Deeper Commentary

Jdg 14:1 Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines-
"Went down" reflects his spiritual fall; the theme is stressed in :1,5,7,10. This is a great anticlimax to all we have been set up to expect and hope for in Samson from the previous chapter. Born by Divine intervention, a Nazirite who has been Divinely stirred and set up to deliver Israel from the Philistines. And he now goes down and falls in love with one of their women, and intends to break the covenant by marrying her. And his weak father reluctantly goes along with it. It's all an intentional anticlimax to what we were set up to hope for. It reflects how God must so often feel- that potentials are wasted or at best only lived up to in a very partial way. Like Samson, God's potential heroes get caught up on their anger issues, personal revenge, sex and other dramas.

Samson's 'seeing' was wrong. The Hebrew is literally 'A woman he saw', and his first words are 'A woman I saw... get her for me'. This introduces us to his narcissism. He saw this woman, and then dismisses his father's objection that the woman is a Philistine by saying that she is 'right in his eyes', in his sight. His loss of eyes at the end is obviously an appropriate judgment upon a man who sinned with his eyes. But Samson is all Israel; for at this time, when there was no king, Israel like Samson did what was 'right in their eyes' (Jud. 21:25).

"Timnah" means 'a portion assigned', alluding to how this small area had been assigned to God's people- not the Philistines. Samson's potential mission was to dispossess the Philistines from there, and the entire small region between Zorah and Eshtaol. He failed in this, although he will be saved finally, according to Hebrews 11.

Judah also did wrong in Timnath with a woman, and was deceived and shamed by her (Jud. 15:1 = Gen. 38:17). 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 (Jud. 14:1,5,7,10), 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 (see on Jud. 13:15) had likewise 'gone down', the record emphasizes, to liberate Israel from their enemies (Jud. 7:9,10,11,24). 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 (James 4:4). 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.

It may be that as Gideon "went down" to destroy God's enemies (Jud. 7:9), so Samson justified his 'going down' to the Philistines to take their women, as well as to destroy their warriors (Jud. 14:1,5,7,10). 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 (2 Cor. 10:12). 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.

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 (Jud. 14:1,5,7,10); 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 (Jud. 7:9,10,11,24). 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. 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.

Jdg 14:2 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-
This marriage with an unbeliever was clearly wrong. It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (Jud. 12:9; 14:2; 15:2; Gen. 24:3-9; Neh. 10:30), 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 Jud. 13 as consistently lacking in spiritual perception.

Jdg 14:3 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-
The disappointment of Samson's parents is that of Esau's (Gen. 26:35; 27:46; 28:1). For all Manoah's slowness to respond and perceive in Jud. 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 (Ex. 34:16; Dt. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2). Joshua's warning that those who married the surrounding tribes would find them "a snare and a trap for you... thorns in your eyes" (Josh. 23:12,13 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 Josh. 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 (Jud. 13:25 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 (Mt. 27:23). 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.

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 1 Sam. 18:20; 2 Sam. 17:4; 1 Kings 9:12. The way in which Samson set up the riddle, almost expecting that they might tease it out of him through his wife, the way in which he agreed that if they did this, he would give them the clothes of 30 Philistines... it all suggests that Samson set the whole thing up to seek an opportunity against the Philistines. On the other hand, there seems a connection with how Israel at this time did what was 'right in their own eyes'. Samson becomes representative of them all.

In their culture, it was unheard of for a man to disobey his father when it came to marriage. If the father said no, that was it. Samson presents as domineering and obsessive, possibly autistic. "Get her for me" is literally "This one, get her for me". That one, that Philistine... Manoah presents as weak in going along with his son's wrong request. For the command against intermarriage specifically stated that a man should not give his children in marriage to the surrounding tribes (Dt. 7:3,4). "Get her for me" specifically refers to paying the dowry and gifts to her family members. We perceive here the 'spoilt kid' in Samson, and the weakness of his parents.

Jdg 14:4 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-
The "He" can be read as both God and Samson; they both had the same desire, and God worked with mixed up Samson to this end. LXX "it was of the Lord, that he sought to be revenged on the Philistines". Samson's obsession with revenge was wrong on many counts. For he should never have so loved the Philistine woman that he wanted revenge when the marriage didn't work out. But God worked through that, for He also sought revenge on the Philistines for what they had done to His weak people. But strictly, “from the Philistines”, a provocation originating on their side. Again we wonder whether this was God seeking to provoke the Philistines to provoke Samson so that he attacked them; or whether this is Samson consciously working out a way to make the Philistines provoke him so he has an excuse to attack them in a kind of revenge killing that would be more acceptable than an outright attack on them. And the ambiguity as to whether Samson or God are referred to is intentional; because it reflects how God works through human weakness, failure and anger. Working all this out from the evidence presented in the record is hard work. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (Dt. 2:30; 1 Sam. 2:25; 2 Chron. 22:7; 25:20). 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 (Jud. 2:16,18; 1 Chron. 17:10). 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 (Dt. 2:39; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 2:25; 1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 10:15; 22:7; 25:20). It is tempting to read Jud. 14:4 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 (Mt. 6:13). 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.

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.

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 (Jud. 13:5). 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.

Jdg 14:5 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-
"Came to..." strictly translates as 'before coming to...'. These vineyards, I suggest, were in the valley of Sorek where Delilah was. For sorek is the Hebrew word translated "vine" in Is. 5:2; Jer. 2:21. Again the idea is that the events in Samson's life were all in a very small area of not many square miles. His mission was to dispossess the Philistines from it; but he failed in that. For the people of that area in Jud. 18 emigrated to the far north of Israel because of the Philistines.

Lions roar when they are hungry, when they go onto the attack or begin to eat their prey (Ps. 104:21; Am. 3:4,8). Samson had provoked the lion by going into the vineyards, and yet the lion provoked Samson to kill it. This is related to how he sought to provoke a provocation "from the Philistines" through his marriage plan. It has also been suggested that "a young lion" would unlikely be alone in a vineyard- unless it were a nomadic lion attempting to claim a territory. This is yet another element of unreality, or anomaly, in the Samson story, reflecting how such things [like his marriage to the Philistine] were "of the Lord". Just as he was a Nazirite but flouted the vow, and as bees nesting in a lion cadaver is unusual, so is a singular young lion going on the attack in a vineyard, apparently separate from the pride of lions. Attempting to claim a territory is another reason why lions roar and tend to be more aggressive [This matter is firmly established in Brent A. Strawn, "kepir arayot in Judges 14:5", Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) pp. 150-158]. In this case, we see the lion representing the Philistines. And again, the issue is related to Samson's call to stop the territorial expansion of the Philistines into his area.

We get the picture of Samson and his parents walking the four miles down into the valley, and Samson goes off for a wander in the vineyards. The vineyard was a symbol of Israel (Ps. 80:15; Is. 1:8; 5:7; 27:2; Jer. 12:10; Mt. 21:41). This may have been already evident to Samson from Gen. 49:11; 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 (Dt. 6:11) and initially obtained by Joshua-Jesus (Josh. 24:13). And yet those vineyards were now back in Philistine control. A lion suddenly appeared and roared against him, just as the Philistines later would (Jud. 15:14). 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.

And yet did Samson ultimately slay the lion of the Philistines and bring the promised blessings of honey to Israel (cp. Ex. 3:8; Dt. 8:8 etc.)? No, not really. He achieved some tokenistic success against their warriors; but Israel remained enslaved (Jud. 15:20). 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.

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 (Jud. 14:5 s.w. Jud. 15:14); 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 (Jud. 14:15-17 = Jud. 16:5,15,16). He just didn't see the similarities, or if he did, he didn't learn any lessons. Admittedly, it's far easier for us, presented with the records as they are, spanning 40 years within a few pages. And yet without doubt the lion's attack on Samson was a warning to him- not to sail as close to the edge as he could, wandering in vineyards as a Nazirite.

Jdg 14:6 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-
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.

The stress is on the way in which the Spirit came upon Samson (Jud. 14:6,19; 15:14), as it did on other judges (Jud. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29). "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit" (Zech. 4:6) 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 (Heb. 11:34). The three references to the Spirit coming upon Samson all use the same Hebrew word; it is usually translated 'to prosper'. And the point is clearly made that Yahweh will not prosper / come mightily upon the wicked, but He will prosper the righteous and obedient. Yahweh prospered Samson despite his disobedience, anger issues and unspirituality. Here we have another Old Testament example of imputed righteousness. Samson broke the Nazirite conditions, but was still counted as a "Nazirite to God", in God's eyes. This isn't the same as God turning a blind eye to His favourites. He counts us as righteous, especially now "in Christ".

Samson killed a lion, escaped fire and killed many Philistines by his faith (Heb. 11:32-34)- 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, Heb. 11 tells us (Jud. 14:1-7). 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 (Jud. 14:15-19). 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 Heb. 11 highlights.

The latter day invader is likened to a beast devouring Israel (Joel 1:6), 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. These larger powers are also symbolized by the lion (Jer. 50:17).

If the prohibition against Nazirites touching a carcass applied to animals, then this would've ended his Naziriteship. We get the impression God overlooked this. Probably this was why he didn't tell his parents how he got the honey. He scooped the honey with his hands and ate it from his hands, we are told. The same hands had just recently been empowered by the Spirit to slay the lion. His hands were again used to slay the Philistines with a bone, to tie the tails of foxes, to remove the gates of a town and then to push over the pillars of the temple. His unclean hands were still used by God.

We enquire why he didn't tell his parents; nor did he tell them where he got the honey from (:9.16). Likewise he tells his wife that he hadn't told his parents the answer to his riddle. On one level we deduce his loneliness, possibly arising from being an only child. On another, we get the impression that he realized that God was somehow in his life, and he was being called as an individual to deliver Israel from the Philistines. But this strand in his thinking was too heavily involved with his narcissism to be ultimately fruitful. For he failed to deliver his tribe from the Philistines, and his 'ministry' was merely personal skirmishes and vendettas against the Philistines. "She's the right one for me" (Jud. 14:3) can be read as a reflection of his sense that through this woman he could achieve his agenda- of attacking the Philistines. But the failure of that marriage led him to personal bitterness and anger, rather than perceiving that although life hadn't gone the way he expected it to, God was still in it.

Jdg 14:7 He went down and talked with the woman, and she pleased Samson well-
This again indicates that he didn't simply and totally use her as a tool towards his purpose of killing Philistines. He did really love her, and was wrong in this. But it was extremely unusual for a man to talk with a woman directly. There were usually intermediaries. The idea is that he specifically wanted her and saw the possibilities of using her in his carefully planned plot, to provoke the Philistines to provoke him so he could slay some of them in apparently legitimate revenge. We might note that so far he has only 'seen' her and decided to marry her; only now does he talk with her personally. On one hand, this was just a classic case of lust of the eyes. But it may be she looked somewhat 'loose' and he imagined her being unfaithful during the drinking party, which would then provide the provocation "from the Philistines" (:4) that he was trying to create.

Jdg 14:8 After a while he returned to take her-
Samson is described as wanting to "take" a wife; this Hebrew word is 51 times translated 'take away', 31 times 'fetch'. He evidently didn't intend to live there with her; he wanted her to come and live with him in the Israelite encampment, four miles up in the hills from the valley where she lived. There was usually a significant period, up to a year, between engagement and marriage. Ample time for the bees to make honey in the carcass.

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-
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" Prov. 29:16; Ez. 26:15; 27:27; 31:13), "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 (1 Pet. 5:8 cp. Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8 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.

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. We note the use of 'edat, meaning “community”, rather than the Hebrew 'seres', the common word for “swarm". The idea is that a new, liberated community of people would arisen over the dead carcass of the lion, representing the Philistines whom Samson would slay. But this potential never happened. For by the end of Samson's days, the Philistines were still in control of that small Danite community, between Zorah and Eshtaol, whom Samson had been intended to deliver. The presence of the honey in a lion carcass was miraculous, just as Samson's creation of a new community would have been. Some claim that the intense heat would have meant that the body of the lion decomposed dry, but that makes little sense. It has been observed: "The carcass would have to have dehydrated in an inconceivably short time, since bees do not live in such moist places as cadavers undergoing decomposition. Even if wind and heat in a Palestinian summer are judged sufficient to prevent decomposition, it is clear that the story does not represent Samson’s discovery as an every-day
occurrence".

Jdg 14:9 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-
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 (Gen. 3:6; 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 (Dt. 32:13 cp. Ps. 81:16), although granted in prospect (Dt. 32:13). 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.

"The body of the lion" in :8,9 is LXX "the mouth of the lion". The idea is that he was empowered to take something out of the mouth of a lion, as David would. And as with David, the message was that he could save Israel from the mouth of the Philistines.

Jdg 14:10 His father went down to the woman, and Samson made a drinking feast as was the custom for the young men-
The process of marriage involved Samson in participating in the traditions of the surrounding tribes (this is emphasized: Jud. 14:10,11; 15:20). 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.

Jdg 14:11 When they saw him they brought thirty companions to be with him-
The problem with marriage out of the faith is that you don't marry just a person, but a family. And so he now has 30 "friends", all of them unbelievers. But we suspect Samson had evil intent in all this, for his marriage was because he sought opportunity against the Philistines. The groom ought to have brought 30 friends with him, but he didn't. And so the bride's family provided them. LXX says they did this "because they feared him". They sensed he had evil intent toward them. This confirms the impression we have that his whole marriage plan was because that woman was "right in his eyes" for some plan he had to kill Philistines. In the same way as his marriage out of the Faith was "of the Lord". The Philistines were suspicious that something was going on like this.

Jdg 14:12 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-
Thirty changes of clothing was a huge amount of wealth. We ponder why both sides were willing to gamble for such very high stakes. I suggest the men who agreed the bet with Samson were drunk at the time. It was not a rational, normal thing to do. We wonder whether somehow, Samson knew he was going to tell his wife and she would tell the others, thereby creating the need for 30 garments, which he would obtain by murder. Perhaps he knew this only on a deeply subconscious level. But clearly he was using their deceit in suddenly expecting him to come up with 30 changes of clothes for his "friends" as an excuse to murder 30 Philistines. For the entire marriage was because he sought an opportunity to fight the Philistines. We are left wondering to what degree Samson was overtaken by circumstances [his wife revealing his secret], and to what degree he planned all that happened. If it was all so carefully premeditated, we ponder why he returned to his parents' home so angry, rather than with joy that his mission against the Philistines had started to be fulfilled. The 'unclear' element which the narrative presents is in fact a way of giving us insight into the working of the Spirit. There are elements of both Divine and human volition.

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 (Jud. 14:18).

Jdg 14:13 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-
It was Samson's duty as the groom to provide 30 changes of clothing (a huge expense), or at least, this was what they perhaps unexpectedly told him at the wedding. But perhaps he knew this full well ahead of time, and was using it as an excuse to kill 30 Philistines. How that exactly would work out, he perhaps didn't know. He clearly did love his bride, and she did indeed betray his love and trust. It is impossible to totally decode where he really stood in all this in psychological terms- for his motives were mixed and his plans and intentions were therefore perhaps not clearly defined in his own mind. I suggest that he knew full well that he had the obligation to provide 30 changes of clothing; this was part of the bride price. But he intentionally doesn't bring them, and says he will only give them if the Philistines guess his riddle.

Jdg 14:14 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-
"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 (Jud. 14:9). 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 (Jud. 16:24). 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 (Jud. 14:18). A riddle was supposed to have a reasonable answer. But the answer to Samson's riddle was "Bees hived in a lion's carcass and produce honey", but bees do not make hives in carcasses. The Philistines were being asked to accept something miraculous had happened, the hand of God, and that was beyond their conception. But that was the point that Samson wanted to make. Without accepting that point, the riddle was insoluble.

Jdg 14:15 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?-
Thirty changes of clothes was a major expense. "To mock us" can be rendered "to make us poor". Or the idea may be that they would have to strip themselves naked and give their clothes to Samson. LXX "did you invite us to do us violence?" could suggest that Samson had implied that he would obtain the 30 changes of clothes by murdering the wedding guests, the 30 companions of :11. Indeed the Hebrew for "mock us" can mean 'to dispossess'. That was indeed his intention and calling- to dispossess the Philistines from the small area between Eshtaol and Zorah. In this case, the wedding to the girl had been planned by Samson as a means through which to inflict damage upon the Philistines. The girl in question was "right in his eyes" for his plan. And yet his motives were mixed with his own carnal lust. For if he was merely using the wedding as a cover for an attack upon the Philistines, he wouldn't have afterwards been so furiously angry and jealous at the marriage not working out.

Jdg 14:16 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-
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). Gen. 2:24 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, 14:20). 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 (Josh. 19:43,47). 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 (Dt. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

The parallels between the woman of Timnah and Delilah are clear. The words of the Philistines to the woman are identical: ‘Coax your husband’ (Jud. 14:15); ‘Coax him’ (Jud. 16:5). Both women use the same language to persuade Samson to reveal his secret: ‘You really hate me, you don’t love me’ (Jud. 14:16); ‘How can you say you love me’ (Jud. 16:15). Both women are described as nagging him and wearing him down (Jud. 14:17; 16:16). The point is that Samson didn't learn from his mistakes, refusing to perceive how circumstance was repeating in his life.

Jdg 14:17 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-
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 (Dt. 28:53,57; Jer. 19:9; Is. 51:13). 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 (2 Sam. 1:20; Ez. 16:27,57). The Ezekiel passages stress the paradox: that Israel (whom Samson represented) loved the women who hated them.

Samson really loved that girl (Jud. 14:3,17; 15:1,7,11), even though he also hated her (Jud. 15:2; 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 marriage look more questionable.

Jdg 14:18 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-
LXX "before he went into the chamber", the same word as in Jud. 15:1.

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 (Mt. 12:29); 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 Ps. 119:103? 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, 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.

Samson's reference to his wife as his "heifer" could be seen as disparaging, just as his father Manoah had referred to his wife as "the woman" rather than "my wife". 'You ploughed with / behind my cow' would be a fair enough rendering. But to plough with another man’s heifer, implying to plough in another man’s ground, is an expression used in Greek and Latin, as well as extra-Biblical Hebrew, for committing adultery with another man's wife. It was a drinking party with young men known to the bride. It's quite likely Samson is accusing them of having slept with her; and indeed she ends up marrying one of them. They ploughed behind her would suggest anal sex whereby she technically remained a virgin. Such practices are known in parts of Africa. In this case, we have here something that Samson couldn't have planned ahead of time; although on the other hand she may have been 'right in his eyes' in that he saw her as a loose woman who would likely fall for his plan, and justify his anger and desire to create a provocation from the Philistines. In this case we see his penchant for sleeping with loose women; we think of the prostitute in Gaza and Delilah who also did things for money. His anger served as motivator for his continued anger with the Philistines in the area. And this was used by God; even though "What should Samson have done?" would surely have been to count himself blessed God had saved him from a marriage to an unbeliever. And humbly sought to think differently.

We are maybe too quick to assume that "the eater... the strong" meant simply the lion. It was Samson who was without doubt "the strong", and had demonstrated himself stronger than a lion by killing one; and it was he who ate the honey- he was "the eater". “Samson's vomit” could have been the answer to Samson’s riddle: Food came from the eater [you vomit if you eat too much honey]; sweet things came out from the strong person.

But we could argue that their answer to the riddle, or the answer he gave his wife, knowing she would share it, was not really complete. The answer was not just 'Honey out of a lion'. Their answer was "What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?". But this only answers the second part of the riddle: "Out of the strong came forth sweetness". They correctly define "the strong" and "sweetness". But they make no comment on the first part of the riddle: "Out of the eater came forth food". How exactly did honey come "out of" the lion? The answer was: "Because bees miraculously hived in its carcass after it had been killed". They don't explain that bit. Samson could have argued that they had not in fact fully explained the riddle. They were warm, but not right there. Again we wonder whether the entire thing was a set up by him. He asked them to agree the wager when they were drunk, guessing that his wife would be pressured by them because the wager was so large, guessing she would give in- and planning this as an excuse to legitimately get angry with them and kill them. For his marriage was because he sought a provocation "from the Philistines". But he was playing with fire, and the fact he returns to sleep with his wife and is angry she has married another man rather suggests that he let that fire burn him. Likewise he later sleeps with a prostitute as a pretext for carrying off the gates of the city. He clearly thinks he can have a little of both. They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (Jud. 14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They apparently didn't fulfil this condition. Likewise on :14 I suggested that they were to perceive that the answer was also "Samson"- the strong who would bring the blessings of honey to Israel. But Samson thought their answer good enough to go and kill 30 men to provide the garments.

Jdg 14:19 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-
"Came mightily upon" has the idea of God penetrating / thrusting Himself upon Samson. And yet He was working through Samson's own spirit and desire to slay Philistines. We see how the movement of the Spirit is partly a result of Divine sovereign choice, similar to making a man a Nazirite when Nazirite vows were to be taken as freewill decisions. On the other hand, God's Spirit confirms the human spirit. And yet the impression is surely given that the Divine sovereignty side of the equation is stronger. We see the same happening when the Spirit came upon Saul (1 Sam. 10:6,10; 11:6). I discussed on Jud. 13:2 how Samson only 'began' to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but his birth has many similarities with that of Samson. As if God raised up Samuel to do the work Samson began but didn't finish. But even Samuel didn't do it; and so we can also note the many similarities between Samson and Saul, who was also raised up to deliver Israel from the Philistines. Like Samson, Saul also failed, and so David was raised up to do it (2 Sam. 8:1). The very same Hebrew phrase for the Spirit coming upon them is used of both men (Jud. 14:6,19; 15:14; 1 Sam 10:6,10; 11:6). Both committed suicide, and were mocked by the Philistines in the house of their idols (Jud. 16:25; 1 Sam. 31:4,9,10). David likewise has some similarities with Samson in that he too killed a lion with his hands, as a sign he could defeat the Philistine. He killed the Philistine "without a sword in his hand" (1 Sam. 17:50) just as Samson killed the lion with his bare hands (:5). And the Spirit given to Saul passed to him (1 Sam. 16:13). God seems to work similarly today. One man [Samson] is raised up for a task, he fails or only partially does it; another [Samuel] is raised up and likewise doesn't complete it; and another likewise [Saul]. And then another [David] is raised up who does do it.

Lev. 26:3-8 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.

Significantly, he went down to the valley of Ashkelon, the very place that Joshua had conquered but Judah had been unable to drive out the Philistines from (1:18,19), and slew 30 warriors. But I would prefer to go with a different identification of "Ashkelon" as Khirbet Askalun, about four miles South of modern Tibneh (Timnah), rather than the well-known Ashkelon. Because it seems to me that Samson's mission was to free the area between Zorah and Eshtaol from the Philistines- see on Jud. 13:25. This was where he was first moved by the Spirit to deliver from the Philistines, and it was where he was buried. It was from exactly this relatively small location that the people of Dan emigrated northwards after Samson's death, unable to endure the Philistine domination.

To kill the men and then strip their clothes from their dead, bloodied bodies would have infringed Samson's Nazirite vow; as did touching the carcass of the lion. And probably he participated at the drinking feast, which would have done the same. Yet he reminded a Nazirite to God. But he kept assuming that Divine law and principle didn't apply to him personally, that God somehow understood... and this led to him finally letting his hair be cut [for surely he knew Delilah would betray his secret], and that was reductionism to a point that God would not accept it. A powerful lesson to us, that the fact God may let man 'get away with it' doesn't mean there are no moral boundaries.

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 (Lev 20:14; 21;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 (Heb. 11:32-34), with God given strength to confirm his faith.

Jdg 14:20 But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, whom he had considered a friend-
AV "used". We get the impression that he 'used' his wife as he 'used' this best man, because his motive was to use the situation in order to dispossess and murder Philistines. But he also genuinely loved the girl. His motives were terribly mixed. Here we have some more evidence on the side of 'the hand / Spirit of God' leading Samson rather than purely his own plans. The fact his bride was cruelly married off to his best man so quickly [despite his parents having paid the bride price for her] would have provoked his anger and been seen by everyone as unacceptable; and wrong as this anger may have been, in the sense that the planned marriage was disobedience, God worked through this. His failed marriage and the betrayal led him to hate the Philistines yet more. It stimulated deep anger issues within him that lasted the rest of his life. The subsequent events all relate to his anger with the Philistines and his desire for revenge, indeed it was all more of a personal vendetta than seeking to deliver Israel from the Philistines. It was his failed marriage that led him to use a prostitute and consort with Delilah who was likely not much less than a prostitute, willing to do anything for money. And yet through these failures God's purpose was worked out- of 'beginning' to deliver Israel from the Philistines.