q. Samson and the Philistines (13:1–16:31)

The Samson narratives have as their background the earlier part of the Philistine oppression. The editor introduced the Ammonite and Philistine threats to Israel’s existence at the same point (10:7); now, having dealt with the lesser threat of shorter duration, he turns to the greater threat that was to overshadow the remainder of the period of the judges and the early monarchy up to the opening years of David’s reign (2 Sam. 5:17–25). The Philistines had settled in large numbers on the coastal plain about a generation after the Israelites had entered the land (c. 1200 BC), although the possibility of earlier, smaller settlements of ethnically related groups is not excluded (Gen. 21:32, 34; 26:1ff.; see note on 1:18, 19). When they had established themselves in their pentapolis (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath) they began to penetrate the hinterland. At some point they were momentarily repulsed by Shamgar, thus affording temporary respite to the Israelites (3:31). The Philistine pressure on the Amorites led to a corresponding pressure on the Israelites (1:34–36) and this led in turn to the migration of a portion of the Danites to the extreme north of the land (18:1ff.). It is likely that this took place before the time of Samson, who would then be one of the remnant of the Danites in what remained their original tribal portion. The Philistine menace was the greater because it was so insidious in some of its phases. The direct and cruel aggression of the Moabites, Canaanites, Midianites and Ammonites, etc. was missing, to be replaced by infiltration through intermarriage and trade. Their rule over the peoples they dominated does not appear at all onerous at this early stage and the men of Judah, who like the Danites were affected by these encroachments, seem to have resented the exploits of Samson and to have accepted the Philistine yoke with docility (15:11). There was the possibility that the Philistines might have continued this movement and eventually have taken over the whole land.

It was in this situation of apathetic acceptance of a potentially dangerous situation that Samson emerged to wage a one-man war against the Philistines. With remarkably little support from his own fellow-countrymen (nowhere does he have one single soldier at his side, let alone an army), he brought the danger into the open. There is no doubt that his exploits sharpened the animosity of the Philistines against the Israelites and led to the employment of greater force in carving out their empire. This represented a greater threat to Israel than any other invasion up to that point. But at least the issues were clear and the essential conflict was on the battlefield. Israel was able to appreciate and meet this threat, whereas the earlier and greater threat had been largely unrecognized. So these narratives are of historical importance, for they document a vital stage of the Philistine threat.

It has frequently been observed that Samson was not a typical judge, although such a statement could be countered with the question, ‘What is a typical judge?’ All the judges were individualists; most of them had their flaws of character. Perhaps a ‘typical judge’ exists only in our imagination! Nevertheless it must be agreed that, in a group of unique individuals, Samson was in a category all of his own. Endowed with the Spirit of the Lord and dedicated to a lifelong Nazirite vow, his life seems to have revolved around illicit relationships with prostitutes and loose-living women. Whilst he is said to have judged Israel for twenty years (15:20) he effected no real deliverance from the Philistines and perished ultimately as a prisoner in their midst. It is a sad tale of a lack of discipline and true dedication, and the reader is left wondering what Samson might have achieved had his enormous potential been matched and tempered by these mental and spiritual qualities.30 Undoubtedly the Israelites of Samson’s age and, more especially, succeeding generations would revel in the tales of his exploits; in all probability they were told and retold until they were gathered up by the editor of our book. But the editor himself does not glorify Samson’s exploits. He recounts them without praise or blame and with the irreducible minimum of editorial comment, perhaps allowing them to speak for themselves before the final episodes bring his account to a close with their oft-repeated comment, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.’

In spite of the fact that the exploits of Samson read like the actions of an uncontrollable juvenile delinquent, their essential historicity, and the historicity of their perpetrator, need not be doubted and their value is unquestionable. Samson was a man of flesh and blood, linked indissolubly with a well-defined tract of country. His birth and his death are carefully documented and there is little or no correspondence with the mythical Babylonian and Greek heroes. The only thing in favour of a connection with a sun-myth is the name of Samson, derived from the word ‘sun’. Attempts to equate the exploits of Samson with the ‘twelve labours’ of Gilgamesh or Hercules are fanciful and the direct connections with Hebrew life and thought are too strong to be broken.31 Finally, the skill of the narrator again shows that the Israelites were incomparable story-tellers. Avoiding extravagant accretions the stories are told with vigour, an understanding of human nature and an understatement that hints rather than dictates.32 The stories of the Bible, even as literature, will always be read and appreciated for these virtues but, above all, they will be read because, through their infinite variety, God speaks to the human heart.

13:1. The Philistine oppression. The forty-year oppression terminated with Samuel’s resounding victory over Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7), although the Philistines again dominated Israel during Samuel’s lifetime and the reign of Saul (1 Sam. 13; 14; 28–31). This domination was finally broken by David’s double victory at Rephaim (2 Sam. 5:17–25).

13:2–5. Samson’s birth foretold. The home town of Samson’s parents was Zorah, a small town on the border between Dan and Judah, in the Shephelah about 14 miles due west of Jerusalem. It was on the northern side of the Sorek valley, immediately opposite the town of Beth-shemesh (lit. ‘house of the sun’, which may have some bearing on the name of Samson). Manoah’s wife, like Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth, was barren, and as with the first and the third of these the birth of a son was announced by the angel of the Lord (see note on 2:1). The child was to be a Nazarite (AV) from birth. The word derives from the Hebrew nāzîr (hence Nazirite, RV, RSV, is to be preferred) meaning ‘one separated’ or ‘consecrated’.

The Nazirite vow is delineated in Numbers 6:1–21 and contains three stipulations: the Nazirite was to abstain from all products of the vine; his hair was to be left uncut during the period of his vow; he was not to defile himself by contact with a dead body. Any breach of these stipulations nullified the period of consecration that had been covered and a fresh start had to be made. It is clear from the Samson stories that he concerned himself only with the regulation concerning his hair. He is often found in contact with the dead, and that not merely accidentally (cf. 14:8, 9); and his presence at the carousal of 14:10, 17 hardly suggests abstinence from strong drink. The regulations of Numbers 6 also indicate that the Nazirite vow was personally undertaken and was for a limited period only, to be followed by well-defined rites. Samson’s vow was not voluntary and it was for the whole of his life (7), so his Nazirite state must be set in a special category, perhaps paralleled by Samuel who, in a Qumran text (4Q Sam.^a; cf. 1 Sam. 1:22), is described as ‘a Nazirite for ever all the days of his life’.

In view of the unique character of the son she was to bear, Manoah’s wife was to share the requirements of a Nazirite by abstaining from wine (made from grapes), strong drink (made from other fruits, honey and grain), and unclean food (which may be a direct reference to Numbers 6:3, 4, or a more general injunction to pay particular attention to the Israelite dietary laws). The statement that Samson would begin to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines points to the incompleteness of his life’s work, which was to be followed and consummated by the activities of Samuel, Saul, Jonathan and David.

13:6–14. The angel’s second visit. Manoah was immediately informed of this strange visitor and his incredible message, and it is indicative of the relationship existing between himself and his wife that he accepted the basic facts without question or suspicion. It will be observed that his wife made no mention of the part that her son was to play in delivering their people from the Philistines. Was this, perhaps, almost unbelievable? It is not surprising that Manoah and his wife had no real knowledge of the nature of their visitor until his supernatural disappearance (20, 21). After all, this was no ordinary event! He is described as a man of God (cf. Deut. 33:1), which often designated a prophet, but there was something strange about him which they associated with an angel of God. It was very natural that Manoah’s wife should afterwards realize her omission in not ascertaining the identity of the one who had made such a staggering promise to her.

Manoah accepted that the visitor was a man of God, i.e. a prophet revealing the will of God, and prayed for a second visit, that they might be prepared for the demands of parenthood (8), an attitude which all prospective parents would do well to emulate. His request was granted, and on this second occasion the woman was sufficiently composed to take immediate steps to secure the presence of her husband. The divine messenger was treated with the respect due to a man of God, but there was still no real conception of his identity. Manoah’s words (12) were a combination of prayerful gratitude and an earnest desire that they, as parents, might fulfil their responsibilities. The answer of the angel simply reiterated the instructions previously given to the woman alone.

The strongly anthropomorphic nature of this appearance has frequently been observed and it is an indication of the way in which God graciously accommodated himself to his people of old. He communicated with this simple couple in a manner which they could comprehend. As the centuries passed such appearances became less frequent, for communion and communication became increasingly inward and spiritual. In our own day, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is possible to be as sure of the will of God as when it was revealed in such a striking manner to Manoah and his wife.

13:15–23. The sacrifice of Manoah. Manoah’s request was typical of the hospitality of the Israelites and other similar groups, and the time involved in preparing such a meal is indicative of the leisureliness of the period, a far cry from the quick-frozen, ‘prepared-in-ten-minutes’ meals of the modern Western world! In the Middle and Far East there are still places where this kind of ‘timelessness’ exists. The sharing of a meal in the ancient world was a solemn act of fellowship. This incident brings to mind the hospitality proffered by Abraham (Gen. 18:3–8) and Gideon (Judg. 6:17–23), although there are important differences as well as similarities. The suggestion advanced by St Augustine and followed by a few modern scholars, that Manoah had in mind a sacrificial or sacramental meal with the deity, is ruled out by the consideration, already noted, that he had no awareness that his guest was superhuman. The angel refused to partake of such a meal but suggested instead that a sacrifice be offered to the Lord. Such a suggestion does not necessarily indicate a distinction between the angel of the Lord and the Lord himself (cf. verse 22 and the note on 2:1).

The hint of the angel was not followed up at once. Instead Manoah requested the name of the messenger, so that he might be honoured at the fulfilment of his prophecy. In the Ancient Near East the name of a person was important as suggesting the character of the one who bore it. Jacob (Gen. 32:29) showed his desire to know the name of his divine protagonist, so that he might exercise some control by his knowledge of the character revealed in the name; but there is no suggestion of such a motive in the case of Manoah. His request was not granted. Secret (18, AV) does not really indicate the meaning of the Hebrew adjective, which comes from a root meaning ‘separate’, ‘surpassing’ or ‘ineffable’. Most of the versions translate it as wonderful, which adequately conveys its meaning. Psalm 139:6, where the feminine form occurs, is an apt illustration of its nuance. Wondrously (19, AV, RV) is a participle derived from the same root. Manoah’s sacrifice of a kid was accompanied by a meat offering (AV). The Hebrew minḥâ is used in a variety of forms in the Old Testament, but its greatest single use, at least ninety-seven times in all, denoted a cereal offering (RSV; cf. meal offering, RV), as in the legislation of Leviticus 2. It was often associated with the other animal sacrifices and its purpose was ‘to secure or retain good-will’.33 The rock upon which the sacrifice was offered was probably a rock-altar.

The participular form did wondrously (19) is without a subject in the Hebrew. The AV and RV, which regard it as the action of the angel, connect it with the name of the angel in the preceding verse, and are to be preferred to the alternative view connecting it with the Lord who works wonders (RSV). In contrast with the events of chapter 6, where the staff of the angel was used to kindle the flame, Manoah appears to have offered up the sacrifice in the normal way, and the whole incredible incident came to its frightening climax when the angel ascended heavenward in the flame of the altar. Immediately full recognition flashed upon Manoah and his wife and left them prostrate and terror-stricken upon the ground. Manoah was the first to speak but the last to recover his composure, reflecting the widely held belief that if a man saw God he would die (Exod. 33:20; Judg. 6:22, 23). His wife, who had an advantage over her husband in that she had been in the presence of their divine visitor on an earlier occasion, and had survived that encounter, was more rational. With sound common sense she reasoned that the Lord would hardly have accepted an offering from them, or have revealed to them such strange things concerning the future, if he purposed their deaths.

13:24, 25. The birth and development of Samson. The connection of the name of Samson with the Hebrew word for sun (šemeš), and the improbability of any association with solar mythology, has already been noted.34 Corresponding forms occur in the Ugaritic texts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries BC and the probability is that it was a common name in Canaan before it was adopted by the Israelites. The brief account of his early years is reminiscent of the narratives concerning John the Baptist (Luke 1:80) and our Lord (Luke 2:40, 52) but in the case of Samson the early promise was not fulfilled. Like his predecessors amongst the judges of the various tribes he received his charismatic anointing of the Spirit of the Lord,35 an anointing which was reflected in his unique strength and spectacular feats. The reference to the camp of Dan (AV; Mahaneh-dan, RV, RSV) is interesting for it suggests a temporary habitation, possibly caused by the pressure from the Amorites and Philistines, in which case it could be viewed as a displaced persons’ camp. 18:12, where Mahaneh-dan is set in the vicinity of Kiriath-jearim, about 8 miles north-east of Zorah, is not determinative, since the same name could apply to a number of sites at a time of tribal displacement. Eshtaol was within a mile and a half to the north-east of Zorah. Apart from visits to Ashkelon (14:19), Gaza (16:1) and his final imprisonment in Gaza, the place-names suggest that Samson did not travel more than a few miles from his birthplace. The reference in verse 25 is a general introduction to his career rather than a reference to exploits which have not been preserved.

14:1–4. The first love of Samson. Timnah was a little more than 4 miles to the south-west of Zorah, on the other side of the vale of Sorek. Its occupation by the Philistines demonstrates their penetration of Israelite territory and its peaceful nature, for Samson appears quite free to come and to go, and there was no barrier to his marriage from their side. But the fact of Philistine domination, however peaceful, is noted in 4b. It is also attested by archaeological evidence, for ‘Philistine’ ware, a distinctive type of pottery manufactured in this period, is widely distributed at sites in the Shephelah and Negeb dating from the period after c. 1150 BC. The proximity of Timnah and Zorah—a little more than an hour’s stroll separated them—may account for the apparent confusion which some commentators have found in the narrative concerning the journeys to and from Timnah, e.g. the visit of Samson’s parents to Timnah is noted in verse 5 but no account is given of their return. However, in view of the insignificant journey involved this was hardly worth mentioning.

It was at Timnah that Samson met the first of his lovers, and he was not deterred by the fact that she was a Philistine and that he was breaking the traditions of his people and the injunctions of the Law concerning mixed marriages (Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3; cf. Gen. 24:3, 4; 26:34, 35). The grief of his parents at this alliance can be imagined, especially with their knowledge of his unique birth and peculiar destiny. Samson’s lack of concern on such an important religious issue was matched by his lack of submission to his parents. In Israelite society the father was the head of the family and as such exercised control over all of its members, including the choice of wives for his sons (e.g. Gen. 24:4; 38:6). It was exceptional for a son to contravene the wishes of his parents in this or any other realm (Gen. 26:34, 35; 27:46), for the unit was the clan and personal preference was subordinated to it. The remonstrances of Samson’s parents were dismissed curtly in the light of his overwhelming desire for this Philistine woman.

The likelihood that this was an inferior state of marriage, where the bride, instead of joining her husband’s family, remained with her own people, being visited from time to time by her husband (15:1; cf. note on 8:31) is only a slight mitigation of Samson’s offence. R. de Vaux observes, ‘Samson’s marriage has close similarities with a form found among Palestinian Arabs, in that it is a true marriage but without permanent cohabitation. The woman is mistress of her own house, and the husband, known as joz musarrib, “a visiting husband,” comes as a guest and brings presents.’36 There appears an element of contempt in the way in which the person of Samson’s choice is described. The normal word for an unmarried girl is not employed; instead the common word for woman is used. Possibly she was a widow or a divorced person. Delilah is similarly described in 16:4. The epithet, uncircumcised (3), applied to the Philistines in many Old Testament references, is appropriate, for all Israel’s neighbours with the exception of the Philistines observed this practice. There were important differences, however. For instance, circumcision outside Israel was often attached to the rites of puberty or pre-marriage, and in Egypt it appears to have been restricted to the priests and possibly the ruling class.

4. The explanation appears to be an editorial comment at a time when the Philistine menace was completely in the past, which suggests a date no earlier than the middle of the reign of David. The editor notes what he believes to be the overruling of the Lord in this breach of clan etiquette and the national religious code. He was seeking an occasion against the Philistines.37

14:5–7. Samson and the lion. The verbs went down and came in verse 5 are in the singular and this, together with the fact that Samson did not inform his parents of his feat in slaying the lion when they were supposedly with him, has led many commentators to assume that his parents were not, in fact, with him, and that he was on his way to contract a marriage without their approval. Such a reconstruction, involving the excision of the references to his parents, is not necessary. Many circumstances could have caused a temporary separation on the way down to Timnah and, in fact, all other information in this section is secondary to the slaying of the lion, since this is linked with its sequel in the riddle which Samson put at the marriage feast. As was hinted earlier,38 the proximity of Zorah and Timnah may account for some of the ambiguity.

Samson, attacked by a young lion, received a sudden accession of irresistible strength, attributed to the Spirit of the Lord coming mightily upon him. This manifestation of unusual physical strength appears to be the sole effect of the divine impulse upon Samson (cf. verse 19; 15:14; and the reference to Saul in 1 Sam. 11:6). The emphasis in the narrative is upon the ease with which he performed this exploit, not the manner itself, although the verb rent (AV, RV) suggests that he tore the lion down the middle, presumably by ripping the hind legs apart. The same verb is used in connection with the sacrificial act of Leviticus 1:17. There are many references to actions similar to Samson’s amongst the mythical heroes of antiquity. Enkidu, the friend of Gilgamesh, is shown possibly tearing a lion apart by pulling on its hind legs; Heracles strangled the Nemean lion with his bare hands; Polydamas, imitating Heracles, slew a full-grown lion on Mount Olympus without any weapon in his hand. The reference to the unarmed condition of Samson, he had nothing in his hand, may indicate that the Philistines had already begun their policy of depriving the Israelites of their weapons (1 Sam. 13:19–22); more probably, however, it is intended to draw attention to his prodigious feat. The slaughter recorded in 14:19 and 15:8 could hardly have been accomplished without weapons.

14:8, 9. Honey from the lion’s corpse. The reference to the lapse of time is indeterminative, but since Samson shared the honey with his parents it is probable that he was on the homeward journey from Timnah to Zorah. It was almost certainly subsequent to the earlier visit, since a honeycomb had been formed. Turning aside, which suggests that his exploit was performed away from the main route, he discovered that a swarm of bees had settled in the carcase of the lion. In the extreme heat of a Palestinian summer a carcase becomes dehydrated very quickly, thus staying putrefaction and allowing the bees to hive, for normally bees will not approach a decomposing body. Possibly also those natural scavengers, the ants, vultures and jackals, had performed their office, thus leaving a natural cavity for the bees. Herodotus cites a comparable incident where a honeycomb was discovered in the skull of Onesilus. It will be observed that Samson, by taking the honeycomb (the verb is suggestive, indicating that he scraped it out with his hands; cf. RSV), broke the provisions of the normal Nazirite vow by coming into contact with a corpse; in his case, wilfully (Num. 6:6). This may be the reason why he did not inform his parents of the source of his gift.

14:10, 11. Samson’s feast. Again we notice an enigmatic reference to Samson’s father; it is not clear why he journeyed to Timnah, since Samson was the one who provided the feast. This was at the bride’s house, making it apparent that this was not a normal Jewish marriage. It may be that the visit of Samson’s father was connected with an abortive effort to stop the marriage which he could not sanction. But we cannot be sure of this; some of the details appear to have been omitted. Marriage customs are notoriously tenacious and some of the details of this particular wedding feast appear in many subsequent celebrations, even up to the present day. The usual length of a celebration was seven days and the marriage was not consummated until the end of that period. The thirty companions were the ‘sons of the bride-chamber’ (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34, RV), who probably originated as a bodyguard to prevent the wedding party being surprised by marauders seeking easy pickings. The text seems to suggest something abnormal about this particular arrangement, as though the engagement of the thirty men was an afterthought. The LXX reflects this caution by its translation ‘when they feared him’ (11), i.e. they were a bodyguard to protect against Samson! But there was no apparent reason to fear him at this juncture, and his frequent visits to Timnah would have made them familiar with his abnormal physique long before this point.

14:12–18. Samson’s riddle. It is not possible to solve the problem of the various references to time in this section. The feast lasted seven days (12); after three days the young men had not found the answer to the riddle (14); on the seventh day (15, AV, RV) they enlisted the aid of Samson’s wife by threats; she wept for the seven days and Samson told her the solution on the seventh day (17). The LXX reads on the fourth day (15; cf. RSV, RV mg.), which eases the problem and makes sense of the reference in verse 14. But the first part of verse 17 remains inexplicable; obviously it should read ‘And she wept before him until the seventh day’ or something similar. This difficulty does not preclude an understanding of the general import of the passage, which centres on Samson’s riddle. Riddles were highly esteemed in the ancient world, but those concerned with trivialities found little place in Hebrew life, according to the Old Testament evidence. The word is used of the ‘hard questions’ with which the Queen of Sheba plied Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1); it is also translated ‘dark saying’ in Psalms 49:4; 78:2; Proverbs 1:6.

In the generally festive atmosphere of the feast Samson’s challenge was readily accepted, for the thirty men would consider the advantages of their combined wisdom and time to be on their side. In fact, the stakes were high. The sheets (12, 13, AV) were large rectangular pieces of fine linen which were worn next to the body by day or by night. The change of garments (AV; cf. RV) were properly festal garments (RSV) which were equivalent to the modern ‘Sunday best’. These were garments of superior quality and decoration, which were not for everyday use but for special occasions such as weddings. The average person would possess only one such garment. Such attire was often the principal source of spoil in battle (cf. 5:30). Samson’s riddle was in the form of a couplet, each line having three beats, the rhyme in our English rendering being accidental:

Out of the eater came something to eat.

Out of the strong came something sweet (RSV).

The answer to this riddle could hardly be found without the personal knowledge which only Samson possessed, and it is not surprising that, faced with considerable individual expense, the thirty guests were deeply concerned when they realized that a solution was beyond them. The atmosphere of the feast assumed an ugly, menacing aspect with their threat (15), in which they assumed that Samson’s wife was implicated in a plot to strip them of their possessions. 15:6 shows that it was no idle threat. The woman, fearing for her life and her father’s house, used the last resort of her sex, a flood of tears and the innuendo that Samson did not love her or he would keep no secrets from her—devices that have led to untold misery for both sexes! Samson was able to answer the innuendo by pointing out that his own parents, to whom he had the greater responsibility, were in ignorance of the answer (16); but he could not withstand the corrosive influence of three or four days of weeping. The suspense was maintained up to the last day. Samson, anticipating the consummation of the marriage, was anxious to stop the flow of tears. But the shared secret meant that the marriage was, in fact, never consummated, for, as the seventh day drew to its close, the riddle was answered. Samson never entered the bridal chamber and without this the marriage was considered invalid. His retort to the thirty companions is in the same form as the riddle, a three-beat couplet which, somewhat unusually in Hebrew poetry, has a rhyme formed by the repetition of the first person singular suffix to the nouns. C. F. Burney successfully renders this:

If ye had not plowed with this heifer of mine,

Ye would not have found out this riddle of mine.39

14:19, 20. Samson’s exploit at Ashkelon. Samson was obviously angered by his wife’s disclosure of his secret, and as there was no reason for her to conceal from him the duress under which it was secured, he would be angry with the Philistines also. In this crisis he was again endued with supernatural strength, attributed as elsewhere to a sudden accession of the Spirit of the Lord. The payment of the wager and the desire for revenge put away all thoughts of his marriage and the Philistines themselves were made to pay. The choice of Ashkelon, on the coast about 23 miles from Timnah and one of the five principal cities of the Philistines, was probably to avoid any possibility of anyone connecting this exploit with the incident at the wedding feast. Had Samson slain thirty men in a nearby town or village, then the coincidence would point unmistakably to him and a rude vengeance would have been taken on his family at Zorah. The debt paid, Samson retired in high dudgeon to his own home, his feeling for his wife temporarily alienated. But it was a signal disgrace for a bride to be left in this embarrassing situation at the completion of the wedding festivities and she was given forthwith to Samson’s best man (RSV), the ‘friend of the bridegroom’ (cf. John 3:29). Problems remain for the modern student. For instance, it must have taken two days for the return journey to Ashkelon. Samson must have returned to Timnah with this considerable pile of raiment. Had his bride been given to the best man before he returned, or was it after his return to Zorah? It is important to observe that the narrator is concerned, not with the incidental details which perplex us, but with the fact of the slaughter of the Philistines.

15:1, 2. Samson rejected. Climatic conditions are slightly variable in the various regions of Palestine, so that the time of the wheat harvest is not uniform throughout the country. In Israel, of course, it was associated with the second of the three great harvest festivals, Passover (barley), Weeks or Pentecost (wheat), and Tabernacles (figs, grapes, olives, etc.). In the region of Timnah the wheat harvest would come somewhere near the end of May or the beginning of June. Samson’s anger had evaporated by this time and he made the journey to Timnah to cohabit with his wife. The gift of a kid was more than a device to remove her resentment; it was probably the prescribed offering for a husband visiting his wife in this kind of marriage, where the bride remained with her parents. The parents of the woman, however, had construed the abrupt action of Samson as a sign of complete alienation from their daughter and had sought to remove the stigma of disgrace by giving her to the best man. Their offer of the bride’s younger sister (cf. 1 Sam. 18:19ff.) may reveal their consciousness that they themselves had acted hastily and improperly. Alternatively, it may have been caused by an acute personal fear of Samson and to placate his revengeful spirit. There could, in any case, be no question of an annulment of the marriage that had subsequently been contracted.

15:3–6. Samson’s revenge and its sequel. Samson refused the offer of his intended bride’s younger sister and, deeply offended, vowed vengeance upon the Philistines. His words indicate that he felt completely justified in such vindictive action. His action has frequently been compared to the ancient Roman custom in honour of Ceres, the corn goddess, when burning torches were secured to the brushes of foxes which were then hunted in the Circus, but the connection is only circumstantial. The large number of foxes, three hundred, has often been questioned. Some commentators explain it as due to hyperbole on the part of those responsible for the transmission of the story. In all probability the foxes were jackals. The same Hebrew word (šû‘āl) describes both animals, which are closely related. But whereas the fox is solitary and avoids human beings, the jackal hunts in packs and is more easily caught. Both animals are still found in Palestine.

The burning of standing corn was a common method of retaliation or revenge in the ancient world and its effect in an agricultural community was very serious. The prompt reaction of Joab to the ruse of Absalom to attract his attention may be instanced (2 Sam. 14:28–31). We can imagine the delight with which the Israelites would tell this story of revenge against the nation which was to oppress them so sorely. But such wanton cruelty to animals, whose sufferings must have been hideous, cannot be condoned.40 The harvest was being gathered in at the time, for shocks (5) refers to the heaped sheaves. The hurt done to the Philistines was increased when the fire spread to the olive plantations. The reputation of Samson was such that the Philistines had no difficulty in discovering the identity of the incendiary, or his motive, and their words (6) confirm the suggestion made above, that the Timnite had acted hastily and inadvisably. In seeking to save his daughter’s honour he had started a chain reaction that was to have disastrous consequences. It was easier for the Philistines to wreak vengeance on him and his daughter than to capture Samson himself, so the fate which Samson’s intended wife endeavoured to escape by inveigling his secret from him befell her after all. Some Hebrew, Greek and Syriac manuscripts read ‘burned her and her father’s house’, which would link with the threat of 14:15. It would have been wiser for her to have informed her husband as soon as it was made, for he was well able to take care of himself and of her and her father.

15:7, 8. Further slaughter of the Philistines. It is a truism that two wrongs never make a right. An act of revenge calls forth an answering act, and hurt pride can be so strong that there is no end to the process. Many a family, clan or tribe has been wiped out, and its rivals decimated, in some of the feuds that have gone on for generations. At some point there has to be the absorption of wrong done, without retaliation, a fact illustrated supremely by Christ’s death on the cross. But Samson was not this kind of man, and although he had brought a tragic end upon the family with which he once sought an alliance, he now vowed to make one final act of vengeance, as though it ever lies in the power of a man to decree when the blood-letting shall cease!

The number of Samson’s victims is not specified, nor is the reference that he smote them hip and thigh (8) intelligible to us today. The suggestion that he hewed them in pieces with such violence that their limbs were piled up one on another is somewhat fanciful. More plausible is the suggestion that the expression was a proverbial one which originated in the art of wrestling, although something a little more potent than bare hands, brute strength and wrestling ability is called for to account for such slaughter of opponents who presumably were all armed. It is likely that the Philistines who died were the inhabitants of Timnah and its immediate vicinity. Realizing that reprisals would inevitably follow, Samson sought refuge in the cleft of the rock of Etam (RV, RSV). An Etam is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 11:6, but as this was probably between Bethlehem and Tekoa it would be too far away to connect with this incident. A site in the vicinity of Samson’s home is much more likely and there is much to support the view that it was a cave in the cliffs above the Wady Isma‘in, which was accessible only by descending through a fissure in the cliff-face, wide enough for one person to pass through at a time. This strongpoint, in an area well known to Samson, lay about two and a half miles south-east from Zorah. The context makes it clear that it was in Judean territory, although Philistine pressure on the tribes of Dan and Judah had made their common border rather fluid.

15:9–17. Samson’s exploit at Lehi. The massacre of their compatriots at Timnah led to the assembling of a force of at least a thousand Philistines (15, 16) to deal with this one-man menace. This is itself a tribute to Samson’s strength. Their assembly-point, Lehi, meaning ‘jawbone’ is so called proleptically, in anticipation of Samson’s exploit. The presence of such a considerable band of warriors caused understandable concern to the men of Judah resident in the vicinity. The story is illustrative of the conditions obtaining in the Shephelah at that time. It shows the Judeans accepting the domination of the Philistines, and fearful of the consequences of Samson’s exploits. No doubt they were secretly sympathetic with Samson, yet such was their fear of the Philistines that a band of three thousand thought only of binding him and handing him over to their common adversaries, rather than standing with this hero against them. It is clear also that the Philistines had no quarrel with the men of Judah.

If our identification of Samson’s hiding-place be correct, then the order of events becomes clear. The Philistines were probably encamped in the valley when the men of Judah climbed to the top of the rock, descended through the fissure in the cliff face as far as they dared and then called down to Samson. After securing their assurance that they would not slay him themselves, he permitted them to bind him and bring him up to the summit and then he accompanied them down to the Philistine camp. It was not fear that prompted his request to the Israelites (12), for it is obvious that he knew what he would do with the ropes that bound him, but had they made any attempt to harm him they themselves would have suffered, and his quarrel was with the Philistines, not his own countrymen. The shouts of triumph of the approaching Philistines was the stimulus that led to a sudden manifestation of power, attributed directly to the Spirit of the Lord (cf. 13:25; 14:6, 19). The cords that bound him were snapped (cf. 16:9, 12) and seizing a fresh jawbone of an ass he embarked on an orgy of destruction in which a thousand Philistines perished. It is clear that there was wholesale slaughter among the Philistines, but the reference to a thousand may be a round figure expressing a very large, but undefined, number. Probably the remainder of their demoralized army fled but, significantly, there is no mention of any intervention of the three thousand men of Judah, who must have been the witnesses of the rout of their oppressors. Even this exploit failed to rouse them from their apathetic acceptance of the situation.

Samson’s impromptu weapon, a fresh (lit. ‘moist’) jawbone of an ass, would be heavier and less brittle and therefore a more effective implement than a jawbone that was old and dry. His song of exultation was a four-beat couplet, with a play on the words ass and heap in the first line that is not easily reproduced in English. The words in Hebrew are identical (ḥămôr). Moffatt’s attempt is commendable, ‘With the jawbone of an ass I have piled them in a mass!’ C. F. Burney seizes upon the fact that ḥămôr means literally ‘the reddish-coloured animal’ and notes the correspondence between this and the blood-stained pile of Philistine corpses. He renders the first line, ‘With the red ass’s jawbone I have reddened them right red.’41 Such wordplay is typically Hebrew and such a coarse illustration is typical of Samson.

A similarity of names links together three exploits: Shamgar slew six hundred Philistines (3:31); Samson slew one thousand Philistines at Lehi; Shammah, one of David’s mighty men, slew an unspecified number of Philistines, and a slight emendation of the text, accepted by many scholars, sets this deed at Lehi (2 Sam. 23:11, 12; cf. RSV). However, in view of the considerable differences in detail between these incidents, and the fact that the Philistine menace was continued for almost two centuries, the similarity of names may be viewed as purely coincidental. Ramath-lehi, the name bestowed by Samson upon the scene of his victory, means ‘the height of the jawbone’.

15:18–20. God’s care for the overwrought Samson. The battle over, a reaction set in and the prodigious energy expended in the slaughter of the Philistines left Samson with a raging thirst. The man who had not feared when he was delivered, bound, into the camp of the enemy now shrank in fear and distrust at the prospect of death through thirst, with the probability of the Philistines returning to mutilate his corpse. The scene is so typically human. It may be compared with Elijah’s lone-handed triumph over the prophets and priests of Baal upon Carmel, after which he ran the whole distance from Carmel to Jezreel, and the aftermath, with the dejected, defeated and desperately weary prophet slumped under a juniper bush, asking the Lord to take away his life (1 Kgs 18; 19). In each case God refrained from scolding his servants for their petulant out-bursts and graciously provided for their acute physical needs. The jaw (19, AV) should be read as a place-name, Lehi (RV, RSV); hollow place is literally ‘mortar’, a word generally used for a hollowed stone or deep wooden bowl in which, for example, olives were crushed to produce the oil. Here it clearly indicates a circular depression from which the spring issued. There is no need to regard this incident as simply an aetiological legend explaining the name of En-hakkore (‘the well of the one who called’). There is such a thing as a true aetiological story, i.e. a place name is given because an incident actually took place there. The judgeship of Samson is noted as twenty years, and whilst any dates must be conjectural, the period c. 1080–1060 BC is most plausible. The nature of his office is clear from the records; it consisted of his lone exploits against the Philistines and appears completely devoid of judicial functions. His area of influence was confined to the small tract of country where the Philistines impinged upon the tribes of Dan and Judah. It is probable that Abimelech and Jephthah were contemporaries of Samson, but it is extremely unlikely that they had any mutual contact.

16:1–3. Samson’s exploit at Gaza. Gaza was the southernmost of the five principal Philistine cities, although, with its strategic position on the trade-routes from Egypt to western Asia, it had a history going back to a period long before the Philistine occupation. It was captured by the Israelites at the time of the Conquest, but they were not able to retain it or any other of the coastal cities (see note on 1:18). It is not clear what brought Samson to Gaza, which was about 38 miles from Zorah; but on what appears to be a casual visit his wayward, sensual nature took him into the company of a Philistine prostitute. The man whose great strength made him a legend in his own lifetime was completely unable to bridle his own passions and this weakness was to lead to his eventual downfall. The editor makes no effort to cover up Samson’s blemishes, and his exploits, which caused such delight to the contemporary generation, must have been somewhat embarrassing to a more enlightened age. Similarly the frailty and foibles of Abraham, Moses, David and other Old Testament characters are faithfully depicted. Although God greatly used these men and women in the working out of his purposes, none of them seems to have been a paragon of virtue.

The reputation of Samson had now extended far beyond the immediate vicinity of his exploits and his appearance in Gaza led to an attempt to apprehend him. The double reference to all night (2) has caused perplexity, since a guard at the gates of the city could not fail to be disturbed when Samson made his getaway in such an abrupt manner. There is no suggestion of any encounter with the guard; indeed, the whole point of the story is that the Philistines were taken by surprise. The difficulty is certainly eased by adopting the suggestion put forward by Kittel, that the first all night should read ‘all day’. The sense would then be that the Philistines watched the gates all day, but trusting in the strength of the gates to contain their intended victim by night, they relaxed, thinking to fulfil their purpose the next morning. On the other hand, the guards at the gate may have relaxed their vigil with the passing of the hours and then been paralysed with fright and unable to act by the strange method of Samson’s exit. He surprised them by breaking out of the city in the middle of the night, taking with him the doors and doorposts as well as the bar securing the doors, which was let into the posts. The incredible strength of Samson is shown in the fact that all this woodwork was transported 38 miles, mostly uphill, to Hebron! As the gates of ancient cities were often nail-studded and covered with metal to prevent them being burnt during an attack, the weight may have been greater than that of the timber itself. Many commentators have treated this feat of strength as wildly exaggerated tradition, but the fact that, in the Delilah episode, a band of armed Philistines dared make no attempt to fall upon a weaponless man until the source of his strength had been discovered points to completely abnormal power. However, as Hebron was in the vicinity of the highest point in southern Palestine, forming a prominent landmark over a wide area, the reference has been held to be figurative, before Hebron being viewed as equivalent to ‘towards Hebron’, which may suggest a hill near Gaza but in the general direction of Hebron.

16:4, 5. Samson’s love for Delilah. It was written of King Solomon that he ‘loved many strange women’, and the editor duly notes that his wives ‘turned away his heart’ from following the Lord and contributed to the moral and religious decline of the people (1 Kgs 11:1–13). Samson had not the same opportunities as Solomon, but his unbridled passions were akin to those of the great king and brought about his downfall. The answer to his riddle had been wrested from him by the devices of a woman (14:12–17), now the greatest secret of his life was disclosed at the importunity of another lover. The name of Delilah, which means ‘worshipper’ or ‘devotee’, has become a synonym for the seductive woman. Delilah lived in the valley of Sorek, just below Zorah. Her name is Semitic, but as the Philistines intermarried freely with the peoples they dominated this is not significant, and the details of the narrative suggest that she was, in fact, a Philistine. It is strange that Samson’s three loves should have been numbered amongst his inveterate enemies, the Philistines. We have already noted the wholesome respect with which the Philistines regarded Samson (see note on 15:9–17), now reflected in the fact that they dared not approach him until they had gained the secret of his strength. Two other factors attest to the seriousness of the situation and the effectiveness of Samson’s single-handed campaign. Verse 5 notes the direct intervention of the five lords of the Philistines (cf. 3:3), the rulers of the pentapolis, suggesting that Samson was now regarded as a national menace. The second fact is the extent of the reward which they offered Delilah for information which would enable them to capture their enemy. The reference to eleven hundred pieces of silver, rather than the round thousand, is unusual, but it probably marks the generosity of their offer: ‘We’ll give you more than a thousand!’ The weight of silver would be about 30 pounds from each of the five lords, making a combined total of 150 pounds, a very considerable reward (the value in AD 1967 would be over £1,100!). The risk was considerable, therefore the bribe had to outweigh the personal danger involved and the strength of the attachment with her lover.

16:6–14. Samson’s secret undisclosed. Delilah went about her errand with a cold, heartless efficiency that causes the reader to wonder why Samson was so lacking in suspicion. In all probability he was so blinded by his passion and its gratification that no thought of insecurity entered his head. The liaison must have been a long-standing one for the Philistine lords to have heard of it and to have observed its potential usefulness to their aim. In the first three attempts made by Delilah Samson adopted a playful, teasing attitude. Six visits may have been made by Samson during this time, in three groups of two, on the first of which Delilah elicited the information and on the second of which, having secured the material from the Philistines, she carried it into effect. Alternatively, Delilah may have been given the new suggestion immediately following the failure of the previous one, which would reduce the minimum number of visits to four. The seven green withs (7, AV, RV) of the first attempt should be read as seven fresh bowstrings (RSV), which were made of twisted gut. The second attempt was made with new ropes (11, 12). Evidently the Philistines did not know, or else had overlooked, the fact that the men of Judah had already tried this method (15:13). It may have been the remembrance of this incident which prompted Samson to make this particular suggestion. The third attempt was perilously near the truth, for it concerned Samson’s hair (13, 14) and this may reveal a stage in the breaking down of his will.

The details of this particular method are not made clear in any of the versions. Indeed it is doubtful if this could be achieved without considerable amplification. The reference is to the weaving process. Primitive looms were either horizontal or upright; the former type would allow Delilah more freedom to deal with the hair of the sleeping Samson, assuming that his head was upon her lap, but the detail suggests the latter type. In the upright type of loom two vertical posts fixed in the ground were fastened at the top by a cross-beam from which the warp threads were suspended. The long hair of Samson was woven into the warp and then beaten up into the web with the pin (14), thus producing a firm piece of material.

To test the effectiveness of each method Delilah gave warning of the approach of the Philistines, with spectacular results. On the first occasion the bow-strings were snapped as easily as a thread of tow snaps when the flame licks (9; Heb. ‘smells’, i.e. having no direct contact) upon it; on the second occasion the new ropes were as effective as a fragile thread; on the third occasion it is possible that the whole loom was wrenched out and carried away. One wonders who was kind enough to disentangle Delilah’s labours!

The temptress herself gently but persistently applied herself to her mission, increasing gradually the tone of hurt reproach as her endeavours were mocked. Whilst it is the principal actors that grip the attention of the readers, the suspense of the Philistine soldiers, armed but anxious, hiding in an inner chamber until the coast was quite clear, hopeful but frustrated on three occasions, can be imagined. The hypocrisy of Delilah, pretending to love but all the time plotting the death of her lover, can be left without comment.

16:15–20. Samson’s secret revealed. It is evident that, after these three futile attempts, the Philistines had lost interest and retired from the scene, since Delilah had to make a special plea for their return (18). Verse 16 similarly indicates a considerable lapse of time. The fact that Samson continued to seek for her love did not soften the heart of Delilah or cause her to relent. Possibly the thought of immense wealth spurred her on; possibly there was an element of wounded pride in the realization that she had not been able to worm Samson’s secret from him. The two sayings, ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ and ‘A continual dripping wears away the stone’, may both be appropriate to this story. Vexed to death (16; our colloquial ‘bored to death’ is not an inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew) with her insistency, Samson at length capitulated and she knew that he had spoken the truth. The Nazirite vow was at last revealed. Mention has already been made that, of the three main provisions of such a vow, Samson had observed but one (see note on 13:5). He had often been in contact with the dead; he can hardly have kept himself from strong drink; but his hair still remained unshorn. In defence of Samson at this point, it may be that in the confused political situation and the generally low moral and spiritual tone of the age, some of the provisions of the Nazirite vow had been forgotten whilst this popular feature of the uncut hair was retained. The hair itself was not the source of Samson’s unique strength. This lay in his separation to the Lord, of which the unshorn locks were the symbol. However, there remains the problem that this separation appears as a merely ceremonial concept, with little, if any, moral significance.

The Philistine lords came prepared to honour the promise they had given (18; cf. verse 5), and then the last act of treachery was enacted. Words are inadequate to describe the utter heartlessness of the woman who lulled her lover to sleep with his head in her lap, conscious of the fate into which she was delivering him. Was it nervousness that impelled her to call in a barber to clip Samson’s seven locks? The precise meaning of she began to afflict him (19, AV, RV) is obscure, since Delilah herself would hardly dare attempt any hurt to Samson until she was quite sure that his strength was gone. Perhaps the verb should have Samson as its subject, ‘and he began to be afflicted’. The warning call was given as on earlier occasions and Samson, awakened from his slumber, purposed to do as before, quite unaware of what had taken place. There is possibly no sadder verse in the Old Testament than the final sentence in verse 20. In Numbers 14:40–45 there is the sad picture of a nation temporarily forsaken by God; here there is the tragedy of a man unconscious of the fact that the Lord was no longer with him. In such a situation shame and defeat are inevitable (cf. Exod. 33:14, 15)

16:21, 22. Samson’s humiliation. The weakened Samson was now easily captured by the Philistines. His eyes were gouged out and he was brought down to Gaza, the scene of one of his earlier feats of strength (16:1–3), and put to work at the tedious task of grinding out corn, probably at a hand-mill, since there is no evidence of the larger, ass-powered mill until the fifth century BC. This occupation was not only menial, it was humiliating, since it was invariably women’s work (see note on 9:53). Fetters of brass is a dual form, suggesting that his hands and his feet were both secured. It is surprising that his captors, having ascertained the secret of his great strength, did not take steps to see that he was shaved regularly; probably they thought that they had little to fear from this sightless, shambling wreck. Whilst it is not specifically stated, the inference is that his strength returned as his hair grew. It may be also that, during this confinement in prison, contemplating the shame and failure of his life, some spark of repentance was kindled, although there is little evidence of this in the text.

16:23–30. Samson’s final revenge. At some unspecified point after Samson’s capture the Philistines held a service of thanksgiving to Dagon their god. Dagon was commonly regarded as a fish-god until recently, but this identification rested solely upon a similarity with the Hebrew word for fish (dāg). Modern archaeological research has shown conclusively that he was a corn or vegetation-god, worshipped in Mesopotamia in the middle of the third millennium BC and brought to the eastern-Mediterranean countries by the Semitic migrations of the early second millennium. The common Hebrew word used for grain or corn (dāgān) is possibly derived from the name of Dagon. There was a temple to Dagon in fourteenth-century Ugarit and he appears as the chief deity of the Philistines, who, as we have noted,42 were a ruling class imposed upon a native population whose customs and religion they adopted readily. Dagon was worshipped at Beth-shan in the reign of Saul (1 Sam. 31:10; cf. 1 Chr. 10:10) and at Ashdod until the Maccabean period (1 Sam. 5:2–7; 1 Macc. 10:83–85). The wide diffusion of his worship is shown in the two settlements of Beth-dagon, one in Judah (Josh. 15:41) and the other in Asher (Josh. 19:27). There is a certain fluidity in the interrelationships of the Canaanite deities, but in some texts Dagon appears as the father of Baal.

The influence of Samson’s anti-Philistine activities is reflected in the national thanksgiving celebration and in their description of him as the ravager of our country (24, RSV). Such festivals, in which wine flowed freely, were often the occasion for debauchery, but on this occasion, when the strong drink had begun its influence, their inclinations took a more sadistic turn and they called for Samson, their prize exhibit, that he might put on a performance for them and that they might bait him. The verb make sport comes from a root meaning ‘to laugh’ or ‘deride’; possibly they wanted Samson to amuse them with the kind of performance we would associate with a strong man in a fair booth. So the man whom armed Philistines had not dared to approach was led in by a single attendant.

A number of sites of ancient heathen temples have been recently discovered, and since they show certain common characteristics it is likely that the temple of Gaza was of a similar pattern. In all probability the officials and dignitaries were in a covered portion looking out upon a courtyard where Samson was made a spectacle, but separated from it by a series of wooden pillars set on stone bases, supporting the roof, on which the crowd gathered. It may be conjectured that the spectators on the roof, pressing forward to gain a good vantage-point, had made the whole structure unstable. Samson must have been aware of the form of construction and of the possibilities in such a situation. The performance over, or temporarily halted, Samson was brought between the pillars (25b), just under the shelter of the roof, so that the dignitaries within the portico could have a closer look at him.

Samson’s last solemn prayer (28) in which he uses three different titles of God, Adonai, Yahweh and Elohim, was for strength that vengeance might be taken on his persecutors for the loss of his two eyes. A possible alternative reading of verse 28, that I may be avenged upon the Philistines for one of my two eyes (RSV), would be a jest that appears out of place in this context. The fact that Samson took hold (AV, RV; lit. grasped, RSV) of the two central pillars indicates that, exerting his strength, he pushed forward either directly towards or directly away from the open courtyard. Had he pushed sideways he would not have ‘grasped’ the pillars. Aided by the weight of the crowd above, who would be pressing forward since Samson was now out of their sight, the main supporting pillars were displaced, causing them to slide off their stone bases. When the roof collapsed many would be killed instantly; others would be crushed in the ensuing panic. The exact number of casualties is not stated, but they are stated to have been more than the number killed by Samson in his lifetime, which at a conservative estimate would be in the vicinity of eleven hundred (14:19; 15:8, 15).

16:31. Samson’s burial. The Philistines’ hatred of Samson must have been mitigated by respect for his achievements and they made no apparent effort to abuse his corpse or to refuse him burial in his family tomb (cf. the dishonouring of Saul’s body, 1 Sam. 31:9, 10). The treatment of a body after death was a matter of importance in the ancient world (cf. Amos 2:1; Jer. 8:1, 2). It is apparent that Manoah was dead at this time, and since Samson appears to have been an only child, the references to his brethren and his father’s house must be understood generally as his fellow-countrymen and tribal group. He was buried in the hill country overlooking the vale of Sorek, the scene of some of his greatest exploits and most abject failures. His life, which promised so much, was blighted and ultimately destroyed by his sensual passions and lack of true separation to the Lord. But it had not been in vain, since it had drawn attention to the peril of complete Philistine domination which had crept so insidiously upon the western fringes of Israel. The final sentence reiterates the statement of 15:20.

↑ Back to top