almost every last man of Benjamin was a disproportionate response. But that is the end result of the mentality of "guilt by association" and letting "an eye for an eye" not remain at one eye for one eye. Responses never seem to remain at that; "an eye for an eye" was actually a call for restraint in response.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman went back and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, and lay there until it was light- </p><p>"Her master" is a phrase suddenly used here and in :27. Perhaps the idea is that she belonged to the Levite. He was her master and should have been caring towards her as his property. He was not. And so the eager belief of the narrative that this poor man had cruelly lost his beloved wife... is suspect. It was created like that, and upon that was built in any case a huge over reaction. The implication is that she was alive when she got to the house; she was not murdered by the rapists. She died on the doorstep- because the Levite didn’t open the door and pull her in.</p>


text:
<p>Her master got up in the morning and opened the door and went out to continue on his way, and there was his concubine fallen down at the door of the house with her hands on the threshold-</p><p>The idea may be that she had been trying to open the door, or at least knock upon it; hence GNB "with her hands reaching for the door". But the Levite, who surely didn’t go to sleep that night, hadn't opened the door to pull her in and care for her. See on :26. The whole style of the narrative in :26-28 gives the impression that the Levite callously acted as if nothing had happened the night before. This is typical of how conscience less people act when they have committed major crimes, and again suggests that he in fact murdered her. For the record later says that she was murdered- but the rapists raped her and she was still alive when she returned home. The murderer was surely her husband. It could be argued that the murder isn't recorded but we are intended to infer that. Or perhaps his refusal to open the door and help his wife was in fact counted as murder, the classic sin of omission.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Get up, and let us be going! but there was no answer. Then he put her up on the donkey and set off for home- </p><p>This clearly reflects his despite of her. It was obvious that she was either dead, or severely wounded; likely she was covered with blood. But he gruffly tells her to get up and be going. There is no attempt to enquire of her welfare or to assist her. It is absolutely clear now that the Levite doesn't at all love or care for her; indeed it was him who had given her to the rapists. He was wrong, they were wrong- but Israel were to make the mistake of so much human 'judgment', and seek to find one party guilty and the other totally innocent.</p>


text:
<p>When he had come into his house, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, and divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent them throughout all the regions of Israel- </p><p>Again as noted on :28, we have the final evidence that he didn’t love her. For a man would never do this to a woman he loved. He was clearly offended that nobody had taken him in, and that he had been threatened with male rape. And he was seeking to wreak a terrible vengeance against the city and tribe- because of his own hurt pride. The twelve pieces going to the twelve tribes would have included Benjamin. </p><p>XX "He took his sword, and laid hold of his concubine"; AV "he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine". "Laid hold" can be translated 'to seize'. The implication may be that she was still alive; hence he had to seize her. Just as in :25 he seized / took hold of her and forcibly pushed her out of the house towards her rapists. But he sends her body parts around Israel as if this is the anger of love, anger with the rapists and desiring justice against them. But in fact he has no love for his wife; his anger is with her and all this drama is an outcome of that. 
We note that there is no confirmation of her death. Some manuscripts add in :28 "for she was dead" but many omit that. One moment he assumes she's alive, telling her to get up. The next we read that he takes her home and inside the house cuts her body up. He later claims that the attackers had raped her until they had killed her (Jud. 20:4-7), but he makes that claim at the same time as saying they had tried to kill him- which also isn't entirely true. And the comment of :25 is that "they let her go" at dawn; they didn't kill her. She managed to get herself to the door of the house, but the Levite was not looking to help her, and she died on the doorstep. Only after he had done drinking, possibly to excess, did he awake in the morning, open the door, and found her on the door step. Any reasonable man would surely have been looking to assist her once she knocked on the door. There is no mention that she was dead. This silence is significant, and invites us to conclude that he took her inside the house and killed her, or possibly took her to his home and there killed her with his "sword" (LXX, NEV "knife"). The record comments in Jud. 20:4 that the Levite was the husband "of the woman who was murdered". The record says she was murdered. But the rapists raped her and let her go; they didn't murder her, as she was alive afterwards. If she was murdered, then this could only have been by the Levite.
There are clear connections and parallels with the situation in 1 Sam. 11 when Israel are oppressed by the Ammonites.  Saul's cutting up of an animal and sending parts throughout Israel leads to the deliverance of Jabesh-Gilead by Saul of Gibeah. The Levite's cutting up of his wife and sending the body parts leads to military action against Gibeah and Jabesh-Gilead; but now by Israel against Israel. But Saul saved Jabesh, whereas the results of the Levite's actions nearly destroy it (Jud. 21:10,11). So the mechanical imitation of Saul achieved the very opposite results. We note how Gibeah and Jabesh figure together in both passages. The old host in Judges 19 tells the mob that he will bring out the women, so that the mob can ’do to them what is good in your eyes’ (Jud. 19:24). In 1 Sam. 11, the men of Jabesh-Gilead tell Nahash that "tomorrow we will come out (s.w.) to you and you will do to us all that is good in your eyes" (1 Sam. 11:10).  Saul was seized by "the spirit of God" (1 Sam. 11:6). He takes a yoke of oxen (the Levite also had a yoke, Jud. 19:3 Heb.), cuts them into pieces and sends them throughout Israel. With a threat of consequence if Israel don't respond. Israel muster to him, just as Israel do in response to the cutting up of the concubine. Saul splits them into three groups [as Israel were in three groups in their final storming of Gibeah, see Jud. 20] and leads them to victory. It seems to me that the Levite was totally wrong in what he was doing, but typical of other situations in Jud. 14-18, he acts externally like a man [Saul] did upon whom the Spirit of God had come. He gives the impression, therefore, that he is acting according to the Spirit- when he is acting according to the flesh. And so often God's people do the same. Saul dismembered an animal and sent it throughout Israel, leading to Israel's salvation. But the Levite dismembered his wife and sent the parts throughout Israel, resulting in Israel's self destruction. Again we see the theme of surface level imitation of a spiritual event in the past, whereas the reality is totally unspiritual.
Likewise the way he as a priest cuts up her body into parts with his knife suggests he was offering her as a human sacrifice- clearly implying he is doing this to Yahweh. "Limb by limb" could mean "according to the bones" as if he cut up the body without breaking any bones, as if she were a Passover sacrifice. This would have created a huge outflow of blood. His allusion may have been to the way the body was thought to comprise 12 parts; but he ends up prefiguring his dismemberment of all Israel in her 12 tribes. All this fits in with the theme that began with Samson in Jud. 13- of flesh and Spirit hopelessly mixed, doing the things of the flesh under the guise of vague out of context Biblical allusion. "He took a knife..." is the phrase of Gen. 22:6,10, twice used of how Abraham "took the knife to kill his son". Clearly the Levite thinks this justified his action. But again, he is reading or recalling wilfully out of context, merely to justify his own anger against his unfaithful wife. There are a number of incidental connections with the scene of Abraham offering Isaac. None of them alone are significant, but put together they suggest that the inspired author of Judges 19 seems to "riff" on the Gen. 22 text. So Jud. 19:6 describes how the Levite and his father-in-law "ate, the two of them together", as Abraham and Isaac "went, the two of them together" in Gen. 22:6,8. "He lifted his eyes and saw" occurs in both Gen. 22:13 and Jud. 19:17, as does "he arose early in the morning" (Gen. 22:3; Jud. 19:5). Both Abraham and the Levite travel with at least one saddled ass and a servant. Perhaps the impression is that the Levite perceived the similarities, but then out of context thought this would justify him too taking a knife and sacrificing his family member.
The idea of cutting up an animal and sending out the pieces was similar to cutting a covenant. Saul did the same in order to muster Israel to battle. But the idea was 'May you also be cut to pieces if you don't respond'. It was highly manipulative. The Levite was cleverly seeking to get all Israel to come against Gibeah, and they fell for his plot. The anger issues of one man were thereby allowed to cause a holocaust, as seen in Adolf Hitler. His break up with his woman was made the break up of all the community; as has been seen in church groups to this day. And the dismembered body spoke of the divided state of Israel, only united "as one man" in doing evil. We note in passing the double symbolism of a divided body. The Lord broke the bread, the symbol of His body, as the sign of His personal, individual giving of His body to each member of His spiritual body. But the divided body is also a symbol of a hopelessly divided body, the reality of which has caused so many to stumble from the Faith. But the Lord is identified even with His body in that. Likewise the cup of wine is a double symbol, of Divine judgment and also as "the cup of blessing". 
</p>


text:
<p>All who saw it said, Such a deed has never been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of Egypt until this day! Consider it! Decide what should be done- </p><p>The gruesome record of the Levite cutting up his wife’s body and sending parts of the body throughout all Israel has much to teach us of the power of the memorial service. It was done so that all who received the parts of that broken body would “take advice and speak [their] minds" (<a href='B:70 19:30'>Jdg 19:30</a>). LXX "Take counsel with yourselves about her, and speak out". They were to examine themselves in the light of those body pieces, and give an opinion. It was designed to elicit the declaration of their hearts, and above all to provoke to concrete action. Splitting up a body and sharing it with all Israel was clearly a type of the breaking of bread, where in symbol, the same happens. Consider some background, all of which points forward to the Lord’s sufferings:</p><p>- The person whose body was divided up was from Bethlehem, and of the tribe of Judah (<a href='B:70 19:1'>Jdg 19:1</a>)</p><p>- They were ‘slain’ by permission of a priest</p><p>- They were dragged to death by a wicked Jewish mob</p><p>- They were “brought forth" to the people just as the Lord was to the crowd (<a href='B:70 19:25'>Jdg 19:25</a>)</p><p>- “Do what seemeth good unto you" (<a href='B:70 19:24'>Jdg 19:24</a>) is very much Pilate language</p><p>- A man sought to dissuade the crowd from their purpose- again, as Pilate.</p><p>There should be a like effect upon us as we receive the emblems of the Lord’s ‘broken body’- the inner thoughts of our hearts are elicited, and we are provoked to action.</p>


text:
<p>Then all the Israelites went out, and the congregation assembled as one man- </p><p>Religious people love to experience the unity which comes from having a common case of apostacy to fight against and judge. But this is not the unity of the Spirit. Recall how the Lord's enemies were united together by their common cause against Him. Such things recorded in the Bible reflect the absolute psychological and sociological credibility of the records. They assembled as one man [repeated in :11, and implied in :8 where not one man was to return home until Benjamin were punished], in apparent unity, in order to effectively dismember Israel by cutting off one of their own tribes. Their unity actually led to the worst civil war of their history so far. And thus is continued the theme of a guise of spirituality resulting in deeply fleshly behaviour. </p><p>From Dan to Beersheba and from the land of Gilead, to Yahweh at Mizpah- </p><p>Beersheba became effectively the southern border of Judah (<a href='B:60 15:28'>Jos 15:28</a>), hence the common phrase "from Dan [in the north] to Beersheba [in the south]". But this was not at all the southern border promised to Abraham, which was the "river of Egypt". God effectively recalculated the boundaries for Israel, as He came to realize that they simply didn’t have the spiritual ambition to go and possess the full extent of the land promised to Abraham. Thus "the river" on the eastern boundary effectively was recalculated as the Jordan and not the Euphrates; and likewise the southern border shifted northwards from the brook of Egypt to Beersheba. God has a similar flexibility with us too.</p><p>The very extreme north of Israel's northern borders, in Dan or the former Laish, was inhabited by the apostates whom we have seen described in detail in Judges 17, 18. For them to go charging off in judgment upon Gibeah was grossly hypocritical, when they had slain a whole community of unsuspecting people in a primitive land grab, and installed a terribly apostate religious system there.</p><p>As in previous incidents in Jud. 17-19, what appears to be spiritual behaviour is hollow inside. Dan was idolatrous (Jud. 18:30,31). And the appearance of righteous unity "before Yahweh" to uphold His Truth was in fact nothing more than civil war fuelled by jealousy and hatred.
"And from the land of Gilead" is mentioned because at the time of Jephthah, Gilead had warred with Ephraim (Jud. 12:4,5). But as happened at the Lord's crucifixion, formerly opposed parties come together when they get caught up in a feeding frenzy to fight supposed apostacy and to dish out harsh judgment. We see the same in church politics today.
</p>


text:
<p>The leaders of the people from all the tribes of Israel took their places in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand armed soldiers- </p><p>"Thousand" especially when used in a military context often doesn't mean a literal 1,000, but rather means a military subdivision. This gathering is described from the point of view of the tribes generally, for "all the tribes of Israel" presumably excluded Benjamin. The record reminds us that for all the huge dysfunction at this time, they were called still "the people of God". We need to remember this when we understandably shake our heads at the dysfunction of our brethren.</p><p>We could argue that they had already prepared for war before the judicial enquiry was made. Justice wasn't done and there was clearly a bias towards a conclusion at the outset. Yet to judge unjustly was something God's law expresses His especial hatred of. Sending body parts to all Israel was used by Saul as a call to arms in 1 Sam. 11, and the Mari texts have examples of similar things being done with human bodies at the time- as a call to arms. The assumption was therefore being made that crime had been committed, the perpetrators were identified, and now needed judgment. The gathering of such a huge number of soldiers suggests they already had the end result in view- a campaign against Benjamin. They came out as one man (:1) to consider the case, and then after the investigation they were again as one man (:8). The hint is that they had already decided this incident was to be their alibi for attacking Benjamin, and what they did after the judicial enquiry was what they had already decided to before it. We suspect that Judah and possibly Ephraim were after Benjamin's land for themselves, and were therefore eager for an excuse to subjugate or wipe out the tribe of Benjamin. They hadn't taken the land from the Canaanites, and were living in the uplands. Benjamin had some good lowland territory, and they coveted it. Instead of driving out the Philistines and others, they considered it easier to slay their own brethren and steal their land inheritance. Benjamin was one of the smallest tribes and had a very small inheritance- perhaps they assumed that it was easy to destroy such a small tribe. In the end, after the destruction of the 10 tribe kingdom, Benjamin was indeed effectively subsumed into Judah, and the two and a half tribe kingdom was known simply as "Judah". </p>


text:
<p>Now the Benjamites heard that the Israelites had gone up to Mizpah. The Israelites said, Tell us how this wicked thing happened- </p><p>The implication is that the Benjamites weren't represented at the Mizpah conference. The whole decision and chain of events was based solely on the word of the Levite, who we saw throughout Judges 19 was hardly a man of integrity. The basis upon which they judged the case was unwise in the extreme. We learn from <a href='B:70 21:5'>Jdg 21:5</a> that they had threatened death to anyone who didn’t come to this gathering. So the Benjamites stood condemned to death just because they didn’t attend a meeting. Just as some have been disfellowshiped for "long continued absence" from a church. This is not at all Biblical, and the attitude of the Israelites here was not at all in accord with the Law of Moses. Nor did they take any advice from God about this; they simply promised death to any who didn’t attend their gathering. Perhaps this was why they thought they were justified in slaying the Benjamites- because they had broken the Israelites' self declared law and commandment to come to Mizpah.</p><p>The "wicked thing" was presumably the death of the concubine. It's unclear whether the question is asked of Benjamin or the Levite. They ask this question of the accused before the accuser has even stated his version of events. The Levite then gives his version, and Benjamin say nothing. The question begs the assumption that a wicked thing has happened. But the nature of the wicked thing has not been defined. They are assuming and presuming the Levite's story as being true, even before he formally states it. </p>


text:
<p>The Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered, I came to Gibeah in Benjamin, I and my concubine, to stay the night- </p><p>See on :3. He begins absolutely factually, although not volunteering that his woman had run away from him, had been unfaithful to him, and he and her father had been drinking for five days solid before the incident.</p><p>We note the Levite is only called a Levite twice (Jud. 19:1; 20:4). He is repeatedly called "the man"; and we wonder whether he was a Levite. The "Levite" we met in Jud. 17,18 was in fact only a half Levite, being also from Judah. And he was descended from Moses, not Aaron, making him not a priestly Levite at all. We are surely invited to wonder whether this "Levite" was much of one at all.
"The woman who was murdered" is the Divine commentary. We are left to work out who murdered her, bearing in mind that the Hebrew for "murdered" usually refers to intentional, premeditated murder and not manslaughter (Ex. 20:13; Dt. 5:17). We noted on Jud. 19 how the same word is used for the Levite 'seizing' the concubine and forcing her out to the mob; and for how he 'seized' her and then used his knife to cut up her body. This is a strange word to use if in fact she was a dead body. In any case, he was surely her murdered as a sin of omission. For she came to the house he was staying at, knocking at the door, desperate for help. And he didn't open the door nor assist her.
</p>


text:
<p>The men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they raped my concubine and she is dead- </p><p>Now he begins to twist his story. There is no record that the men of Gibeah wanted to kill him. It was not all the men of Gibeah, but a group of yobbos who were probably drunk, who had demanded gay sex with him. And he doesn't volunteer the fact that he himself suggested they rape his concubine, and he gave her to them with no attempt to defend her, but the opposite. He carefully avoids saying that they murdered her, just that "she is dead". For I suggested on <a href='B:70 19:26-27'>Jdg 19:26-27</a> that she made her way back to the door of the house, but he refused to open the door and help her. He was in fact responsible for her death. Nor does he mention his crude comment to her corpse in <a href='B:70 19:28'>Jdg 19:28</a>. He calls the mob "the lords of Gibeah" (Heb.), when the record doesn't state this. He is trying to elevate the incident to a higher level and thereby vilify the whole town and its leaders. He leads the audience to believe that they raped her unto death. He doesn't say "they killed her" but leaves that implied. Notice all the personal pronouns in :4-6. It's all about him... I, me, my. We note all Israel respond positively to the Levite's words, and see nothing wrong in his dismembering his wife- they respond positively to it. There is no outrage at his callousness, nor any probing of his story. And that says a lot about them.
There was a requirement of two witnesses in the Mosaic law, especially for murder (Num. 35:30; Dt. 17:6, 19:15). This was because typically the accuser is a witness; but other witnesses are required rather than the word of one accuser. But the Levite alone testifies; the old host doesn't. The rape of his daughter isn't mentioned by the Levite, surely because he doesn't want to bring the old man as a witness. The law required that Israel's judges were to "make a thorough enquiry" (Dt. 17:4; 19:18) in such cases. They treat Gibeah as an idolatrous city (Dt. 13:13-18) but without the required careful investigation beforehand. And the rape of a woman by "some" of the men of the city isn't the same as a whole city turning to idolatry. There is no "thorough enquiry". The Levite's testimony is simply believed, even though we as readers know that he is being deceptive. Because what he says doesn't match fairly with what we know happened from Jud. 19. He speaks in the Hebrew of "the lords [Heb. baal] of Gibeah" when there is only mention of the "men" [Heb. ish] of Gibeah doing the crime in Jud. 19:5. He says that the men tried to kill him when in fact they wanted to rape him. He says they raped his concubine "and she is dead", using language in such a way as to lead the hearers to think they murdered her. But he is conflating murder with rape.
One simple take away from the Levite's recounting of events is that it's a human tendency to rewrite or re-state our narratives- to our own advantage. Omitting the real issues, focusing on a few facts, twisting and inventing a few things... until the narrative appears totally in our favour. And then to drag others into that narrative. Rather than humbly accepting that we are big time sinners who can be saved by grace. And another take away is to avoid the mentality of guilt by association. Most of Benjamin were destroyed because of the supposed sins of a minority. Saul of Gibeah of Benjamin later killed all the priests at Nob in a similar guilt by association killing (1 Sam. 22:19). We wonder whether he was subconsciously motivated in this by what Israel and the Levites had done to him and his town and tribe.
</p>


text:
<p>I took my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel because they have committed this disgraceful and abominable act in Israel- </p><p>"The inheritance of Israel" is a claim to great spiritual discernment, claiming to rightly perceive that all the land was Israel's inheritance, and implying a lament that they had not inherited all of it. "Disgraceful act" is AV "lewdness", and we note in <a href='B:30 19:29'>Lev 19:29</a> that one cause of "lewdness" in the land would be prostituting a woman and causing her to be a whore. But this is what the Levite had done by suggesting the men sleep with her, and facilitating this. And finally all Judah were to go into captivity for "lewdness" (s:w. <a href='B:300 13:27'>Jer 13:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:27'>Eze 16:27</a>; <a href='B:330 23:29'>Eze 23:29</a>, especially the "lewdness" of the Levites, <a href='B:350 4:9'>Hos 4:9</a>). "Committed this... abominable act in Israel" is a direct quotation from the sons of Jacob wanting to destroy the entire town of Shechem for the apparent rape of Dinah (<a href='B:10 34:7'>Gen 34:7</a>). But Simeon and Levi, ancestor of this Levite, were condemned for what they did to Shechem. Their response was considered by God disproportionate. But the Levite quotes a Bible verse and precedent, without attention to context- which would have revealed that in fact the situation with the rape of Dinah was not a precedent for going in and destroying the town where the rape had occurred. And finally all Israel were to be condemned for having&nbsp; "Committed... abominable acts in Israel" (s:w. <a href='B:300 29:23'>Jer 29:23</a>). All the evidence therefore is that the course of judgment and action they were to now undertake was wrong and hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>Now you Israelites, all of you, give your advice and counsel-</p><p>The fact they had gathered together in such numbers in response to the body parts being sent is evidence that their presence itself showed what they thought should be done. This request for advice was therefore a mere formalism and not at all sincere.</p>


text:
<p>All the people arose as one man saying, None of us will go to his tent, neither will any of us go home- </p><p>What we now read is a classic example of a groupthink overtaking an assembly. They were themselves deeply apostate and astray from God, lost in idolatry and apostacy. But the idea of punishing that which was obviously wrong was very attractive to them, and they experienced great unity amongst themselves in their desire to judge this matter harshly. They entered into a feeding frenzy against Gibeah and the Benjamites. The fact we are to leave judgment to God and believe that "vengenace is [alone] Mine, I will repay", is in fact an intended brake upon the human desire to judge and punish. But Israel ignore it here, as God's people have done so often.</p>


text:
<p>This is what we will do to Gibeah: we will go up against it by lot- </p><p>They seem confident they could destroy such a small town, which could only muster seven hundred fighters [perhaps "hundred" is also a term for a military subdivision]. Their over confidence was going to be judged by God. For they are reasoning here like the Israelites did before they attacked Ai and were defeated.</p>


text:
<p>and we will take ten men of every hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred out of every thousand and a thousand out of ten thousand, to get food for the army so that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin they can punish them for the disgusting thing they have done in Israel- </p><p>They decide the judgment and even the exact method of it without any request to God to guide them, and without hearing Gibeah's side. They decided the testimony of the Levite was true, purely on his say so.</p>


text:
<p>So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man- </p><p>We think of the unity of Herod and Pilate when they had the common cause of destroying the Lord Jesus, and the unity of otherwise disparate forces and entities against the Lord Jesus in the latter day prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>The tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin saying, What is this disgusting crime that has been committed among you?- </p><p>They quote the words of the Levite in :6, calling it a "disgusting crime". They don't enquire of God for wisdom as to how to proceed, or how to establish the facts of the case. They uncritically repeat his words and assume the crime has been committed, and judgment has been passed and the men of Gibeah must be slain. They are not open to any further discussion nor consideration of evidence. Not that any counter evidence had even been presented. The alcoholic Levite had to be right, because this was the path they wished to take.</p>


text:
<p>Now surrender the wicked men of Gibeah so that we may put them to death and put away evil from Israel. But Benjamin would not listen to their brothers the Israelites- </p><p>The tragedy of this situation between "brothers" is emphasized by the Divine record. The reasoning of the Israelites is that the men of Gibeah were provenly wicked and must be put to death. A kidnapper also had to be "put to death" (<a href='B:20 21:16'>Exo 21:16</a>), and it could be argued that this is effectively what the Levite had done to his concubine. Why Benjamin refused to surrender the men of Gibeah is not recorded. But we imagine they disagreed with the way the judgment had been arrived at, and more than questioned the credibility of the sole witness, the Levite. That mixed up man was to have a lot of blood on his hands as a result of his hypocrisy, and desire to judge others for what in essence he himself was guilty of. And we see such people in the body of believers today. The punishment of being "put to death" was for murder (<a href='B:30 24:17'>Lev 24:17</a>), and we see from :4 that they were assuming that the men of Gibeah had murdered the woman. But they hadn't. She walked back to the house, and died due to the Levite's inattention. ; and quite possibly, the Levite murdered her. Homosexual sex was to result in being "put to death" (<a href='B:30 20:13'>Lev 20:13</a>). But whilst the men at Gibeah had wanted this, they didn’t do it.</p><p>The argument was that they had to put away evil from Israel. But <a href='B:50 17:6-7'>Deu 17:6-7</a> was clear that this should never be done on merely the testimony of one man. The Israelites were directly breaking this commandment, as the Levite was the only witness at Mizpah: "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he who is to die be put to death. At the mouth of one witness he must not be put to death. The hand of the witnesses must be first on him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you". We can imagine Benjamin raising all these objections- and being ignored. They had surely heard from the authorities in Gibeah their side of the story, and yet saw that the other Israelites were not open to it at all. The Israelites however shrouded all this non-compliance with God's law beneath an appearance of doing what His law said. For "hand over..." is quoting from Dt. 19:12, where the murderer must be handed over to the elders for execution. The sad irony is that it can be argued that the men of Gibeah hadn't actually committed murder- that was done by the Levite, or so we are left to infer. But Dt. 19:12 speaks of the extradition of a murderer to the blood avenger by the elders. It's doubtful that any of those demanding the blood of the 'murderers' were 'avengers of blood'. And as discussed throughout Jud. 19, I suggest that it was the Levite not the rapists who committed the murder.</p>


