# commentaries

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.</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; </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.</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.</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>


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. 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, "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. 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>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>.</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>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>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>


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.</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>"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.</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>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>


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'.</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.</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.</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.</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. 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 lived 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>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>


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>).</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>). 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>


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 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>


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>


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>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. 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.</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. "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>).</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>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'). 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 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>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.</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. 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>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.</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>).</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>


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.</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.</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>


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>


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.</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>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.</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.</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>).</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.</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>


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>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>


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><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.</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.</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>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>


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.</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.</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.</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>


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>).</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.</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>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'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.</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>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 (s AV), as if the water came out of the discarded jaw bone.</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.</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.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went to Gaza and saw there a prostitute, and went in to her-</p><p>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.</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>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>


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><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>


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 her 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.</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>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. 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 fames with Delilah, he liked being tied up in bondage to a Philistine. We have a deep insight here into how he actually both loved and hated Philistine bondage. This inability to wholly dedicate himself to Yahweh's ways and people was to be his undoing.</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.</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>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.</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.</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>


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.</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>


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>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>). 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.</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.</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>&nbsp;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>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.</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>


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.</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 idea seems to be that she would dedicate the money but somehow retain 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>. 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>


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>


text:
<p>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>


text:
<p>There was a young Levite who had been living in Bethlehem Judah- </p><p>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>The Levites has 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>


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>


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>


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.</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.</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>


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>


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.</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.</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>


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 continued 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.</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>


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.</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 their 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 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>


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>


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>


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>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. 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>


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>


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>.</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>


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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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;</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.</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.</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 Benjamin'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.</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.</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.</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>


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>). 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.</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>


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>


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>


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>


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>.</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.</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 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. 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.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites gathered together out of their cities to Gibeah to go out to fight against the Israelites- </p><p>Again we note that they "gathered together", matching the earlier descriptions of them acting "as one man" in this matter. There was a groupthink mentality, a feeding frenzy which led to an obsession to judge and destroy, with no attention to facts nor to the Divine commands about how decisions should be arrived at in such cases. And this kind of thing goes on often enough within the body of believers today.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites numbered twenty six thousand swordsmen out of the cities, besides the seven hundred chosen men of Gibeah- </p><p>Gibeah must have been relatively small if they had only 700 fighters, a small proportion of the Benjamites. Although we recall that terms like "thousand" and "hundred" are often not literal, but refer to military subdivisions. LXX gives 25,000, which would more or less fit with the numbers in :44-46.</p>


text:
<p>Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling stones at a hair’s breadth and not miss- </p><p>Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel apart from Benjamin were four hundred thousand swordsmen, all warriors- </p><p>Again we note that terms like "thousand" and "hundred" are often not literal, but refer to military subdivisions.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites went up to Bethel and asked counsel of God. They said, Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin? Yahweh said, Judah first- </p><p>This comes over as very hypocritical and inappropriate. They had not asked counsel of God about how to judge the matter. They had all eagerly condemned Gibeah to destruction, without referring to God, and in studied disobedience to His word (see on <a href='B:70 20:13'>Jdg 20:13</a>). Yet having made their own judgment, they then made a great show of asking His advice as to which tribe should lead the assault, or, should attack Gibeah first (<a href='B:70 20:18'>Jdg 20:18</a>). Yet God responded to their request. He said Judah should go first. He wanted to use this incident to punish Israel, as well as Benjamin. And as so often, His judgments are in terms of brethren destroying each other, rather than Him doing it directly Himself. <a href='B:70 21:15'>Jdg 21:15</a> notes that it was Yahweh who made a breach in Israel over this matter. He worked through it all. It was His way of judging His apostate, hypocritical people. Division and conflict amongst God's children is therefore somehow of Him- but it is His judgment upon the community.</p>


text:
<p>The next morning the Israelites got up and encamped against Gibeah- </p><p>Perhaps we are to understand that they ignored the command that Judah should go up first (:18); for it seems they all went up.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel went out to fight against Benjamin and took up battle positions against them at Gibeah- </p><p>As in :19, it is stressed that the Israelites went to fight against Benjamin, apparently ignoring the command that Judah should go up first (:18); for it seems they all went up. And this is twice stressed (:19,20). They were not really interested in following God's ways and word, as shown by the way they had misjudged the entire situation; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites came out of Gibeah and destroyed twenty-two thousand Israelites on that day- </p><p>God had apparently sent the Israelites to their destruction by saying that Judah should go up first (:18). He was confirming His people in their misjudgments and lack of love toward each other; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel encouraged one another and took up their positions again in the place where they had stationed themselves on the first day- </p><p>They make no new strategy. They encourage one another, as if they are doing God's work, fighting for the right cause. It was all such a case of misplaced ideals.</p>


text:
<p>They went up and wept before Yahweh until evening, and they asked Yahweh, Shall we go up to fight again against the Benjamites, our brothers? Yahweh said, Go up against them- </p><p>The request was really its own answer. Should they fight against "our brothers"? Obviously not. You do not fight and kill your brothers. The way they express the request like this surely suggests they were nagged in their conscience by the inappropriacy of fighting their brethren. See on <a href='B:70 21:3'>Jdg 21:3</a>. Their weeping before Yahweh recalls Joshua's after the defeat at Ai. They ought to have perceived the similarities; and realized that the defeat was because Israel had sinned. They were at fault. But they lacked the humility to realize this, and so Yahweh told them to go up again- to their destruction. As explained on :18, this was all God's judgment of His own people, but as often, He chose to work through people destroying themselves, rather than His direct destruction of sinners.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites went against the Benjamites the second day- </p><p>"Went against", AV "came near against", is not quite the phrase we would expect to describe men going up against others in battle. It is the term used about 'coming near' in [often illicit] sexual encounter (<a href='B:10 20:4'>Gen 20:4</a>; <a href='B:30 18:6'>Lev 18:6</a>; <a href='B:30 18:14'>Lev 18:14</a>; <a href='B:30 18:19'>Lev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:30 20:16'>Lev 20:16</a>; <a href='B:50 22:14'>Deu 22:14</a>; <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a>; <a href='B:290 8:3'>Isa 8:3</a>; <a href='B:330 18:6'>Eze 18:6</a>). The idea is that the Israelites were effectively raping the Benjamites, doing to them what they had accused the Benjamites of doing to the Levite's wife. See on :45.</p>


text:
<p>Benjamin went out against them from Gibeah the second day, and destroyed another eighteen thousand Israelite men, all armed with swords- </p><p>"The second day" doesn't have to mean the day after the battle on the first day; for in the gap between, Israel had been to Bethel to get God's advice. It is the second day of the battle recorded. The Israelites fought so weakly because surely they had a deep sense that this was not a battle they should be fighting- against their brethren. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Israelites, all the people, went up to Bethel and wept and sat there before Yahweh and fasted that day until evening. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to Yahweh- </p><p>Peace offerings were offered in times of Israel's sadness and defeat (<a href='B:70 20:26'>Jdg 20:26</a>; <a href='B:70 21:4'>Jdg 21:4</a>) as well as in times of exaltation of spirit and joy. In our traumas of life, we need to remember that the only thing that matters is our peace with God, the joyful fact that we have nothing separating us. As Israel made their peace offerings at those times, so we too should consider the possibility of breaking bread, perhaps alone, as we meet the desperate traumas of our lives.</p><p>However the usual order is sin offering, burnt offering [speaking of subsequent dedication to God] and then the peace offering, celebrating the peace with God now enjoyed. But there is no mention of a sin offering. Israel still refused to accept how much they were in the wrong. For if they did, they would not have gone ahead with another battle against Benjamin. See on <a href='B:70 21:4'>Jdg 21:4</a>.</p><p>"All the people" is AV "and all the people", as if the massive losses meant that not only the soldiers but the common people were alarmed at the huge losses, and wanted to know whether they should continue.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites asked Yahweh (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days- </p><p>Again as in :26 it is stressed that they asked Yahweh for guidance- when as a people they were generally very far from Him. Their desire for guidance indicates the problem of bad conscience they had, as well as the fact they had lost forty thousand in the previous two attempts to execute the judgment they had decreed without asking His guidance. Clearly any victory they may now win was going to pyrrhic [a victory at such cost it is hardly a victory].</p><p>"Those days" could refer to the days of this conflict; the ark had been brought from Shiloh to Bethel in order to seek God's blessing upon their judgment of their brethren. This was proof enough that the mere external symbols of religion did not at all imply God's blessings upon them.</p>


text:
<p>and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron ministered before it)- </p><p>Phinehas and the ark had come especially from Shiloh to Bethel for this situation, and was then returned to Shiloh (<a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a>; <a href='B:60 22:12'>Jos 22:12</a>; <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a>). But&nbsp; the mere external symbols of religion did not at all imply God's blessings upon them.</p><p>Shall we yet again go out to fight against Benjamin our brother, or not? Yahweh said, Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 18:30'>Jdg 18:30</a>. The sanctuary was presumably a day's journey away from Gibeah. Israel become the more desperate for Yahweh's guidance as their conscience niggled the more at them- for their request was really the answer. Fighting against their brother was wrong. As discussed on :18, this whole bloodbath was willed by God as a judgment upon all His people, at their own hands.</p><p><a href='B:70 20:29'>Jdg 20:29</a> Israel set ambushes all around Gibeah- </p><p>The strategy for taking Gibeah is very similar to that for taking Ai, and we wonder if the strategy was communicated to them by God in :28. They were to perceive the similarities. They had likewise been over confident of taking Gibeah, and they had so far failed because like Israel in the first battle of Ai, they were being punished because of their sins.</p>


text:
<p>They went up against the Benjamites on the third day and set themselves in position against Gibeah as before- </p><p>"As before" invites us to imagine them clinging on in faith to God's words of :28 that "tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand". Through their unwisdom and wrong behaviour, they were being brought to faith in God's word.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites went out against them and were drawn away from the city. They began to fight the Israelites as before, on the highways on the way to Bethel and Gibeah, and in the field, killing about thirty men of Israel- </p><p><a href='B:60 8:13-16'>Jos 8:13-16</a> describes the strategy to take Ai in just the same terms. Clearly the same lesson was being taught- that victory was to only be through turning their backs before their enemies, a sign they were under Divine curse. Through realizing that, victory would be given.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites said, We are defeating them as before. But the Israelites said, Let’s retreat and draw them away from the city to the highways-</p><p>Israel were punished for their over confidence, thinking it needed only a part of their army to overcome Gibeah. And now the Benjamites are punished for their self confidence. Reliance in the arm of flesh is so displeasing to God.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Israel arose up from their camp and set themselves in position at Baal Tamar, and the ambush charged from Maareh Geba- </p><p>We note the old paganic names were still used- another indication of the overall apostacy of all Israel. The Israelite army was split into three groups; the one at Baal-tamar, the one which formed the ambush behind Gibeah, and then the third which first directly approached Gibeah. This division into three companies echoes the strategy God used with Gideon.</p>


text:
<p>Ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel attacked Gibeah and the battle was severe, but the Benjamites didn’t know that disaster was upon them- </p><p>The severity of the battle at this point implies that even more Israelites died at this time. God was punishing His people, as He often did the Gentiles, by turning their swords against themselves. And conflict within the church is likewise His judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh defeated Benjamin before Israel, and the Israelites destroyed twenty five thousand one hundred armed Benjamites that day- </p><p>This describes the deaths on that day, not counting any previous deaths in the other battles on the other days. We note that Yahweh gave the victory; as discussed on :18 this was all of Him, He gave victories to both sides, He was the one who made the gap in Israel (<a href='B:70 21:15'>Jdg 21:15</a>), because this was His way of punishing His sinful people; see on :34.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Benjamites saw that they were defeated, for the men of Israel had given way to Benjamin, trusting in the ambush which they had set against Gibeah- </p><p>We would rather read that they had trusted in Yahweh, but it seems they trusted more in their battle strategy.</p>


text:
<p>The men in the ambush rushed into Gibeah, spread out and put all the city to the sword- </p><p>The battle strategy of Abimelech, setting an ambush (<a href='B:70 9:32'>Jdg 9:32</a>), rising early and rushing upon the city of his one time brethren (<a href='B:70 9:33'>Jdg 9:33</a>), was replicated by the Israelites in <a href='B:70 20:37'>Jdg 20:37</a>. The same Hebrew words are used. But it was a case of copying an example just because it was recorded in Divine history, following precedents which were in fact not at all good. Hollow imitation of the behaviour of others is an abiding temptation for us today.</p>


text:
<p>Now the appointed signal between the men of Israel and the ambush was that they should send up a great cloud of smoke out of the city- </p><p>This matches the signal of the sin glinting from Joshua's spear in the capture of Ai, and likewise the smoke signal from within the city. The similarities are so exact, because the point was that like Israel in the first battle of Ai, the 11 tribes had sinned and were being punished for it.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Israel would turn in the battle. Benjamin began to attack and killed about thirty of the men of Israel, for they said, Surely they are being defeated as before- </p><p>The whole account of the taking of Gibeah is repeated twice over, because we are really being urged to see the similarities with Ai; and take the implication that the Israelites had sinned as Israel had at that time and were being punished for it. It was they and not just the Benjamites who needed to eradicate evil from amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>But when the smoke began to go up out of the city, the Benjamites looked behind them and saw the whole city going up in smoke- </p><p>Exactly as in the capture of Ai (<a href='B:60 8:20'>Jos 8:20</a>); see on :39.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Israel turned on them and the men of Benjamin were terrified, seeing that disaster had come on them- </p><p>This is the fear of men facing condemnation. Why were they condemned? Not because of the reason that the other Israelites had given for their condemnation. For this was in any case a too heavy judgment for refusing to cooperate with the kangaroo court called by the Israelites. We recall how the Levite perhaps rightly claimed that he was given no hospitality because he was perceived as serving in the sanctuary at Bethel (<a href='B:70 19:18'>Jdg 19:18</a>). 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>So they fled before the men of Israel towards the wilderness, but they could not escape the battle, and the Israelites who came out of the cities destroyed them there- </p><p>There was a widespread hatred of the Benjamites amongst the general population.</p>


text:
<p>They surrounded the Benjamites, chased them and ran them down as far as Gibeah toward the east- </p><p>This appears to be another Gibeah which was on the way towards the rock of Rimmon where they were aiming for (:45).</p>


text:
<p>Eighteen thousand valiant men of Benjamin fell- </p><p>See on :46. Albert Barnes in his commentary discerns here and in the surrounding verses a poetical form of language, as if this was a victory song later sung. To gloat over such a massacre was wrong, and soon the Israelites were going to be repenting for it. Such gloating at the time reflects again an unspirituality in Israel; for God Himself doesn't rejoice over the death of the wicked.</p>


text:
<p>They turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and the Israelites killed five thousand of them along the way and chased them to Gidom, killing two thousand more-</p><p>AV "they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men". But "glean" is s:w. abused, mocked, defiled. We are again given the impression that they treated Israel just as the men of Gibeah had treated the Levite's concubine. They were no better. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>So that day twenty-five thousand valiant fighters of Benjamin were killed-</p><p>A "thousand" often refers to a military unit or subdivision, rather than&nbsp; literal 1,000. See on :47. 18,000 fell in :44, and then another 7,000 in :45, and 600 escaped (:47). The LXX gives different figures, but if we take those figures as they are, we conclude that the victories they won on the first and second days were achieved without loss. This meant that the men of Israel were slain very easily- they fought weakly because their conscience told them they were fighting for a wrong cause. The Benjamite victories were therefore clearly of God, as was their defeat in the third battle (:35) - all part of His way of judging His totally sinful people at the point of each others' swords.</p>


text:
<p>But six hundred men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and stayed there four months- </p><p>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>The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put to the sword everything in the towns, including the livestock, and anything they found. All the towns which they found they set on fire- </p><p>This is exactly the language used of the destruction of Canaanite cities by Joshua. We note they didn't take the animals for themselves. All was as it were sacrificed to Yahweh. They were treating their brethren like Canaanites. And yet we note that the tribes of Israel had at this point not to zealously driven out the Canaanites and possessed their land. Their apparent zeal to obey Yahweh's commands about the Canaanites was misplaced, a twisting of His word to justify their own bloodlust and self justification. Truly we are to take the lesson that in conflict between brethren, there are never victors, only losers.</p>


text:
<p>Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah: Not one of us will give his daughter to a Benjamite as wife- </p><p>Here we have another repetition of theme, that of unwise oaths. For Jephthah had done the same. And it resulted at very best in his daughter going unmarried. We think too of Joshua's over hasty oath to the Gibeonites. We are to discern the hand of God in all these things and to learn from the repeated mistakes of His people as recorded in the Biblical record.</p>


text:
<p>The people came to Bethel where they sat until evening before God, raising their voices and weeping bitterly- </p><p>They had likewise sat before God, i:e. before His manifestation and presence in the ark and priesthood, when they had enquired why they had been defeated twice when fighting the Benjamites. It was tears all around, as they began to realize the extreme folly of what they had done. But it was grief they themselves had brought about. Their weeping before Yahweh recalls Joshua's after the defeat at Ai. The great victory they had just won was in reality a defeat for Israel. Because in conflict between brethren, there can only be losers. Any apparent victory is in fact a further loss.</p>


text:
<p>They said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, why has this happened to Israel, that there should be today one tribe missing from Israel?- </p><p>If Yahweh was indeed Israel's God, then to destroy a part of Israel was clearly to have sinned against Him. This is what we do whenever we separate or effectively cut off a part of the body of Christ. As noted on <a href='B:70 20:23'>Jdg 20:23</a>, the request was really its own answer. Should they fight against "our brothers"? Obviously not. You do not fight and kill your brothers. Why has this happened? Because they had done it. So often our prayers reveal their own answer. We see this in David's prayers as recorded in the Psalms. Some of them end up providing the answer to the opening question or struggle. This is one advantage of praying out loud, of verbalizing our questions to God. The answer sometimes becomes apparent just through the process of verbalizing our thoughts.</p>


text:
<p>Next day the people rose early and built an altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings- </p><p>Peace offerings were offered in times of Israel's sadness and defeat (<a href='B:70 20:26'>Jdg 20:26</a>; <a href='B:70 21:4'>Jdg 21:4</a>), as well as in celebration. In our traumas of life, we need to remember that the only thing that matters is our peace with God, the joyful fact that we have nothing separating us. As Israel made their peace offerings at those times, so we too should consider the possibility of breaking bread, perhaps alone, as we meet the desperate traumas of our lives.</p><p>But as in <a href='B:70 20:26'>Jdg 20:26</a>, we note that the usual order is sin offering, burnt offering [speaking of subsequent dedication to God] and then the peace offering, celebrating the peace with God now enjoyed. But there is no mention of a sin offering. Israel still refused to accept how much they were in the wrong.</p>


text:
<p>They asked, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel who didn’t come up to the assembly before Yahweh? For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who didn’t come up to Yahweh to Mizpah should surely be put to death- </p><p>The implication of <a href='B:70 20:3'>Jdg 20:3</a> is that the Benjamites weren't represented at the Mizpah conference. And Israel 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>


text:
<p>The Israelites grieved for Benjamin their brother. There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day- </p><p>Their requests to God for guidance about attacking Benjamin had featured the phrase "our brother". They ought to have followed their conscience toward God, and their sense that any murder of a brother must be wrong. Instead the power of groupthink and transferring the guilt of their own sins onto Benjamin was stronger than that. And now they grieve for what they had done. Their exclusion and cutting off of their brother had in fact diminished all Israel. And this is what we do to the body of Christ by cutting off parts of it; it is as Paul puts it, as bizarre as cutting off our own limbs. The body will not function well without those limbs.</p>


text:
<p>How shall we provide wives for those who remain, since we have sworn by Yahweh that we will not give them our daughters as wives?- </p><p>The easiest option would have been to just repent of their oath and let the remaining Benjamites marry women from other tribes. But for all their apostacy, they had a legalistic mindset. And there was a pride factor in their society when it came to not following through on an oath. As many do today, they went to the most bizarre lengths to get around the oath they had made, and to save face. And yet their bizarre method of getting around it was all the same unethical, and involved the massacre of yet more of their brethren at Jabesh Gilead, and the kidnapping of girls from Shiloh. It would have been far better to humble themselves and retract their rash oath. We see this lesson repeated in the rulers who swore too hastily, resulting in Daniel and John the Baptist suffering greatly- just because the rulers were too proud to take back their words.</p>


text:
<p>They asked, Which of the tribes of Israel didn’t come up to Yahweh to Mizpah? They found that none from the camp from Jabesh Gilead came to the assembly- </p><p>We note that they had not attempted to murder these people because they had not come to the meeting at Mizpah. And yet they apparently used Benjamin's absence from that meeting [when it was clearly biased against them from the start] as justification for slaying Benjamin (:5). So clearly the whole miserable, quasi legal process was set up from the start in order to cut off Benjamin. And this is how church politics so often goes, when there is a predetermined desire to cut someone off.</p>


text:
<p>For when the people were counted, none of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead were there- </p><p>We wonder why Jabesh did not attend. Perhaps they like Benjamin had seen through the manic feeding frenzy of the groupthink, and had objected to the absolutely unBiblical judgment being taken- with so much depending on just one questionable witness, with <a href='B:50 17:6-7'>Deu 17:6-7</a> being so totally ignored. See on <a href='B:70 20:13'>Jdg 20:13</a>. And yet still Israel were impenitent for all that; and they were to go ahead and punish Jabesh with a massacre, killing even innocent children, because of it. The implication is that absolutely every town of Israel outside of Benjamin was represented in this great assembly, including the totally apostate people of Laish of Dan (Judges 17, 18). Only Jabesh didn't come. This is the extent to which the people were caught up in a shark tank feeding frenzy of judgmentalism, self congratulation and hatred against their brethren. These things happen today; brethren are demonized and hated on a mass scale on flimsy grounds by brethren who are only as weak as themselves. It is a basic psychological reaction, the unchecked movement of the flesh rather than of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The congregation sent twelve thousand valiant fighting men and commanded them: Go and put the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to the sword, including the women and children- </p><p>The idea was, a thousand from each tribe, following the principle of <a href='B:40 31:4'>Num 31:4</a>. Yet they were following an isolated Biblical precedent in a very misplaced way- for they were going to massacre innocent people, all because they were too proud to accept they had made a foolish oath (see on :7). We see here a common human feature- of apparent obedience to the letter of the law, whilst breaking the obvious spirit of the law. We think of the Jews being scrupulous to be ritually clean for the Passover- at which they crucified God's Son. It's a case of having a plank in our own eye whilst noticing the splinter in the eye of another.</p>


text:
<p>This is what you are to do: kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin- </p><p>Whilst it is not recorded that this was done, this massacre of their own brethren was necessitated by their refusal to humble themselves and retract their oaths, as discussed on :7. They had not really learned the depth of their sin- for here they were advocating the cutting off of yet more of their brethren in a massacre, for the sake of undoing the damage done by cutting off their brethren from Benjamin. They had not learned the lesson.</p>


text:
<p>They found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan- </p><p>This may imply they did not in fact destroy Jabesh as they had promised to Yahweh to do, and as the elders had told them to do. The town was still inhabited at the time of <a href='B:90 11:1'>1Sa 11:1</a>. It seems they were very selective in their obedience, and yet claimed such utter and careful loyalty to Yahweh. The record continually demonstrates their hypocrisy and ignorance of true spirituality, whilst having a knowledge and apparent devotion to isolated parts of God's law. The same is seen amongst so many professing to be God's people today. Yet "saved alive" in :14 implies they did indeed massacre the town. The description of the conflict with Jabesh as a "war" in :22 suggests that there was indeed bloodshed, probably on both sides; and yet despite that, the required number of young female captives weren't taken. So all the bloodshed and "war" just didn't achieve the desired end anyway. The logical process in thought behind the decisions taken in all this appears very lacking in wisdom. Clearly they did not progress on God's advice, but only on their own.</p>


text:
<p>The whole congregation sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites who were in the rock of Rimmon- </p><p>They 'proclaimed peace', using the same phrase as in <a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a>: "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, proclaim peace to it". But the Israelites did this to the few remaining Benjamites after they had massacred most of them. This was typical of how Israel at this time were taking fragments of God's law and applying them, but absolutely out of context. Whilst they disregarded the majority of the Law, both in letter and spirit. And we see this in the wider Christian movement. Bits and pieces of Divine principle are used in a misplaced way, when the majority of God's revelation and will is ignored.</p>


text:
<p>So then Benjamin returned and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive from Jabesh Gilead, but they weren’t enough for them- </p><p>"Saved alive" implies they did indeed massacre the town. They had clearly had a bad conscience about fighting against Benjamin their "brother". But they fail to really grasp why that was wrong. For in the flush of final victory against Benjamin, they now go and do exactly the same sin of murdering their brothers. And in this case, for no reason other than that Jabesh hadn't come up to some kangaroo court they had set up to judge Benjamin. They were acting absolutely against God's will and without any seeking of His guidance. And all because, as discussed on :7, they lacked the faith to let God resolve the issue of the remnant of Benjamin having no wives; and because they lacked the humility to take back their oath not to let their daughters marry Benjamites.</p>


text:
<p>The people grieved for Benjamin because Yahweh had made a gap in the tribes of Israel- </p><p>AV "repented them", they had a change of mind. But this is not necessarily the same as perceiving their own moral wrong. There is no reference to their seeking counsel from God as to whether or not to massacre yet more of their brethren in Jabesh, which was apparently of another tribe and east of the Jordan [presumably it was near the wadi Jabesh which is east of Jordan]. The people had not asked counsel of God about how to judge the matter. They had all eagerly condemned Gibeah to destruction, without referring to God, and in studied disobedience to His word (see on <a href='B:70 20:13'>Jdg 20:13</a>). Yet having made their own judgment, they then made a great show of asking His advice as to which tribe should lead the assault, or, should attack Gibeah first (<a href='B:70 20:18'>Jdg 20:18</a>). Yet God responded to their request. He said Judah should go first. He wanted to use this incident to punish Israel, as well as Benjamin. And as so often, His judgments are in terms of brethren destroying each other, rather than Him doing it directly Himself. See on <a href='B:70 20:7'>Jdg 20:7</a>. It was Yahweh who made a breach in Israel over this matter. He worked through it all. It was His way of judging His apostate, hypocritical people. The same word is used of His making a breach upon Uzzah, in judgment (<a href='B:100 6:8'>2Sa 6:8</a>). A breach from Yahweh is a judgment for sin (<a href='B:290 30:13'>Isa 30:13</a>; <a href='B:330 22:30'>Eze 22:30</a> s:w:). Division and conflict amongst God's children is therefore somehow of Him- but it is His judgment upon the community.</p>


text:
<p>Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we provide wives for those who remain, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?- </p><p>A wife is "from the Lord", not from purely human device. Massacring a town to steal their virgin daughters, and then kidnapping girls from a Passover dance::. is all the way of the flesh. We see how misguided were these people, partly concerned with the Divine concept of raising up seed for their brother, and yet with no basic moral backbone at all. They would have been better to have faith that God would provide, in His own wonderful way- rather than massacring Jabesh and kidnapping girls.</p>


text:
<p>They said, There must be an inheritance for the surviving Benjamites so that a tribe will not be blotted out from Israel- </p><p>They are arguing from the basis of the levirate law, that brothers must somehow ensure that seed is raised up to their brother in the case of death. But, as noted on :16, they are focusing upon just one aspect of Divine truth, and ignoring the wider moral teachings of the Mosaic law and indeed of basic ethics and morality. "There must be an inheritance::." again reflects their legalistic mind, driven by a devotion to quasi logic to do things which were plain wrong on every count. An inheritance is "of the Lord", just as a wife is (:16); their attempt to play God in all this just made things far worse.</p>


text:
<p>We can’t give them wives from our daughters since the Israelites have taken this oath saying, ‘Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin’- </p><p>I discussed on :7 how if they had humbled themselves and retracted their oaths, then they would not have needed to do the bizarre and sinful things which they did- massacre of Jabesh Gilead and kidnapping young girls. Their legalistic mindset is incredible; and yet they themselves were far astray from Yahweh themselves, and this was why they had been punished at the hands of the Benjamites, losing 40,000 men.</p>


text:
<p>They said, Look, there is an annual feast of Yahweh in Shiloh, which is on the north of Bethel, east of the highway from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah- </p><p>If the feast involved dancing (:21) then it was likely the feast of the Passover, with the girls replicating the dancing of Miriam and the women. The exact geographical description is given so that the Benjamites knew precisely where to go. But they ought to have been celebrating Yahweh's deliverance of His people by grace, rather than using it as an opportunity to kidnap wives for themselves.</p>


text:
<p>They instructed the Benjamites: Go and lie in wait in the vineyards- </p><p>This bizarre idea of grabbing young unmarried females was all necessitated by the impenitence of the Israelites and their refusal to humble themselves and retract their oath, as discussed on :7.</p>


text:
<p>and watch. When the daughters of Shiloh come out to join in the dances, then rush out of the vineyards and each of you catch a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin- </p><p>The language of lying in wait in ambush and then rushing forward upon the unsuspecting is the language of how the Benjamites had finally captured Gibeah, and how Israel had captured Ai. Again, we see the misplaced idea of appealing to past precedent in God's dealings with His people. They wished to follow some aspects of God's ways in the past, whilst ignoring the vast majority of His teaching, even on a most basic moral level. And we wonder whether the majority of those identifying as 'Christian' at this point in world history are not similar.</p>


text:
<p>When their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Allow them to do this because we didn’t get wives for them in the war- </p><p>The war is presumably the war against Jabesh of :12. The way it is called a "war" suggests the people of Jabesh fought back. There would have been yet more bloodshed, and it seems there were fewer virgin women captured than the Israelites had initially imagined.</p><p>You didn’t give them to them, so you are not guilty’- </p><p>Perhaps they mean 'Not guilty of breaking the oath not to give your daughter in marriage to Benjamites'. But the way of humility would have been to simply ask God to forgive them for a rash oath, or to just leave it all to God to decide, with faith He would somehow work it out. But when there is no human answer visible, then we tend to abandon faith in God and go for these kinds of bizarre human ways of resolving things.</p><p>Or the idea may have been that to give a daughter in marriage to a man of another tribe was a sin. But as the daughters had been taken away forcibly, it wouldn't count as a sin. We note their extreme legalism. And yet as legalists often do, they seriously contradicted themselves. For in this case, it would have been a sin for Benjamites to be marrying women from another tribe. So their solution to the problem was only leading people into sin. There seems no direct statement in the law of Moses that intermarriage amongst the tribes was a sin, although the implication of the principles of inheritance amongst the tribes was that it was far from ideal.</p>


text:
<p>So that is what the Benjamites did. They took wives for each of them from the girls who danced, and carried them off. They returned to their inheritance, rebuilt the cities and lived in them- </p><p>See on :22. Carrying them off implies to captivity. They were treating these Israelite girls as prey, taken in some Divinely sanctioned war. But God had not been consulted, and was not in any of this.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Israelites departed each to his tribe and family- </p><p>This is perhaps stating the obvious but in order that we imagine them returning home, with only tales of woe and not glorious victory. For they had lost 40,000 of their own men, and slain a huge number of their brethren both from Jabesh and all Benjamin. And arranged the kidnap of innocent girls from their families. Not much to boast about to their families. And so the point is made, that in conflict between brethren, there are only shameful losers.</p>


text:
<p>In those days there was no king in Israel; each man did that which 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>


text:
<e>Ruth: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>In the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land. A man of Bethlehem Judah went with his wife and two sons to live in the country of Moab- </p><p>The famine was because of Israel’s disobedience. The idea of famine was to bring the people back to God, but Elimelech [like many people today] responded poorly to it, and went away from God’s people by moving to Moab. In Moab he would be unable to come to the sanctuary, and his children ran the risk of marrying unbelievers; and seeing marriage required the father’s approval, their marriage out of the faith reflects poorly on Elimelech as well as on his sons. So we see how sin results in Divine intervention [famine, in this case]; that intervention is punishment, but it is aimed at reformation. But it can be taken the wrong way, and people who respond poorly to it are then driven even further from God. This is the way the downward spiral works; but the holy Spirit likewise is the dynamic of the upward spiral. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The name of the man was Elimelech- </p><p>'God is king', reflecting the belief at the time of the judges (:1) that Israel had no human king because Yahweh was their king. But he went to live in the land of Moloch, a form of the Hebrew melech; Moloch who was presented as the real king rather than Yahweh, and this family were happy to go along with that on a surface level.</p><p>His wife’s, Naomi; his two sons’, Mahlon and Chilion- </p><p>The names of the sons mean "sickly" and "wasting away". So we are given the impression of a "pleasant" woman ['Naomi'] with two sickly sons and a materialistic husband, ever seeking a better deal in life, which never worked out. To have just two sons was a very small family for those days; for we get the impression they had no other children. We can imagine the child deaths, miscarriages etc. which led her to feel that God was not completely with her. And yet it was through all this that she came to Him so strongly.</p><p>They were Ephrathites of Bethlehem Judah. They came into the country of Moab, and stayed there- </p><p>As he now shifted to Moab for a better life, perhaps he had already made such a shift before; because he was a man of Ephraim who had moved to Bethlehem in Judah. We are presented with a family who always wanted a better life, but it never quite worked out. We have surely met this type in our lives. We note that many of the histories of apostacy in the book of Judges feature people from Ephraim, and it seems we are intended to read Elimelech's move to Moab as a continuation of that sad theme. The whole point of the story is that out of such weakness, at least one person [Naomi] holds on, and through her, indirectly [through Ruth] a wonderful movement of God's Spirit is seen. And this too is a story we have all seen time and again.</p>


text:
<p>Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons- </p><p>See on :5. "Left" is usually translated "remained". The implication could be that she ought to have returned to Judah at this point, but she didn't. She is really the classic case of someone out of weakness being made strong; Esther is another example. She came to realize and experience that indeed Yahweh is a protector of orphans and widows (<a href='B:230 68:5'>Psa 68:5</a>). It may be significant that Naomi is Elimelech's wife in 1:1 but by 1:3 he is now called Naomi's husband; she has had to adopt the prominent role because of his illness and weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The sons took wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other was Ruth. They lived there about ten years- </p><p>The very phrase "the women of Moab" recalls Israel's apostasy with the women of Moab in <a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>; indeed the Midianite women who led Israel astray in <a href='B:40 25:18'>Num 25:18</a> were connected with Moab (<a href='B:40 22:4'>Num 22:4</a>). Moabites were not to come into the congregation of Yahweh (<a href='B:50 23:3'>Deu 23:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:1'>Neh 13:1</a>). The fact the Moabite Ruth was accepted into that congregation in such a major way was therefore an example of God's great value of the human person as an individual, and He is willing as it were to break His own law to demonstrate the degree of that value He placed upon Ruth. With Elimelech dead, we can assume that Naomi was responsible for allowing these marriages to happen, because she refused to return to the land of Israel at that time (see on :3). In their culture, the mother had quite some role to play in the arrangement of marriages (see <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mahlon and Chilion both died, and the woman was bereaved of her two children and of her husband- </p><p>"Bereaved" is the word translated "left" in :3. We are given the impression of a woman who has the scaffolding around her life removed, bit by bit; for to lose all the men in her life was a major blow. And it brought her to passionate personal relationship with Yahweh. It seems she found Yahweh in Moab and not in Israel. And her commitment was so strong that it exuded from her, to the extent that Ruth was persuaded of Yahweh by her example. And this is the path so many must pass through; isolation and the removal of all human scaffolding leads us to personal relationship with our God.</p>


text:
<p>Then she arose with her daughters-in-law, to return from the country of Moab; for she had heard in the country of Moab how that Yahweh had visited His people- </p><p>"Visited His people" is an idiom for God’s action and intervention. It’s clearly not to be taken literally, and likewise the connected idiom of ‘coming down’ should not be read literally either. When God ‘came down’ in Christ, we are not to understand a literal descent of a pre-existent Christ to earth; but rather, the manifestation of God in His Son who was born on earth.</p><p>In giving them bread- The implication could be that there was a famine in Moab. Naomi's motives were not paramountly spiritual. Again, as noted on :2, she is moving around in search of a better life. We marvel at how God worked to get Ruth into Israel- the death of three men, the famine in Israel initially, the spiritual weakness of Elimelech, the punishment of the family (:21), the enduring faith of Naomi… all in order to bring Ruth into Israel. In the bringing of each person to Himself, there is likewise complex working with far-reaching effects upon unbelievers, for whom events have no personal meaning, and yet the events were for the sake of others. Thus large numbers of people suffered during the seven years famine in Egypt, with no personal meaning for themselves, because that famine was required to reunite the family of God.</p>


text:
<p>She left the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law went with her. They began the journey to the land of Judah- </p><p>It seems the idea had been to accompany Ruth from where she was living in Moab, at least to the border of Judah. "Left the place where she was" uses the same words about Lot and his daughters leaving the place where they were in Sodom (<a href='B:10 19:12'>Gen 19:12</a>; <a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a>) to go to spiritual safety. And of course Moab was the fruit of Lot sleeping with his daughter when they did so. The allusion is therefore purposeful. The theme is as ever of spiritual weakness, and yet of people becoming strong for God out of that weakness.</p><p>The Hebrew is literally "To return to the land of Judah". I suggest the book of Ruth was written up or edited under inspiration in Babylon, as guidance and encouragement for those in captivity in Babylon to return to Judah. Despite having sinned and having endured judgment for that, and despite having lost many of their men folk, Judah were to follow Naomi’s example and return, taking any faithful Gentiles with them, and would like Naomi find unexpected blessing in the land, and a part in the family of Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, Go, return each of you to your mother’s house, Yahweh deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead, and with me- </p><p>God blesses those who bless the seed of Abraham, even if the members of the seed are spiritually weak (see on 1:1). Naomi shows her awareness of the Abrahamic promises by wishing this blessing upon her daughters in law, whom she considered had been ‘kind’ to her sons and husband and to herself too. Presumably this was said at the border of Moab and Israel. The women had accompanied Naomi there and the idea was that they should not return. Women travelling alone was unusual. We get the distinct impression of Naomi as being totally without male support in her life. This all drove her towards Yahweh as her Father, protector, provider and redeemer.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh grant you that you may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voice, and wept- </p><p>"Find rest in the house of her husband" is an idiom for having a stable family life with children; note how <a href='B:80 3:1'>Rth 3:1</a> uses the same idiom: “Shall I not seek rest for you?” effectively means ‘I will try to set you up with marriage and a family’. The implication would therefore be that the women had not had children by Naomi’s sons, and the sons had both died suddenly. Naomi interpreted this as God’s judgment upon her (:20,21). Her bitterness with God was because she felt that her daughters in law had unjustly suffered [childlessness was seen as the greatest tragedy] only because of her and her family. Naomi is effectively telling these women that she considers that the God of Israel is responsible for their barrenness, and if they returned to their gods, and married one of their own people, they would likely have children and ‘find rest’ in family life. Ruth’s strong commitment to Naomi personally and to the God of Israel was therefore all the more remarkable; she accepted she may never have children, that Yahweh’s judgments upon His people sometimes affected Gentiles who happened to be involved… but she still so loved Him and wanted to devote herself to Him, despite His harder side. If there is really only one true God, then it is our duty to accept Him, even if we cannot attach meaning to events at the moment we experience them.</p><p>We note how Naomi openly and freely uses the word "Yahweh" (also in :8). Clearly she felt strong covenant relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p>They said to her, No, but we will return with you to your people- </p><p>It was Naomi and not those Moabite girls who was returning. But they speak of "we will return" because they had come to so identify with Naomi. Or there may be the idea that they wanted to 'turn to' [another legitimate translation of shub, rendered here "return"] Naomi's people. Lot was the father of Moab, and the same words are used of how he was returned to his people by Abraham (<a href='B:10 14:16'>Gen 14:16</a>). The hint may be that they wanted to have this same grace shown to them due to the Abrahamic covenant. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said, Go back, my daughters. Why do you want to go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?- </p><p>"Go back" is the word for "return" in :10. Naomi is encouraging them to return or turn to their own people, and not hers. And Orpah accepts her encouragement (:15). Naomi apparently had only produced two sickly sons who survived to adulthood, and they had both prematurely died; and she felt herself to be barren. There was no legal requirement for a widow to marry the younger brother of a deceased husband, but it could be argued that any future children of Naomi had a duty to marry their late brother's wife and have children by her in his name. But that would be a very strict reading of the Mosaic legislation in this case, if not simply a wrong interpretation of the Levirate law. For the simple intention of the Levirate law was that if a man died, his brother was to marry his widow and have children by her. And it only applied to "brothers dwelling together". But Naomi has clearly thought it through; for all her apparent weakness and even apostacy as noted so far, she was aware of God's laws. Despite having nobody to teach her there in Moab and no written scripture with her [she was surely illiterate anyway], she remembered the Mosaic law and thought through its implications:&nbsp;However her very strict interpretation of them in this case may suggest she is seeking every reason to discourage the young women to follow her back to Israel. And this makes Ruth's decision the more commendable.</p>


text:
<p>Go back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say, ‘I have hope’, if I should even have a husband tonight, and should also bear sons-</p><p>See on :11. She considered herself barren (:11), but even if she should be able to have children, and they were males, and they lived::. it would mean the young women would have to wait to many years that they would likely then be infertile. So Naomi considers herself a woman without hope, in human terms. And it is for those who perceive their hopelessness that the hope of Israel means the most. She also considers the laws of levirate marriage as unable to provide a way out of her hopeless situation. This is perhaps why she doesn't even suggest that Ruth approach Boaz when they first arrive in Bethlehem. It was really a case of being surprised by grace when she finds that in the end, the levirate laws will in fact be used as the vehicle to effect for her such a great salvation for both her and Ruth.</p>


text:
<p>would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from having husbands? No, my daughters, for it grieves me much for your sakes, for the hand of Yahweh has gone out against me-</p><p>See on :11,12. "Grieves" is a form of the Hebrew word Mara. It would seem from :20 that Naomi, for all her awareness of God’s word and faith in Him, was consumed by bitterness; and she publically acknowledged this. She was bitter because she felt God had unfairly punished her daughters in law for her sin and the apostasy of her family. This is so often a reason for bitterness with God- a sense that His judgments are unjust, and that the innocent wrongly suffer. The book of Ruth concludes with a happy Naomi raising her grandson who is presented as being in the direct line of Messiah. But this was a woman consumed with bitterness earlier. One lesson is that God still works with and through bitter people, even those who are angry and cross at Him. Another lesson is that in the final end, God’s utter grace and love is revealed through all His workings, even if at some points during the process, His actions seem totally unjust to us. But in the final, bigger picture, we realize that this was in fact the way of Divine love and grace, so far above any human plan.</p>&nbsp;<p>She was grieved because she felt that the judgments upon her for her sin (see on :1) were of such a nature that they had seriously affected these two Gentile women, in that they had been left young widows without children. The fact the two sons and husband died apparently at the same time would lead to the impression that this was an act from God, which Naomi understood as judgment for sin. The fact she retains her love of God and wants to return to Israel is therefore commendable; she responded the right way to God’s intervention and judgment, rather than going further away from Him as she had done previously when He intervened (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>They lifted up their voices, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell, but Ruth stayed with her- </p><p>AV "Clave unto her", the same Hebrew word used of the ‘cleaving’ in marriage of <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>. And marriage has been the context of the discussion. Ruth is saying that she accepts childlessness and singleness, and in place of those things she wished to ‘cleave’ to Naomi, whom she saw as representative of Israel’s God. She was rewarded for this in an appropriate way- she wanted to dwell under the wings of Israel’s God (2:12), and He came to be manifested in Boaz, under the wings of whose garment she came (3:4,7,9).</p>


text:
<p>She said, Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people- </p><p>The word for "gone back" is that translated "return" in :10. The girls had originally intended to 'return' or 'turn to' Naomi's people, but now Orpah had decided to return to her people and not Naomi's people.</p><p>And to her god. Follow your sister-in-law- </p><p>Cp. AV “her gods”. The contrast is between Orpah returning to her god [Chemosh?] and Ruth stating in the next verse that she wants to accept Naomi’s God [Yahweh]. "Follow" would imply 'follow her back to follow her god'. And putting it like that, Ruth felt she had no choice but to cross the border of Moab / Israel, and totally commit to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Ruth said, Don’t entreat me to leave you, and to return from following after you- </p><p>She has a choice of following her sister in law to follow her gods, or to follow the apparently hopeless case Naomi, and follow her God Yahweh. It seems to me that it was Naomi's faith in her God despite her own personal weaknesses and Yahweh apparently failing to 'come through' for her in a short term sense::. which actually attracted Ruth to Yahweh, through Naomi's example. The harder side of God is attractive in this sense. Because He is so evidently real and for real in human life. It is simply untrue that a God who appears to give immediate blessings is going to be the most attractive. The spiritually minded person will believe otherwise. See on <a href='B:80 2:23'>Rth 2:23</a>.</p><p>For where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God- </p><p>Ruth's rejection of her national gods and her people was a huge thing to do. We note that the name "Ruth" means "to water"; which was exactly what Moab had refused to do for Israel in <a href='B:40 25:1-3'>Num 25:1-3</a>. The hope of the restoration prophets was that a repentant Judah would return from the lands of the Gentiles, bringing with them Gentile converts. And I suggest the book of Ruth was rewritten in exile to support this, by demonstrating that it had happened before, historically. Not all Moabites were like Moab had been historically; a xenophobic Judah were to thereby remember that their own beloved king David was from Moabite stock, and any Gentile could come into the people of Israel. Evidence that the book has been rewritten is found in the impression that it was originally all in poetic form in very ancient Hebrew, but that appears to have been rewritten in a way which removes much of the poetic structure whilst adding later Hebrew words and Aramaisms (notably in <a href='B:80 1:13'>Rth 1:13</a>; <a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a>). Hence the need in <a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a> for the book to explain how things were done in "former times" in Israel.</p><p>The LXX of <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> is almost quoted by the Lord Jesus in an unusual way, at first blush. The Jesus who loved little children and wept over Jerusalem's self-righteous religious leaders, so desirous of their salvation, is the One who today mediates our prayers and tomorrow will confront us at judgment day. He is the same yesterday [as He was in His ministry], today [in His mediation for us] and for ever, as He shall be at His return. Perhaps the Lord called the disciples His “brothers” straight after His resurrection in order to emphasize that He, the resurrected Man and Son of God, was eager to renew His relationships with those He had known in the flesh. It’s as if He didn’t want them to think that somehow, everything had changed. Indeed, He stresses to them that their Father is His Father, and their God is His God (<a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a>). He alludes here to <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> LXX. Here, Ruth is urged to remain behind in Moab [cp. Mary urging Jesus?], but she says she will come with her mother in law, even though she is of a different people, and “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. This allusion would therefore be saying: ‘OK I am of a different people to you now, but that doesn’t essentially affect our relationship; I so love you, I will always stick with you wherever, and my God is your God’.</p>


text:
<p>where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried. Yahweh do so to me, and more also- </p><p>Ruth had learnt the Yahweh Name and already accepted Him as her God. Only a person who was in covenant with Yahweh could swear by Him, for in those days you took an oath by your gods (<a href='B:90 17:43'>1Sa 17:43</a>). The location of death and burial was significant to those who believed that their gods were geographically limited; you wanted to be buried in the land of your god so he could look after you. It's quite possible that Ruth and Naomi still had a somewhat limited view of Yahweh, as did Jonah and many others, thinking that He was the God of the land of Israel, and therefore must be served there. Their return to the land was a return to Yahweh. But of course the wonder of their stories, as they looked back at them, was that they had both effectively found Yahweh outside the land of Israel, and in a situation of great moral weakness and disobedience to Him. This was exactly the intention for the exiles in Babylon, for whom this book was likely rewritten and republished.</p><p>If anything but death part you and me- </p><p>The idea is that not even death would not part them, because Naomi says they will be united in their death and burial.</p>


text:
<p>When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she stopped speaking to her-</p><p>It was Israel who were to be "strong" (s:w. "steadfastly minded") in order to leave Moab and enter the land of Israel in faith that Yahweh would go with them, and give them an inheritance in that land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>; <a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>). Again we see the relevance for the exiles in Babylon, who were urged to likewise be "strong" (s:w:) and leave Gentile lands and come back to Judah (<a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a>; <a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So those two travelled to Bethlehem- </p><p>AV "went until they came". This is the phrase repeatedly used of the travels of the patriarchs, who also left a Gentile land and came to inherit the land of Israel and enter relationship with Yahweh (<a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a>; <a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a>; <a href='B:10 26:13'>Gen 26:13</a>; <a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a>). Ruth is clearly presented as one who wished to act in faith as a true member of the seed of Abraham, and thereby to attain the "hope of Israel". We notice the intended contrast with Rachel, who died before she came to Bethlehem; the women likely passed by the spot where she died (<a href='B:10 35:16'>Gen 35:16</a>; <a href='B:10 35:19'>Gen 35:19</a>). The idea is that this wayward Israelitess and Gentile Ruth had more faith than Rachel, one of the founding mothers of Israel.</p><p>When they had come to Bethlehem, it happened that all the city was agitated about them, and they asked, Is this Naomi?- </p><p>They counted Ruth as part of Naomi; so the grammar demands. They were "agitated about them", asking "Is this [not "are these"] Naomi?". Her identity with Naomi was somehow apparent.</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara; for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me- </p><p>She uses the term "Almighty" rather than Yahweh, although she knows the Name Yahweh (:21), because shaddai means 'fruitful', from shad, the breast. But she had lost the fruit of her womb and apparently didn't even have any grandsons. She believed in Yahweh passionately, so much so that Ruth came to believe in Him because of her; but she has her deep struggles with His justice, and was bitter ["Mara"] because her character reflected how she felt He had dealt bitterly with her. We see how struggles with God's "justice" do not completely preclude relationship with and faith in Him. There are many Biblical examples of that (like Job, David and Jeremiah). And our character and personality likewise is a reflection of our perceived experience of God. The convinced atheist will have an "empty" aspect to their personality because God is missing. Those who have experienced His grace will likewise have grace and patience as part of their characters.</p>


text:
<p>I went out full, and Yahweh has brought me home again empty- </p><p>To be "full" was one of the blessings for obedience to the covenant, and the potential gift of God to Israel when they first entered Canaan (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:25'>Neh 9:25</a> s:w:). But she had left Israel assuming that those blessings were not fulfilled. See on :2. Now she realized that she had seen the cup half empty instead of half full. To be empty was to be without blessing (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:20 3:21'>Exo 3:21</a>; <a href='B:50 15:13'>Deu 15:13</a>). Boaz later tries to indirectly persuade her that this was not the case ultimately (s:w. <a href='B:80 3:17'>Rth 3:17</a>). She returned to Israel and to Yahweh of her own initiative, and yet she says that Yahweh "brought me home", s:w. "returned" (:22 etc:). He worked, and still works, in confirming the desire of every person who seeks to turn or return to Him and the Hope of Israel. She felt that although she had not experienced blessing from Him, indeed she had lost the potential blessings and was without His blessings, yet still she wanted to return to Him. Contrary to Pentecostal reasoning, the experience of "blessing" was not what attracted her to Him. Rather she wanted to simply be in relationship with Him, like the prodigal son returning from Gentile lands not looking for any material blessing.</p><p>Why do you call me Naomi, since Yahweh has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?- </p><p>Judgment is now, in a sense. She felt that God had judged and as it were legally testified against her for her various weaknesses discussed earlier in this chapter; her seeking for a good life rather than putting God first, not returning to Israel when her husband died, allowing her sons to marry Gentiles etc. But what she was yet to realize was that the apparent affliction was but a prelude to her greater deliverance. Likewise God afflicted Israel in Egypt to the point that even Moses felt it was too much (<a href='B:20 5:22-23'>Exo 5:22-23</a>), but only that He might bring them out to inherit the land of Israel (<a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a>). The God who forbad the affliction of the fatherless and widow like Naomi and her sons (<a href='B:20 22:22'>Exo 22:22</a>) would not ultimately willingly afflict His people, but only with their restoration in view (<a href='B:110 11:39'>1Ki 11:39</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>; <a href='B:310 3:33'>Lam 3:33</a>).</p><p>But at this point, Naomi appears to not grasp this. And yet for all that, her faith in Yahweh was such that she persuaded Ruth to forsake all and follow Him; for all this mystery of His ways with men and apparent affliction of people with no game plan toward salvation yet in view. Indeed the word she uses for "afflicted" is that translated "to do evil" or 'be wicked' with a moral dimension (s:w. <a href='B:10 19:7'>Gen 19:7</a>; <a href='B:10 38:10'>Gen 38:10</a>; <a href='B:30 5:4'>Lev 5:4</a>; <a href='B:230 64:2'>Psa 64:2</a>; <a href='B:230 92:11'>Psa 92:11</a>; <a href='B:290 31:2'>Isa 31:2</a> and often). She comes close to accusing God of being wicked in His treatment of her. This is how bitter she was. And yet this didn't preclude her desire to come to Him, and that desire and commitment to Him, the God whose ways she didn't understand, was so powerful that it converted Ruth to Him as well. We simply learn from this that solving all the problems of Divine justice is not actually required for a person to have relationship with Him. Indeed the very existence of those problems actually leads humble people to believe in Him. That is the paradox which is totally missed by those who seem to think that endless apologetics will pave the way for folks to therefore and thereby believe in God.</p>


text:
<p>So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her, who returned out of the country of Moab- </p><p>We notice the double stress upon how they "returned". As noted on :21, it was God who 'returned' them. She says that Yahweh "brought me home", s:w. "returned" (:22 etc:). He worked, and still works, in confirming the desire of every person who seeks to turn or return to Him and the Hope of Israel. There is another similarity here with Abraham, who felt God had made him leave his father's house and come to Canaan, even though this is what he had been commanded to do on his own initiative (see on <a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a>). Ruth returned or turned to Israel "out of" Moab, suggesting she came out from her own people in order to come to Yahweh; just as Abraham.</p><p>And they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest- </p><p>A reminder that there was indeed now bread in Israel. It would have been March or April, the time of Passover (<a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a>), heightening the connection between these women and Israel. For Israel left Egypt after being "afflicted" there (see on :21), to enter the land of promise.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz-</p><p>"Kinsman" is literally 'one who knows'. Boaz ["strength", as in <a href='B:110 7:21'>1Ki 7:21</a>] is presented as a manifestation of Yahweh. He knew the situation exactly (:11), he was a gibbor ["mighty man"], with the wealth required to resolve the situation. And yet Naomi seems to have forgotten about him, or at least assumed her apostacy was such that he would be unable to assist. Again we see a similarity with the prodigal son, who returns to his father's relative wealth but with the assumption he might just be able to get a job as a day labourer with him. Indeed the parable of the prodigal has so many similarities with the story of Ruth. The connections suggest that Naomi had indeed sinned and wasted her inheritance in Moab. Boaz was a descendant of the prostitute Rahab and Salmon, a prince of Judah (<a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a>; <a href='B:490 3:32'>Luk 3:32</a>); and a case can be made that he was one of the spies who first spent the night at her brothel. So he had Gentile blood within him, and was aware that Gentile women, even questionable ones, could be accepted into the community of God's people.</p><p>The goel or redeemer role played by Boaz was representative of that played by Yahweh; the word is often used about His desire to be that redeemer figure for His people once they returned to the land. I suggested on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> that the book was rewritten, under Divine inspiration, and applied to the exiles as an encouragement for them to return to the land, bringing Gentile converts with them.</p>


text:
<p>Ruth the Moabitess- </p><p>This is emphasized six times (<a href='B:80 1:22'>Rth 1:22</a>; <a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a>; <a href='B:80 2:6'>Rth 2:6</a>; <a href='B:80 2:21'>Rth 2:21</a>; <a href='B:80 4:5'>Rth 4:5</a>; <a href='B:80 4:10'>Rth 4:10</a>). The exiles who returned became very xenophobic against Gentiles, and one intention of the book of Ruth being reissued amongst them (see on :1) was to remind them that God deals with individuals, and there were faithful Gentiles as well as unfaithful Israelites.</p><p>Said to Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find grace- </p><p>If Naomi had Boaz in mind as a saviour, she surely would have suggested Ruth went and gleaned in his field. But she apparently doesn't suggest this, and is pleasantly surprised when she finds out Ruth happened to encounter Boaz. The encounter with grace is always a surprise to the recipient, for this is the nature of grace, and Naomi responds exactly as we would expect if she had indeed assumed Boaz would not help her. Ruth casts herself completely upon grace. To glean for dropped grain was for the poorest of the poor (<a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a>); and this is what they were.</p><p>We could however take the reference to Boaz in :1 as meaning that Ruth at least was aware of Boaz, and is describing him as the one in whose eyes she should find grace. It was Israel who were to find grace in Yahweh's sight (s:w. <a href='B:20 33:16'>Exo 33:16</a>); so perhaps the spiritually minded Ruth was looking for a person who would reflect Yahweh's grace to her. And indeed Boaz has been set up in :1 as a manifestation of Yahweh's strength and power to save. Ruth was proactive in seeking for grace, however, as we will see when she takes the initiative in proposing to Boaz that he marry her. We could also note that <a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This would account for the hint in :22 that not every landowner allowed gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth; but as noted on <a href='B:80 3:13'>Rth 3:13</a>, this&nbsp; showing far more grace than the law actually required, seeing that the Levirate law only affected "brothers dwelling together".</p><p>It could be argued from <a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a>; <a href='B:110 11:19'>1Ki 11:19</a>; <a href='B:190 5:8'>Est 5:8</a>; <a href='B:300 31:2'>Jer 31:2</a> cp. <a href='B:80 1:9'>Rth 1:9</a> that to find grace in the eyes of a man meant that he would marry her. Ruth perhaps entertained the hope or fantasy that she would find a wealthy landowner who would marry her. For this, humanly speaking, was the only way out of their desperate situation. It's rather like Joseph suggesting to Pharaoh that a man be appointed over Egypt's future harvests, and having the spiritual ambition to have himself in view for the appointment. Or Abigail asking David to "remember your handmaid" (<a href='B:90 25:31'>1Sa 25:31</a>), another possible idiom for marriage. And as with Ruth, that spiritual ambition paid off. What seemed impossible, that a Moabite Gentile beggar could marry a wealthy Israelite landowner and be welcomed into the community of Israel, actually came about. And I suggest Ruth had this spiritual ambition. Although when it began to come true, she was awed by the grace being shown to her.</p><p>She said to her, Go, my daughter- </p><p>Naomi was effectively a surrogate mother to Ruth. The idea of Ruth marrying Boaz had not initially even occurred to Naomi. She wishes her well in finding someone who would let her glean in their field, and that is all. It is only when Naomi tells her that a man called Boaz was kind to her, that the possibility appears to form in Naomi's mind. For levirate law didn't really envisage someone of such a distance from Ruth as Boaz marrying her to raise up seed. See on <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She went, and came and gleaned in the field behind the reapers- </p><p>The barley was reaped by women, who tied the reaped grain into bundles, which were then gathered together into shocks for transport by the men to the threshing floor. See on :7.</p><p>And she happened to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech- </p><p>They practiced strip farming, the strips being defined by landmarks. This situation arose because of the land being constantly split up in inheritances, and was one reason why the anonymous kinsman didn't want to mar his inheritance which he would leave by buying land which would revert to the son he was to have by Ruth, and would not remain in his name but in the name of that son. There was of course no "chance" to this ["she happened to:."]. One simple message of the book is that there is no chance. All was clearly meant to be, as God worked to respond to Ruth and Naomi's desire to come to Him. "She happened to come" is AV "Her hap was to light on::.". The same phrase is used by Solomon in lamenting how such time and chance happens to all (<a href='B:250 2:14-15'>Ecc 2:14-15</a>; <a href='B:250 9:2-3'>Ecc 9:2-3</a>). He failed to learn the lesson from his great ancestor; that in fact there is no such thing as chance happening in the lives of those who love God.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, Yahweh be with you! They answered him, Yahweh bless you!- </p><p>We have here an insight into the spiritual mind of Boaz, openly using the Yahweh Name in the workplace. It is this kind of day by day spirituality which is the essence of the believing life. Yahweh's 'blessing' and 'being with' His people is however directly associated with generosity to those like Naomi and Boaz: "The foreigner living among you and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates, shall come and shall eat and be satisfied, that Yahweh your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do" (<a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a>). Perhaps the blessing called out upon Boaz by the people in his field was because they recognized that he was indeed blessing the foreigner, fatherless and widow. So his interest in helping Ruth and Naomi was genuinely spiritually motivated; the fact that Ruth was an eligible and perhaps attractive younger woman wasn't the primary motivation for his grace.</p>


text:
<p>Then Boaz said to his servant who was set over the reapers, Whose young woman is this?- </p><p>Boaz asking [in the Hebrew] whose is she, rather than who is she, might suggest it was love at first sight and he was immediately holding in mind the possibility of marrying her. It could be Ruth had the same feelings (see on <a href='B:80 2:13'>Rth 2:13</a>; <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>; <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>). The question 'Who is this?' as asked by Boaz of Ruth is to be understood as a statement of intended action and not read on face value. For he knew exactly who she was (:11). The same kind of question is asked by David about Bathsheba, even though he knew who she was because she lived next door to him and was the wife of his close friend (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>). Likewise when Saul enquires about who David is after his victory over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:56'>1Sa 17:56</a>), it is not because he doesn't know him. For David had been already at the court of Saul. The question 'Who is this?' means that the questioner wants to do something for the person being enquired after.</p>


text:
<p>The servant who was set over the reapers answered, It is the Moabite woman who came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab- </p><p>This implies that she was already well known in the small town. Her Moabite nature is twice stressed.</p>


text:
<p>She said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves’. So she came, and has continued even from the morning until now, although she stayed a little in the house- </p><p>"The house" refers to a temporary booth where workers could take rest in the brutal heath. The law about gleaning didn't at all require that people should be allowed to glean right behind the reapers, "among the sheaves". It simply stated that if a sheaf was forgotten, the farmer should not return to collect it, but leave it in the field for the poor. That Ruth's utter poverty lead her to beg to be allowed to pick up the grain "among the sheaves" was far beyond this. That Boaz and his servant allowed it indicates how he saw beyond the letter of the law to the spirit, and this is what will be seen again in the very generous and far reaching extension he makes to the law of levirate marriage. The whole story is in fact about moving beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of it, which is grace. Ruth could be interpreted as being forward, but it seems to me that really she was driven to such going beyond the letter of the law because of her desperate need.</p>


text:
<p>Then Boaz said to Ruth, Listen, my daughter: Don’t go to glean in another field, and don’t go away from here, but stay here close to my maidens- </p><p>The girls in view are the reapers, for the reapers were usually women, and it was the men who gathered the sheaves into shocks and transported them to the threshing floor. We note how the Lord likens His Angels to reapers, when this was a typically female work.</p>


text:
<p>Let your eyes be on the field that they reap, and go after them- </p><p>"Go after" the other women is to be connected with how Boaz later commends Ruth for not 'going after' men in the hope of marriage (<a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>). So we can conclude that he is directing her attention to the field before her; for already there was forming in his mind a plan to get a field for her of her very own. And by directing her eyes to the field he was surely hoping that the same possibilities would form in her mind too.</p><p>Haven’t I commanded the young men not to touch you? When you are thirsty, go to the vessels, and drink from that which the young men have drawn- </p><p>Boaz perhaps feared Ruth would go after the young men who were his harvesters. Although he and they greeted each other in spiritual terms, clearly that may have been a mere formality as they were likely to abuse a vulnerable single woman. He commends her later for not having gone after young men (<a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>). It would seem that Boaz fell in love at first sight, but the basis of his attraction was her spirituality and devotion to Israel’s God (2:12,13).</p>


text:
<p>Then she fell on her face and bowed herself to the ground, and said to him, Why have I found grace in your sight, that you should take knowledge of me, since I am a foreigner?- </p><p>Falling on the face, bowing and saying these very words is all what Moses did before Yahweh in the context of entering the covenant and entering the land (<a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a>). Abraham and Joshua did likewise (<a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a>; <a href='B:10 17:17'>Gen 17:17</a>; <a href='B:10 18:3'>Gen 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 5:14'>Jos 5:14</a>). All the way through, Ruth sees Boaz as representing Yahweh, and his acceptance of her and redemption of her represented that of Yahweh. For she had come to Israel primarily because of her commitment to Yahweh and the covenant.</p><p>But to 'find grace in the sight' of a man also means to be accepted by him as a wife (<a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a>). The words of both Ruth and Boaz always seem to have hints in them towards marriage; their feelings and hopes were clearly mutual, and this is the beauty of the story as romance. See on :13. Ruth is awed that he should give her grace in his eyes although she was a Gentile. She was aware of the prohibition upon Moabites entering Yahweh's congregation. But one of the themes of the book is that the spirit and not the letter of the law is to be followed. God cares for individuals and ultimately has relationship with persons rather than nations en masse. Ruth obviously lived in the hope that she could indeed enter the congregation of Yahweh and the letter of the law need not apply to her. She used the Yahweh Name and had specifically chosen to follow Naomi to Israel because of her commitment to Naomi's God, whom she had declared to be her God- whether or not&nbsp; God's people accepted her. She was therefore thrilled to see hints that Boaz likewise was thinking outside the box, beyond the constrictions of mere legalism. And in Boaz she sees the representation of Yahweh towards her.</p>


text:
<p>Boaz answered her, I have come to know all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband; and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth- </p><p>The reason for Boaz's kindness was not therefore that he simply was showing grace to some random stranger. He was aware of Ruth's story. From whom would he have known all Ruth had done for Naomi, unless he had spoken with Naomi? For they were relatives. This paves the way for my suggestion on <a href='B:80 4:3'>Rth 4:3</a>; <a href='B:80 4:5'>Rth 4:5</a> that Naomi, the seller of the land, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. It could be that Naomi and Boaz had He respects how she left her parents- implying they were still alive.</p><p>Again there is a double entendre in Boaz's words. For in <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>, marriage is defined as leaving father and mother and being joined to our partner. He says that she has indeed left father and mother- to come to Israel. But his words are pregnant with the implication that now she had left father and mother, she was to marry. And his grace toward her in entering the marital covenant was to reflect Yahweh's covenant being extended to her. These ideas are developed in Ruth 3. planned the whole legal situation we encounter in Ruth 4.</p><p>And have come to a people that you didn’t know before- </p><p>She had of course "known" Israelites before. So Boaz is using the idea of 'knowing' in the Hebraic sense of having relationship with. She realized that relationship with Yahweh means a relationship also with His people. John's letters likewise point out how the vertical relationship with God must have a horizontal dimension also. Boaz realizes this and wants therefore to manifest Yahweh's acceptance of Naomi.</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh repay your work, and a full reward be given you- </p><p>These are the very words of the new covenant offered to Judah in Gentile lands (<a href='B:300 31:16'>Jer 31:16</a>). Again, as noted on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>, the book of Ruth was clearly rewritten with phrases and wordings designed to encourage the exiles to make the journey of Ruth and Naomi, and to accept Gentile converts and not oppress women, nor anyone, but to perceive the value of persons as Boaz had done. The fact Boaz says these words to her again shows him to be Yahweh manifest to her. He was to recompence her "labour" with practical care and the marriage covenant, and thereby was manifesting to her God's covenant acceptance of her.</p><p>John writes that it is our ‘labour’, in the sense of hard mental effort, to know Him and believe in Him, which will have a ‘full reward’ (<a href='B:700 1:8'>2Jn 1:8</a>). John here is alluding to the LXX of <a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a>, where a ‘full reward’ is given to Ruth for working hard all day gleaning in the fields. It may be that this allusion was because “the elect lady” addressed by John was in fact a proselyte widow, like Ruth. John's allusion indicates that he understands Boaz as using "labour" to refer to her mental labour of coming to faith in Yahweh. But the point is, we have to labour, as much as one might work hard walking around a lake or gleaning in the field, in order to know the Lord Jesus Christ. For He told those who walked around the lake that they should not do that labour for food, but for relationship with Him.</p><p>From Yahweh, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge-</p><p>Again, he sees himself as manifesting that refuge which Yahweh was extending over Ruth. This was why he was preserving her life and her personal safety as she worked in his fields. See on <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>. After "Yahweh, the God of Israel", the LXX adds “to whom you have come”, implying that Ruth’s motivation for coming to Israel was in order to come to the God of Israel and take her place under His wings.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, Let me find grace in your sight, my lord- </p><p>As noted on :10, to 'find grace in the sight' of a man also means to be accepted by him as a wife (<a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a>). The words of both Ruth and Boaz always seem to have hints in them towards marriage; their feelings and hopes were clearly mutual, and this is the beauty of the story as romance. She was here summoning the courage to indirectly suggest to Boaz that he could accept her as his wife. In the same way as she had the courage to throw herself upon Yahweh and claim covenant relationship with him, despite being a Moabitess.</p><p>Because you have comforted me, and because you have spoken to the heart of your handmaid- </p><p>This is very much the language of the restoration prophets in their message of encouragement to Judah in Gentile lands to return to the land (Isaiah 40; Isaiah 1; <a href='B:290 66:13'>Isa 66:13</a>; <a href='B:330 3:10'>Eze 3:10</a>). As explained on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>, the book of Ruth was rewritten under inspiration as encouragement to the exiles.</p><p>Although I am not as one of your handmaids- </p><p>This is one of a series of connections with the parable of the prodigal. As the son wanted to return to the Father as a servant although somewhat different from them, as he was a relative also, so Ruth felt. There’s an ambiguity in the last part of Ruth’s words here. It could be translated as “I don’t wish to merely be as one of your maidservants” (see NEB), with the implication, however vague, that she was thinking of marriage. This was then extended into the effective proposal she later makes to Boaz (see on <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>; <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>At meal time Boaz said to her, Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your morsel in the wine- </p><p>Bread and grape juice was indeed appropriate fare for workers in the oppressive heat of harvest. But the invitation from Boaz to Ruth to partake of "bread and wine" is framed as having religious overtones. For nearly all Biblical references to "bread and wine" together have a spiritual, covenantal dimension or context. He was again seeking to encourage her that she had indeed entered covenant with himself and with Yahweh whom he represented to her.</p><p>She sat beside the reapers, and they reached her parched grain, and she ate, and was satisfied, and left some of it- </p><p>The legal requirement was that a poor person could pick grain and rub it in their hands to give a little food (<a href='B:50 23:25'>Deu 23:25</a>). But this was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. She was given no passing snack; she ate so much that she left some of what she was given. And we will see that this is what Boaz does with the levirate marriage law too. But the parched grain was extended to her by the reapers. They too had absorbed the spirit of grace shown by their master. And indeed, ways of grace are contagious. The superabundance of grace is shown by her having more than enough to eat, and taking back for Naomi what she had left over from the meal (:18).</p>


text:
<p>When she had risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and don’t reproach her- </p><p>The women reaped, tying the reaped grain into bundles, which were then gathered together into shocks for transport by the men to the threshing floor. It was unsurprising that there should be some protest at this gleaner picking up as much grain as they themselves were going to take home. "Reproach" is the word used in the restoration prophecies of how a repentant, regathered Judah would not be reproached (<a href='B:290 45:17'>Isa 45:17</a>; <a href='B:290 50:7'>Isa 50:7</a>; <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>). Her boldness in asking to glean even among the sheaves was not forwardness; she was driven to it by hunger and poverty. And it was that same desperate but proactive seeking for grace which led her to as it were propose to Boaz. Ruth was childless and a widow, both of which were a reproach to a woman (<a href='B:10 30:23'>Gen 30:23</a>; <a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>; <a href='B:490 1:25'>Luk 1:25</a>). Boaz again is hinting that he wished to take away her reproach amongst men- by marrying her. And it was Israel in exile who were a reproach (<a href='B:230 44:13'>Psa 44:13</a>), which could be removed from them by God's plan of redemption. "Fear not the reproach of men" (<a href='B:290 51:4'>Isa 51:4</a>) was God's word of restoration to the exiles, but it was based upon Boaz's words to Ruth. They would forget the reproach of their widowhood and never be ashamed again (<a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>; <a href='B:300 31:19'>Jer 31:19</a>), after the pattern of Ruth.</p>


text:
<p>Also pull out some for her from the bundles, and leave it; let her glean- </p><p>Again, we see Boaz hugely expanding upon the letter of the law about gleaning. And it was this spirit which was to climax in his development of the levirate law of marriage to allow him to marry Ruth. But we note that he began with the law and extrapolated its spirit further; he didn't simply ignore it and act as he felt would be gracious according to his own native sense of justice and kindness. And there is a major lesson here. For so much that is claimed to be humanitarian aid is doing just that, and is not the same as the grace we see being developed, understood and practiced here. The law was a springboard toward grace, guiding the path and trajectory toward it; as Paul puts it, the law was a schoolmaster to lead men unto Christ.</p><p>And don’t rebuke her- </p><p>I noted on :16 that the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a> comforted the exiles that they would not be reproached again; and the same word for "rebuke" here is used in <a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a>, assuring them that their restoration would mean that they would not again be rebuked. Those prophecies were clearly allusive to the story of Ruth; she and Naomi are being held up as parade examples to the exiles, to return to their land and to their God. They were not to fear that their situation had put them on the wrong side of the letter of the Mosaic law, but to accept grace and reflect it to others, especially in how they treated women and Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>So she gleaned in the field until evening; and she beat out that which she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley- </p><p>The beating out and winnowing was done in the evening when there was generally a stronger wind. There were ten omers in one ephah, and one ephah of manna could feed a man for a day (<a href='B:20 16:16'>Exo 16:16</a>; <a href='B:20 16:36'>Exo 16:36</a>). So this was a huge amount of barley, enough to feed a man for ten days. The abundance of provision by Boaz is clear, but we note also the abundance of the harvest, when neighbouring Moab was perishing from famine. There is here confirmation that Yahweh was blessing Israel at this time.</p>


text:
<p>She carried it, and went into the city where her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. And she brought out and gave to her that which she had left after she herself had enough to eat- </p><p>I calculated on :17 that this was a huge amount of barley, enough to feed a man for ten days. She also took home for Naomi what was left over from the meal of :14. The impression is that Boaz has done what the Lord Jesus also did for the hungry [including Gentiles] who loved the God of Israel, providing them with superabundance of food so that there was much left over for people who were perishing with hunger. This was all consciously orchestrated by Boaz. He had gone way beyond the letter of the law and just wanted to articulate the lavishness of God's grace. And it is for us in our encounters with people to likewise lavish a reflection of the grace we have received.</p>


text:
<p>Her mother-in-law said to her, Where have you gleaned today? Where have you worked? Blessed be he who took notice of you!- </p><p>"Took notice" is s:w. "acknowledged" (<a href='B:10 38:26'>Gen 38:26</a>; <a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a>; <a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a>). Boaz had acknowledged her as a Gentile who was in covenant with Yahweh, had acknowledged her desire to be in His family. Just as Yahweh had done. The exiles (see on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>) were likewise encouraged that they would be acknowledged and blessed (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:9'>Isa 61:9</a>).</p><p>She showed her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz- </p><p>We may note that she speaks not of working for a man, nor of just being given gifts; but of working together "with" Boaz ["with" is stressed twice]. She answers the question as to "where" she worked by explaining with whom she had worked. We are increasingly getting the impression that Ruth and Boaz are unconsciously working together towards the same end conclusion, as lovers do. But as those who truly love God also do.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed be he of Yahweh, Who has not left off His grace to the living and to the dead- </p><p>Clearly Naomi recognizes that Yahweh's grace was being articulated through that of Boaz. The Bible is clear that death is unconsciousness. But Naomi perceives that through being gracious to her and Ruth, Yahweh was also being gracious to their dead husbands. Both of them had not been spiritually strong, as discussed on Ruth 1. But His grace is very deeply perceived by Naomi; she sees His grace to her and Ruth as also in a way being grace shown to their husbands, despite their bad decisions during their lifetimes. And when analyzed, Divine grace does indeed appear to have ever increasing facets and aspects the more we consider it; His grace is therefore "manifold" or multi-coloured, as a crystal refracting light (see on <a href='B:670 4:10'>1Pe 4:10</a>). She may already have in mind now that if Boaz married Ruth and they had a child, this would be a grace to the dead Mahlon, as a seed would be raised up.</p><p>Naomi said to her, The man is a close relative to us, one of our near kinsmen- </p><p>The idea of the returned exile being saved by a goel, a redeemer, connects with the frequent descriptions of God as Judah’s redeemer at the time of the restoration; the word occurs multiple times in this context in the latter chapters of Isaiah. The possibility of a goel marrying Ruth had apparently not occurred to Naomi in <a href='B:80 1:11-13'>Rth 1:11-13</a>, where she understands the goel to only possibly marry herself, and then her resulting sons might then marry Ruth and Orpah. That the goel could marry Ruth had not previously occurred to her. Perhaps because this wasn't what the Levirate law legally required, or perhaps because she considered that no true Israelite ought to marry a Moabitess like Ruth. Or because she considered Boaz too old and possibly impotent. But now she sees beyond the letter of the law to the possibilities of grace. And this is indeed what affliction and providence lead us to.</p>


text:
<p>Ruth the Moabitess said, Yes, he said to me, ‘You shall stay close to my young men, until they have ended all my harvest’- </p><p>The end of all the harvest meant both the barley and wheat harvest which followed it (:23). It is emphasized that Ruth "Stay close" to the young women (s:w. :8,23). Yet she reports this to Naomi here as saying that she had been told to "stay close" to the young men. Exactly why is unclear to me. It is the same word used of how Ruth "clave" to Naomi (<a href='B:80 1:14'>Rth 1:14</a>). It is also the word of cleaving to a partner in marriage (<a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>), and cleaving to Yahweh in covenant relationship (<a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a>; <a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8'>Jos 23:8</a>). Boaz's servants were effectively him. The language is again to demonstrate that Ruth's cleaving to Boaz was an acted parable of her cleaving to Yahweh; and his usage of the word was surely to suggest that she might cleave to him in marriage. It was God's wish that His exiled people should cleave to Him (<a href='B:300 13:11'>Jer 13:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens, and that they not meet you in any other field- </p><p>This could mean that not every landowner allowed gleaning in their fields:&nbsp; <a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. See on :2.</p><p>"Meet" is s:w. "entreat" in <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>. Naomi could see that others might be impressed by Ruth and want her association with them, perhaps with a view to marriage. But although Boaz was old, she was sure that he had to be the right candidate for Ruth because he was the relative who could raise up seed for Mahlon. She thereby put spiritual principle first. The levirate law didn't strictly apply to Ruth and she was free to marry whom she wished.</p>


text:
<p>So she stayed close to the maidens of Boaz, to glean to the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest- For "stayed close", see on :21.</p><p>And she lived with her mother-in-law- </p><p>This may be a reminder that despite their feelings for each other, Boaz and Ruth didn't live together before their marriage. It was the fulfilment of Ruth's promise in <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>: "where you lodge, I will lodge". But it may also be an allusion to <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>, as there was in :11. Ruth lived with her mother, but she was to leave her and cleave to a husband. She had emigrated to Israel solely for the sake of relationship with Yahweh; she had begged Naomi not to entreat her to "leave" her (<a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>). She was resigned to a single life for the sake of her devotion to Him. But she was to be surprised by grace; she was in fact going to do just that [in terms of <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>] when she married Boaz.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you?- </p><p>"Seek rest" is an idiom for finding a marriage partner. See on <a href='B:80 1:9'>Rth 1:9</a>. Ruth had given up any hope of this in order to follow Yahweh, and Naomi had stressed that returning to Israel with her would mean not finding rest in this sense. But now the possibilities of grace beyond the law occur to Naomi. The lights go on, as they have in the minds of all who start to perceive grace. It was a man who sought a wife, yet the record here stresses the initiative taken by Naomi and Ruth. <a href='B:300 31:22'>Jer 31:22</a>, in a restoration context, speaks of how “a woman shall compass a man” (AV), i:e. a woman would take the initiative. And this surely alludes to the story of Ruth and Naomi. God’s people were to take the initiative with their redeemer, believing He would respond.</p>


text:
<p>Now isn’t Boaz our kinsman, with whose maidens you were? Behold, he winnows barley tonight in the threshing floor- </p><p>Threshing floor at harvest time was an immoral place, associated with prostitutes and cheap women: "the harlots hire on every threshing floor of corn" (<a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). A case could be made (but see on :3) that the plan was that Ruth would come to Boaz at night whilst he was drunk, dressed up appealingly, and sexually compromise him into marrying her. This would’ve been so difficult for a woman like Ruth, who appears by all accounts an upright woman- more upright, if this were the case, than her Jewish mother-in-law who hatched the plan. The suggestion in :4 that Ruth lay down with him is indeed vague but could arguably suggest sexual contact; and "feet" there could be a euphemism as in <a href='B:330 16:25'>Eze 16:25</a>, a passage which as we shall show was in Naomi's mind. Uncovering the skirt is also capable of sexual interpretation; see on :9. The whole story, of deceiving a man into marriage, coming to him by night, when he’s likely slightly drunk::. all recalls the situation of Jacob being tricked into marrying Leah [for surely Jacob couldn’t have been quite sober if he really didn’t know that the woman he was sleeping with wasn’t in fact his beloved Rachel]. The motif of deception appears common to both histories. The connection is heightened by the villagers wishing Ruth fertility like Rachel and Leah (<a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a>). They also wish her the fertility of Tamar (<a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a>)- who also deceived a man using sexual compromise. See on <a href='B:80 2:13'>Rth 2:13</a>. But Ruth was already known as a woman of integrity (:11), who wasn't chasing men (:10). This strongly weighs against the idea that she was practicing sexual manipulation.</p><p>But perhaps the simple reality was that "winnowing was generally done at night, in order to take advantage of the breeze". This meant that the grain remained there overnight, and Boaz perhaps Boaz slept by his corn because he feared it being stolen at night. Israel after all was emerging from a time of famine and the corn would have been valuable.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore wash yourself, anoint yourself, get dressed up, and go down to the threshing floor, but don’t make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking- </p><p>There is a lot more to this than Springsteen's "Put your makeup on, fix your hair up pretty / And meet me tonight in Atlantic City". Likewise the advice to wait until he has finished eating and drinking is not simply secular wisdom, waiting until his heart was merry. She does these things and then asks for Boaz to spread his skirt over her (:9), which although not recorded here, was also what Naomi told her to do. What is "more" to all this is that Ezekiel describes Israel's coming into covenant with God in the wilderness as involving bathing, washing, anointing and the spreading of the skirt of the covenant, which the historical record states was accompanied by Israel's representatives eating and drinking before Yahweh (<a href='B:330 16:8-12'>Eze 16:8-12</a>). And see on :5. Whilst Naomi's advice may all have been fair enough on the secular level, her language choice clearly indicates that she has the covenant at Sinai in mind. And Boaz is clearly represented as manifesting Yahweh to Ruth (see on <a href='B:80 2:1'>Rth 2:1</a>). Naomi and Ruth were not simply sexual manipulators, there was without doubt a deeply spiritual element in all this. Whether that was the sole aspect of the carefully planned encounter is open to debate, but that spiritual dimension cannot be denied.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when he lies down, that you shall note the place where he shall lie, and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lay down; then he will tell you what you shall do- </p><p>Laying with a man and uncovering his feet could imply sexual contact; see on :2. "Feet" there could be a euphemism for the sexual organs as in <a href='B:20 4:25'>Exo 4:25</a> and <a href='B:330 16:25'>Eze 16:25</a>, a passage which as noted on :3 was in Naomi's mind. But she was apparently to note the place where he was laying, and only return to it later that night. And it was quite likely that the threshing floor had other men sleeping on it as well, protecting their piles of corn (see on :2).</p>


text:
<p>She said to her, All that you say I will do- </p><p>I noted on :3 that both women have consciously in mind the covenant at Sinai, and this is word for word the agreement made between Israel and Yahweh in <a href='B:20 19:8'>Exo 19:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She went down to the threshing floor, and did according to all that her mother-in-law told her- </p><p>Her complete obedience to the idea of entering covenant is emphasized. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p>When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry- </p><p>The mention of this is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to portray Boaz and Ruth as parade examples of peerlessly spiritual believers who fell in love with each other. I have discussed on :2,4 whether Naomi and Ruth were being sexually manipulative in their plan. I overall decide against it. But it is simply so that human motivation is rarely pure, and faith is rarely total. The completed harvest was typically a time of sexual immorality and over eating and drinking. That Ruth should come to him precisely at this time, at night, and that he is described as having a merry heart from drinking::. is all unfortunate for any argument for the peerless spirituality of Boaz and Ruth. The situation simply reminds us of their humanity. Ruth's, in that she apparently did capitalize upon Boaz's weakness, instead of inviting him to have a sober meeting with her to discuss things. Boaz's, in that every mention of a heart merry from drinking is in a very negative spiritual and moral context (<a href='B:90 25:36'>1Sa 25:36</a>; <a href='B:70 19:6'>Jdg 19:6</a>; <a href='B:70 19:22'>Jdg 19:22</a> cp. 18:20; <a href='B:110 21:7'>1Ki 21:7</a>). And yet it is through their weakness and humanity that their reality and spiritual greatness shines through. They, who were so weak and human, had such faith and spiritual insight.</p><p>He went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. She came softly, uncovered his feet, and laid herself down- </p><p>Ruth seems to me to be a wonderful example of a spiritually ambitious person. It was unheard of in those times for a woman to propose to a man; yet by coming to him, uncovering his feet and laying under his mantle, she was stating that she wished to see him as a manifestation of God to her (<a href='B:80 3:7'>Rth 3:7</a>; <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a> = <a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a>). She went&nbsp; after him, following him (<a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>); the poor, landless Gentile aspired to be a part of a wealthy Jewish family, in order to fulfil the spirit of the Law. And she attained this. As noted on :1, this was to be the inspiration for the exiles, when a woman was to compass a man.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at midnight, that the man was startled and turned himself; and noticed a woman lay at his feet- </p><p>"Startled" is too mild a translation. The Hebrew is "trembled", and is used about trembling at the prospect of Divine judgment (<a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>; <a href='B:330 32:10'>Eze 32:10</a> s:w:). Why would be tremble in this way if he awoke, sensing someone else near him, and find it to be the young woman whom he had his eye upon, and she was effectively proposing to him. Surely a different word would have been used, rather than one which expresses such fear and trembling in anticipation of judgment. He had got drunk (:7), and now he awakes, sober. He sees a woman near him, and he trembles at the thought that whilst drunk, he may have slept with one of the prostitutes who frequented harvest floors (<a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). He had done wrong in getting drunk. But because he realized this and trembled because of his failure, what might have been the night of his shame became the most wonderful night of his life, humanly speaking. The young woman of his dreams proposes to him. And so again we see Divine grace; that in the very midst of human failure, and recognition of that failure::. God acts to pour out His grace. We have likely all experienced this in our lives, and we see it so wonderfully at this point in Boaz's life.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Who are you? She answered, I am Ruth your handmaid. Therefore spread your skirt over your handmaid- </p><p>But she had taken the initiative and spread his skirt over herself (:4,7). She was asking him to confirm the initiative which she had taken, and to manifest the God of Israel to her, under whose wings she had come from Moab to come under (<a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a> LXX). The same Hebrew words for ‘spread… skirt’ are those used to describe how the cherubim “spread their wings” (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a> etc:). She saw God manifest in that man, her goel / redeemer. To uncover the skirt of a person can mean to have sex with them (<a href='B:50 22:30'>Deu 22:30</a>; <a href='B:50 27:20'>Deu 27:20</a>). But clearly she wants marriage, redemption and family life rather than just sex. But this could play along with the possibility of sexual manipulation discussed on :2. For you didn't sleep sharing the same blanket unless you were married. But she asks him to do this because he is "a near kinsman", and not for passing pleasure or money. LXX, following the targum: "Let thy name be called upon thine handmaid to take me for a wife". Ruth was already known as a woman of integrity (:11), who wasn't chasing men (:10). This strongly weighs against the idea that she was simply practicing sexual manipulation; although see on :7</p><p>For you are a near kinsman- </p><p>But legally, in terms of levirate law, Boaz wasn't the goel. And he wasn't even the closest relative. The levirate law operated when "brothers dwell together". And that wasn't the case. Under Mosaic law, a Moabite woman was not to be married. At best it could be argued that a relative of Elimelech's could marry Naomi and raise up seed to him. But she was barren. It was a stretch of levirate law for Boaz to marry Ruth, let alone that she should take the initiative and proposition him to that effect. The idea of Ruth marrying Boaz had not initially even occurred to Naomi, so we can deduce from <a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a>. I suggest that Ruth was not simply being a forward, manipulative woman. She and Naomi had thought through the levirate law, and were seeking to extend its implications according to the spirit of grace rather than law. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Blessed are you by Yahweh, my daughter. You have shown more grace in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as you didn’t go after young men, whether poor or rich- </p><p>Heb. "You have made this last kindness greater than the first". His idea may be that she had not gone chasing men in Moab, because she wanted to follow Yahweh and not the gods of those men. That was her first grace. And now she had shown another grace or kindness, in that she wanted to marry Boaz because she perceived him to be a spiritual man and manifestation of Yahweh; and because she chose him specifically because of her respect in the principles, although not the letter, of the levirate laws of the covenant. He rightly perceives that his wealth was not an item of attraction. His usage of the word grace / kindness is slightly out of context, but we can understand it if he saw that out of it all, it was a kindness to him for a young, attractive widow to offer to marry him as an old man. Jewish tradition claims that he died soon after their marriage; perhaps his old age was one reason why the idea of Boaz marrying Ruth didn't initially occur to her. It can also be understood that her first kindness was to her late husband and his family. She wanted to raise a Godly seed for him, even though he was apparently weak in faith; and so her first kindness was that she had refused her Moabite suitors after his death. And now the second kindness was in being willing to marry an old Israelite man in order to continue her kindness to her first husband, by raising a Godly Israelite seed for him.</p><p>Boaz here recognizes that Ruth is ‘going after’ him. He feels she is showing him grace- reciprocating the grace he had shown her in the harvest fields. Just as he had invited her to see God’s skirt spread over her (<a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a>), so she is asking him to spread his skirt over her. Her ambition in effectively proposing to Boaz, a Gentile nobody proposing herself to a man of the Jewish establishment, is indeed inspirational. See on 2:13. The GNB probably catches the idea: "You are showing even greater family loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law”. This is looking very positively on Ruth- she was desperately poor, childless despite a previous marriage, and to throw herself on a rich distant relative in the hope of marriage and long term support was all absolutely human and natural. But Boaz, with the imputation of goodness which comes from being in love, saw her boldness and desperation in a very positive light. He liked to think of it as her showing grace to him, the old guy.</p>


text:
<p>Now, my daughter, don’t be afraid; I will do to you all that you say- </p><p>Again, as noted on :5, this is the language of the covenant at Sinai. Ruth does all Naomi says, and Boaz does all Ruth says. The power of faithful, spiritually minded women is being emphasized, in a male dominated society. We note that both Boaz and Naomi call her "daughter".</p><p>For all my people in this city know that you are a worthy woman- </p><p>That Ruth was already known as a woman of integrity rather precludes the possibilities discussed on :2 that there was an element of sexual manipulation going on. Although human behaviour and motivation is rarely pure, and we cannot totally rule it out, as discussed on :7. "Worthy" is the same word translated "wealthy" in <a href='B:80 2:1'>Rth 2:1</a>. Boaz was a worthy / wealthy man, and Ruth was a worthy woman, who was to be also wealthy when she married Boaz. They were perfectly suited for each other in moral and spiritual terms, and "all my people in this city", all the family [including the nearer kinsman], knew this. If this reading is correct, the idea of them getting married would not have come as a shock to the elders of the city in Ruth 4. It also confirms my suggestion later that Boaz and Naomi had agreed that the condition of buying her field was that the purchaser marry Ruth. They had had the two months or so of barley and wheat harvest (<a href='B:80 2:23'>Rth 2:23</a>) to work things out and have some kind of courtship.</p>


text:
<p>Now it is true that I am a near kinsman; however there is a kinsman nearer than I- </p><p>But I explained on :9 that the levirate law didn't really define Boaz as any kind of goel. He was only that through a seeking to extend its implications according to the spirit of grace rather than law. But he goes along with the idea. She appeals to grace, and he already understands that grace goes beyond the letter of the law. <a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This would account for the hint in <a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a> that not every landowner allowed gleaning in their fields. And he was a descendant of the Canaanite prostitute Rahab, who had been allowed to marry into the princely line of Judah (<a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Stay this night- </p><p>This presumably was because it was dangerous for a woman to walk at night, or because he didn't want Ruth to be thought of as a threshing floor prostitute (<a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>) by being spotted walking near the threshing floor alone late at night. I suggested on :2 that Boaz slept by his corn to protect it from wandering thieves. But by saying this, he sets himself up already as her protector.</p><p>And it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform for you the part of a kinsman, so be it; let him do the kinsman’s part- </p><p>Although as explained on :12 the whole idea of Boaz being the goel was a long stretch of the law, he was willing to take the spirit of the law and extend it by grace. But this didn't mean that he therefore disregarded the original principle behind the grace he was willing to show. And he therefore is careful not to simply flout Divine law and principle in the expression of grace. And this is an important principle to grasp for all time. Seeing he was clearly in love with Ruth, this was no painless formality for him.</p><p>But if he will not do the part of a kinsman for you, then will I do the part of a kinsman for you, as Yahweh lives. Lie down until the morning-</p><p>The levirate laws stated only that the brother of the dead was to perform the duty of levirate marriage. And the duty only concerned "brothers dwelling together". Seeing Elimelech had left Israel, this hardly applied in this case. We get the sense throughout that Boaz wants to marry Ruth; and that he was showing far more grace than the law actually required. Just as he allowed gleaners in his fields, extrapolating from the letter of the law towards a far more gracious position; see on <a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She lay at his feet until the morning. She rose up in the dark; for he said, Let it not be known that a woman came to the threshing floor- </p><p>This could be what he said to himself, explaining his reasoning for sending her away before others had woken up. I suggested on :13 that he asked her to stay the night because&nbsp; it was dangerous or unseemly for a woman to walk alone at night. He was concerned that people didn't think he had slept with her. Perhaps the thinking of the Mishnah (Yeb. 2:8) was already current, whereby "a man suspected of having sexual relations with a gentile woman is excluded from performing the levirate with her".</p>


text:
<p>He said, Bring the mantle that is on you, and hold it. She held it; and he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her; and he went into the city- </p><p>By removing her "veil" [AV in order to hold the barley, she was effectively removing the sign of her widowed status. Surely there were other means of transporting it, but Boaz is acting in faith that indeed he will marry her.</p>


text:
<p>When she came to her mother-in-law, she said, How did it go, my daughter? She told her all that the man had done to her- </p><p>"Had done" rather than "had said" is perhaps significant. We could read her as meaning that he had promised to marry her. But again we cannot escape the thought that what he had "done" to her was to sleep with her or at least be sexually intimate with her, as discussed on :2. The huge amount of barley given her in :17 would then be some form of payment or at best concession that he had not acted completely correctly by her. Perhaps this whole question is indeed raised by the text, but left tantalizingly unanswered. It would be part of the story line which intrigues and holds attention, and leaves us with the caveat that for all their faith and spirituality, Ruth and Boaz were not sinless but still human.</p>


text:
<p>She said, He gave me these six measures of barley; for he said, ‘Don’t go empty to your mother-in-law’- </p><p>"Empty" here is s:w. <a href='B:80 1:21'>Rth 1:21</a>, where Naomi laments that she is "empty": "I went out full, and Yahweh has brought me home again empty". To be "full" was one of the blessings for obedience to the covenant, and the potential gift of God to Israel when they first entered Canaan (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:25'>Neh 9:25</a> s:w:). But she had left Israel assuming that those blessings were not fulfilled. See on <a href='B:80 1:2'>Rth 1:2</a>. Now she realized that she had seen the cup half empty instead of half full. To be empty was to be without blessing (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:20 3:21'>Exo 3:21</a>; <a href='B:50 15:13'>Deu 15:13</a>). And so here Boaz tries to indirectly persuade her that this was not the case ultimately; she was going to receive blessing such as she could never have imagined, even in this life. She felt that although she had not experienced blessing from Him, indeed she had lost the potential blessings and was without His blessings, yet still she wanted to return to Him. Contrary to Pentecostal reasoning, the experience of "blessing" was not what attracted her to Him. Rather she wanted to simply be in relationship with Him, like the prodigal son returning from Gentile lands not looking for any material blessing- and yet all the same finding it.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, Sit still, my daughter, until you know how the matter will end; for the man will not rest- </p><p>"The matter will end" uses the word usually translated "fail". The idea could be "Wait and see whether our plan has failed". "The matter" is the Hebrew translated elsewhere as "word" or "thing". Not one word failed of God's plan to bring Israel from Moab into the land and give them an inheritance there (s:w. <a href='B:60 21:45'>Jos 21:45</a>; <a href='B:60 23:14'>Jos 23:14</a>). And neither would this word for Ruth's redemption fail either.</p><p>Until he has finished the thing this day- </p><p>Literally, "fulfilled the word". And Boaz did do so, manifesting God to the exile Naomi and the Gentile Ruth. The very same phrase is used of God fulfilling His prophetic word of restoration through the decree of Cyrus to restore Judah from Gentile lands to Israel (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>). See on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> for the relevance of Ruth to the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>Now Boaz went up to the gate- </p><p>This fits exactly with Bethlehem being built on a ridge. The accuracy of fine details like this throughout the Biblical record confirm that indeed the Bible is not a fictional work of men but the inspired words of God.</p><p>And sat down there. When the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by he said to him, Come over here, friend, and sit down! He turned aside, and sat down- </p><p>The near kinsman sits down, and in :2 the elders sit down. This all leads on from the information in <a href='B:80 3:18'>Rth 3:18</a> that Ruth too is sitting down, but at home, nervously and eagerly awaiting the result of the sitting down of the men. This is all part of the inspired story line and suspense. For we all want to know whether Ruth ends up having to marry a man who doesn't love her when she has already a lover. The narrative of loveless marriages, girls loving men whom they can't marry and marrying men they don't love and who don't love them::. this has for ever been the stuff of Middle Eastern stories. And there is that intrigue inserted into this story, a kind of carrot to get human attention- in order to introduce us to some of the profoundest issues of Divine and human grace.</p>


text:
<p>He took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit down here. They sat down- </p><p>Note the emphasis upon sitting down; see on :1. It's as if the cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in close on the men in the scene; truly we can play Bible television with these verses.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the near kinsman: Naomi, who has come back out of the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s- </p><p>Just as Boaz had no legal necessity to allow gleaning in his fields, nor was he legally obligated to be the goel to Ruth (see previous discussions in Ruth 2, 3), so he here appears to be somewhat stretching legal truths. For this is the first we hear of Naomi owning land. Mosaic law didn't allow inheritance by a widow (<a href='B:40 27:8-11'>Num 27:8-11</a>); the property was to pass to the husband's family, not to his widow. Elimelech had long since left Israel and forsaken his inheritance, and we would assume that his parcel of land had passed already to someone else. And there appears no legal requirement for the kinsman to consider the land as jointly owned now by Ruth and Naomi, and to make purchase of the land contingent upon marrying Ruth and having children by her. The issue of property seems unrelated to the levirate law which Boaz was seeking to apply to himself. Surely he could have offered Ruth in marriage to the near kinsman, and married her if he refused.</p><p>We naturally enquire why he raises this issue of property. There are various options. It could simply be that there were Jewish laws in place at the time which we don't have access to, and Boaz is alluding to them. For in practice, the Mosaic laws would have required other practical laws added to them in order to enable to functioning of society in practice. Or perhaps the parcel of land in view had been inherited by Naomi from her father, in a situation akin to that of Zelophehad's daughters in Numbers 27; or maybe Naomi was related to her husband Elimelech, which might explain their lack of children and poor health of the two who survived to adulthood. Or perhaps it belonged to Naomi in the sense that it should have passed to Mahlon and Chilion, but as they were dead, she was their legal representative and had the right to dispose of it as they were childless (:9). Or "The property was perhaps promised to Naomi as a marriage-gift or bequeathed to her at marriage to provide for her husband's predeceasing her without leaving a child".</p><p>It was absolutely possible for women to inherit property from their father (as in <a href='B:220 42:13-15'>Job 42:13-15</a>), and for a woman who had been a period in Gentile lands to return to Israel and have her inheritance restored (<a href='B:120 8:1-6'>2Ki 8:1-6</a>). Because of her poverty, Naomi was selling the land which somehow she had legally inherited. But the need to marry Ruth if the land was purchased is not in accordance with any Mosaic legislation or even logic. Therefore it has been suggested that :5 should be translated&nbsp; "On the day you acquire the field from Naomi's hand, I am acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, to raise up the name of the deceased over his inheritance". And on reflection, the near kinsman pulls out of the property acquisition because he can see legal problems developing in the next generation if Ruth has children who would also claim it.</p><p>Maybe Boaz raises this whole issue of the property simply because he indeed did want to keep the land in the power of Ruth, and he wanted to make his advertising of his marriage to Ruth somehow incidental. He would then be using the property issue as a kind of blind, a distraction, to take attention away from his declaration of intent to marry Ruth. But we wonder why the night before he had told Ruth that he would like to be her goel, but there was a nearer kinsman who legally could do this.</p><p>My preferred answer is that Naomi, the seller, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. Any children Ruth had would then inherit the land. And therefore Boaz had been unable to agree immediately to marry Ruth because he needed to get the near kinsmen with the first right of purchase to actually not purchase it.</p><p>I conclude, therefore, that between them, Boaz and Naomi are seeking to expand the spirit of the levirate law of Deuteronomy. The spirit of that law was that the widows should be protected and be given children. By various mechanisms and schemes, they were expanding and keeping the spirit of the law but not the letter. Yet they didn't disregard the letter of the law, but sought to give the near kinsman the opportunity to buy the field and formally turn down the chance of marrying Ruth. This is in harmony with the way that Boaz had expanded the spirit of the law about not fetching home a forgotten sheaf to mean that he allowed women to glean in his field. And this is exactly the spirit of Yahweh's redemption of His people.</p>


text:
<p>I thought to disclose it to you saying, ‘Buy it in the presence of those who sit here, and of the elders of my people’. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not redeem it, then let me know. You have first right to redeem it; and I am next in line. He said, I will redeem it- </p><p>See on :3 for the various options of interpretation. John the Baptist's comment that he came "after" Jesus, and that Jesus was the redeemer rather than he himself (<a href='B:500 1:15'>Joh 1:15</a>) contain a strange allusion to the words of the redeemer-who-was-incapable-of-redeeming in <a href='B:80 4:4'>Rth 4:4</a>. Boaz told him that "I am after thee" (AV, NEV "next in line"), but in the end the incapable-redeemer plucked off his shoe as a sign of unworthiness to redeem (<a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a>). And John surely also had this in mind when he commented that he was unworthy to unloose Messiah's shoe (<a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a>). The allusions are surely indicative of the way John felt like the unworthy / incapable redeemer, eclipsed before Boaz / Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Then Boaz said, On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must buy it also from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance- </p><p>I concluded on :3 that Naomi, the seller, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. The record doesn’t state contact between Boaz and Naomi; although see on <a href='B:80 2:11'>Rth 2:11</a> for the suggestion that they worked out this plan together in the months of barley and wheat harvest. Naomi had told Ruth to just sit tight and wait and see what Boaz would arrange over the next 24 hours. We note too that Boaz didn’t give the anonymous kinsman the full picture- he firstly mentioned the land for sale / redemption, and only then mentions that this would involve marrying Ruth and raising children by her in the name of Elimelech. The Levirate law only required brothers to raise up children to their dead brother. Elimelech had not died childless, so there was no legal requirement to raise up children in his name. Ruth’s former husband had no living brothers. Therefore Boaz was operating according to the spirit of the law and not the letter of it; there was no legal requirement for the kinsman to marry Ruth and have children by her. But Boaz seems to be playing legal and psychological games to make the anonymous man turn down the offer of marrying Ruth- so that Boaz could then marry her on the basis that this was his legal necessity. The truth seems to be that he fell in love with her at first sight, and was going through all this appearance of legal necessity in order to somehow legitimize that fact. We likewise noted how he spoke of Ruth and Naomi’s manipulation and desperate appeal to him for help to in fact be a display of Divine grace (see on <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>).</p>&nbsp;<p>If in some way the levirate law was being strictly followed, and I discussed possibilities for this line of thought on :3, then we reflect that the principle would have often required men to become polygamous. A man "must redeem" the property of a dead relative in some cases by marrying his wife; but this would have resulted in polygamy. Boaz himself may have been already married. There are times when the standards of God contradict each other, on a surface level.</p>


text:
<p>The near kinsman said, I can’t redeem it for myself, otherwise I will spoil my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption for yourself; for I can’t redeem it- </p><p>Land at that time was organized according to strips of land within a field, rather than owning a field. Even wealthy Boaz only owned part of the field (2:3). Strip farming was very inefficient; upon death, land was split up between the children, and then when they died, the land was split up even further. The anonymous man didn’t want to have any more children because it would mean that what he was leaving as an inheritance would be even more reduced and divided. But because of that, he remains anonymous. He was concerned about what would happen over the next generation or so. By contrast, Boaz wasn’t worried about splitting up yet further the inheritance which he was leaving- and because of that, he left an inheritance which was recorded and stretched right down to the Lord Jesus.</p><p>It seems to me that the nameless relative in Ruth 4 was like so many people today. He was interested in getting a bit more land to add to his stack; but he didn't really care for the redemption of his brother, and pulled out of the whole thing once he learnt he would have to marry another wife and have more children. He said he couldn't do this because he would spoil [AV] or endanger [NIV] his inheritance. We know that at this time, strip farming was being practiced- whereby a field was split up into parts, each of which belonged to a different person (<a href='B:80 2:3'>Rth 2:3</a>). By having more children, the man would have to split up his land into yet more parts so that each son had his strips. And the son he had by Ruth would be counted as Mahlon's son, in the spirit of the levirate marriage laws. And so his bit of land would then be separate from the land strips the man was intending to give to his existing children. Ultimately this could lead to the man's total inheritance becoming almost worthless if it was just split into tiny strips because he had too many children.</p><p>I like how the NIV has the man speaking of 'endangering' his inheritance. He was like so many people- he had say a 20 year horizon, genuinely concerned about what was best for his children in the short term, rather than thinking about his responsibility to his brother. He saw 'danger' in doing that. It could be argued that the 50 year Jubilee law meant that the land boundaries returned to how they originally were after 50 years::. so perhaps [although it's hard to work out how the Jubilee law worked in practice] he was worrying about something which only had meaning for the next few decades [if that]. He wasn't a bad man; just one who was fearful and wouldn't look beyond the next 20 years or so. And I suggest the genealogy at the end of Ruth 4 comments upon this- that man is anonymous, his name never went down in history, whereas Boaz who loved his brother and didn't focus solely on his own immediate family went on to be the ancestor of both David and the Lord Jesus Himself.</p><p>Another possibility is that the man thought that marriage to Ruth was bound to spoil or destroy his inheritance or family, as she had that of Elimelech. He considered her a femme fatale. He may have seen this as just judgment for marrying a Moabitess. And he wasn't going to do the same. In this case we see how utterly wrong he was. He would be representative of the legalistic Jewish xenophobes of the postexilic period- who missed out on so much because of their attitudes.</p>


text:
<p>Now this was the custom in former time in Israel- </p><p>It can be noted that there are Aramaic terms in this verse. This confirms my suggestion on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> that the book of Ruth was rewritten in exile, presenting Naomi and Ruth as examples to the exiles who were likewise intended to return to their land their God. This would explain why at this point, the author or editor sees the need to explain what the customs were "in former time in Israel", because the readership would not know this.</p><p>Concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man took off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the way of affirmation in Israel- </p><p>This custom indicates that the law of <a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a> had been somewhat reduced in severity and altered. For there is no mention of spitting. We could read this as an indication of Israel’s apostasy from God’s law; or we could consider that even in Old Testament times, the essence of the Law was what was important rather than keeping the letter of it. However I have suggested on :3-5 that the levirate law did not at all require anyone to marry Ruth. Perhaps that is why the spitting was not done, only the removal of the shoe as a sign that they had indeed made the agreement.</p>


text:
<p>So the near kinsman said to Boaz, Buy it for yourself. He took off his shoe- </p><p>We notice that this was done "in the presence of the elders" (:2), just as was required by the law of <a href='B:50 25:7-9'>Deu 25:7-9</a> if the levirate law was not followed. But there was no spitting in the face, because actually the law did not require the kinsman to marry Ruth. That was an extension of the law being added by Boaz and Naomi. However :7 may imply that this whole things was nothing to do with levirate law in itself, and taking off the shoe was simply a token of confirmation of an agreement.</p>


text:
<p>Boaz said to the elders and to all the people, You are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi- </p><p>Presumably by this point, Naomi has appeared on the scene. Clearly there has been more collusion between her and Boaz than is recorded. The order Elimelech - Chilion - Mahlon may reflect the order in which they had died.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance, that the name of the dead not be cut off from among his brothers, and from the gate of his place. You are witnesses this day- </p><p>They were standing in the gate of his place, in the gate of Bethlehem (:1). Although Mahlon had been but a child when he left Bethlehem, he was still counted as being from there and somehow was rooted to the land of his inheritance. "To raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance" seems another attempt to connect the property issue to the marriage of Ruth (see on :3). This was not a connection strictly made by the levirate law. The seed did not have to be raised upon the geographical land inheritance of the deceased person. But that would indeed have been according to the spirit of the law; but it was not the letter. Naomi's selling of the land conditional upon the purchaser marrying Ruth was (see on :5) was therefore a reflection of how she [and Boaz] had worked out the spirit of the law. And indeed there is the nail-biting moment when the nearer kinsman has the opportunity to marry Ruth. When she's in love with Boaz and he with her. This arose because of their genuine desire to be obedient to the law. So in terms of the narrative, this statement of Boaz that he is going to marry Ruth leaves us all with the same sense of relief and triumph which we imagine in his voice.</p>


text:
<p>All the people who were in the gate and the elders said, We are witnesses- </p><p>Passers by had crowded around the seated elders to witness what was happening. Marriage was to be publically testified. There was not necessarily any documentary evidence, but marriage was publically acknowledged by the surrounding society in whatever form was then current. This can help us in defining marriage today.</p><p>May Yahweh make the woman who has come into your house like Rachel and like Leah, who built the house of Israel; and treat you worthily in Ephrathah, and bring you fame in Bethlehem- </p><p>See on <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>; <a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a>. We recall that Elimelech was from Ephrath (<a href='B:80 1:2'>Rth 1:2</a>), and perhaps Boaz was too, as he was a relative of Elimelech. The people perceived that Boaz wanted to build up the family of Elimelech, which had been wiped out by the death of his sons childless and his apparent failure to have any other children. This was grace indeed, to be so concerned about building up your brother's family, when Boaz surely had his own family. But it was as a result of this concern that his name is remembered; because we know nothing of his children, but we do know that his child by Ruth led to the Lord Jesus. "Worthily" is the word for "virtuous", used of Ruth in <a href='B:80 3:11'>Rth 3:11</a>. They were seen as a match for each other, as they were both virtuous people.</p>


text:
<p>Let your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, of the seed which Yahweh shall give you of this young woman- </p><p>Tamar’s fertility was legendary because despite being in middle age, one act of intercourse resulted in her having two children [twins]. The comparison with Rachel and Leah also seems forced, because they both had fertility problems; we have an example here of people using traditional terms of blessing, rather like singing hymns, without putting any meaning into the words. What unites all these three women is the fact that they were sexually manipulative, and this would support the impression we could possibly take from the record of Ruth’s approach to Boaz that night at the threshing floor.</p>


text:
<p>So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in to her, and Yahweh gave her conception, and she bore a son- </p><p>The rubric for procreation usually found in the Bible is that a man goes in to a woman, she conceives and bares a child. But here there is added that "Yahweh gave her conception". We wonder if she had been barren before. Perhaps that is why she more easily resigned herself to coming to Israel to serve Yahweh and being Naomi's carer, resigning the hope of remarriage. She imagined that if she did remarry, it would be a sad marriage [for those times] as she would be barren. However, her enthusiasm for Boaz, himself an old man, and the whole plan about him marrying her to raise up seed for Mahlon, was therefore all done even more in faith.</p>


text:
<p>The women said to Naomi, Blessed be Yahweh, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman; and let his name be famous in Israel- </p><p>The 'being a kinsman' to Naomi was felt to have only been achieved when a son was born. But grammatically, the near kinsman who would be famous and a restorer of life (:14) appears to refer to the baby boy. And this would then look forward to how this child's descendant would ultimately be the Lord Jesus, the ultimate restorer of life.</p>


text:
<p>He shall be to you a restorer of life, and sustain you in your old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him- </p><p><a href='B:290 56:3-8'>Isa 56:3-8</a> seems to allude to Naomi, Ruth and Boaz. The "dry tree" who was a eunuch [Boaz? Naomi?] and the Gentile [Ruth] who had taken hold of the covenant would be given a destiny "better than of sons and daughters", a quotation from <a href='B:80 4:15'>Rth 4:15</a>. Naomi has said she is barren (see on <a href='B:80 1:11'>Rth 1:11</a>), and we can deduce from <a href='B:80 4:13'>Rth 4:13</a> that Ruth was also. And at his age perhaps Boaz was impotent. Perhaps this was why the idea of Ruth marrying him didn't initially occur to Naomi. Out of every human inadequacy and impossibility, God raised up a seed, through using two women and a man who had faith that "God is able". And that seed was to continue to the conception of the Lord Jesus by the faithful virgin Mary, also from Bethlehem.</p><p>Hezekiah apparently chose to be a eunuch for the Kingdom's sake. There is the implication in <a href='B:290 56:3-8'>Isa 56:3-8</a> that his example inspired others in Israel to make the same commitment. They are comforted by Isaiah: "Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold (the same Hebrew word is used five times about Hezekiah, <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 29:34'>2Ch 29:34</a>; <a href='B:140 31:4'>2Ch 31:4</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>; <a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>) of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house, and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off". Hezekiah had lamented that he would die without a seed (<a href='B:290 38:12'>Isa 38:12</a> Heb:; Isaiah 53), and so did those who had also become (in their minds?) eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. There was that human desire for a seed, a "house" to perpetuate their name. But they are promised a name in God's house (family) in the Kingdom, better than of sons and daughters in this life. This alludes to <a href='B:80 4:15'>Rth 4:15</a>, where Ruth is described as being better than sons to Naomi. In other words, Ruth's having a child was a living exemplification of the Kingdom now. How God acted with her is how He will with all His people, who put Him first and take hold of covenant with Him.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi took the child and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse to it- </p><p>The barren Naomi (see on <a href='B:80 1:11'>Rth 1:11</a>) is portrayed as becoming able to nurse the baby. That would have been a miracle, reflective of the new life God was giving to all involved. Or it could be that she symbolically held the child to her breast, rather like Bilhah giving birth upon Rachel's knees so that Rachel could claim the child as hers (<a href='B:10 30:3'>Gen 30:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The neighbouring women gave him a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi! And they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David-</p><p>The naming of a child by women rather than the father is unusual (<a href='B:490 1:62'>Luk 1:62</a>). Perhaps it was because Boaz died soon after the marriage, as Jewish tradition claims. But it fits in with the theme in the book of the meaning and power of women, in a male based society. "Obed" means 'servant' and this was not a great name for a child in those times, especially for the son of a wealthy man like Boaz. But the spirit of the family was such that they perceived the spirit of servant leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Now this is the history of the generations of Perez: Perez became the father of Hezron- </p><p>The genealogy now given jumps many generations and so those who are mentioned must all have purpose. Beginning with Perez, son of Tamar who played the prostitute to Judah, we surely have Tamar [who was likely also a Gentile] being paralleled with Ruth. This could confirm the theme of sexual manipulation discussed on <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>. But I think the similarity is more in that they had both worked out the spirit of the law, and then went out and in their own ways tried to practice it with the appropriate men in their lives.</p>


text:
<p>and Hezron became the father of Ram, and Ram became the father of Amminadab- </p><p>Comparing with 1 Chronicles 2, some generations are skipped. But the point is that it included Amminadab, meaning "my kinsman, or paternal uncle (ammi) is generous". The idea is being presented that generosity and being a true kinsman redeemer ran in the family. Not only Boaz had been like this, but his ancestor too. The idea is that this would characterize the line of David, and would come to full term in the Messianic Son of David.</p>


text:
<p>and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became the father of Salmon- </p><p>Amminadab, the generous kinsman like Boaz (see on :19), had a descendant called Nahshon, meaning 'snake'. The abrupt juxtaposition is so that we understand that spirituality is not at all inherited genetically. It is a case of consciously choosing to follow good examples.</p>


text:
<p>and Salmon became the father of Boaz, and Boaz became the father of Obed-</p><p><a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a> says that Salmon had Boaz by Rahab. Yet Rahab lived some time earlier. I therefore suggest that Salmon was the ancestor of Boaz [not the literal father], through the child he had from Rahab. This is mentioned to highlight the fact that Boaz was descended from Rahab, and therefore was generous to the strangers and saw nothing wrong with a Moabitess marrying into the congregation of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and Obed became the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father of David- </p><p>The function of the narrative is to set up David as the intended outcome to a line which had arisen out of barren, Gentile women, domestic tragedy, servant leadership (see on :17), faith and perception of grace. And this is the line which the New Testament genealogies show continued to the Lord Jesus.</p>


