Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 13:2
And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name [was] Manoah; and his wife [was] barren, and bore not.
2. Zorah ] Jdg 13:25, Jdg 16:31, Jdg 18:2; Jdg 18:8; Jdg 18:11, usually mentioned with Eshtaol; in Jos 19:41 counted as Danite, in ib. Jos 15:33 as belonging to Judah, which later on absorbed the Danite settlements in the south; re-inhabited after the exile, Neh 11:29. Zorah was an ancient Canaanite town, and is referred to in the Amarna Letters (173, 21) along with Aijalon. The name is preserved in the modern ar‘a, 15 m. west of Jerusalem. The situation of the town just opposite Beth-shemesh (prob. = Mt eres Jdg 1:35) exposed it to Philistine influences.
of the family of the Danites Manoah ] The Danites were a small tribe, hence ‘family’ is used here and in Jdg 18:2; Jdg 18:11; Jdg 18:19, though ‘tribe’ also occurs in Jdg 18:1; Jdg 18:19. Originally they attempted to settle in the southern lowland, but the Amorites forced them into the neighbouring hill country (Jdg 1:34 f.), a district which afterwards passed into the possession of Judah. From their southern settlements the Danites, probably owing to Canaanite or Philistine pressure, migrated to the north, and established themselves at Laish or Leshem-Dan, near the sources of the Jordan (Jdg 18:2; Jdg 18:11 ff., Jdg 18:27 ff.; Jos 19:47). The account of this migration, though given at the end of Judges, probably belongs to the period of ch. 1. The Danites were already settled in their northern home at the time of Deborah (Jdg 5:17). But ch. 18 does not say that the entire tribe migrated; some families remained behind in the south, as the present narrative implies. Manoa must have been closely connected with the Manaathites of Zorah, a family which traced its origin to the Calebite clans (1Ch 2:52-54), and had affinities both with the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:23 P) and with Judah (1Ch 4:1). This Horite family lived in Zorah and was absorbed into the mixed tribe of Dan: such seems to be the conclusion suggested by the genealogies. Manoa thus becomes, the eponymous ancestor of the family which bore his name, and in popular tradition Samson was known as his ‘son,’ just as Jephthah is called the ‘son’ of Gilead in Jdg 11:1.
was barren, and bare not ] Cf. Sarah Gen 11:30, Hannah 1Sa 1:2, Elisabeth St Luk 1:7. The child in such cases was a special gift of God, and marked out for a special career.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Zorah – See the marginal reference.
His wife was barren – To mark more distinctly the high providential destiny of the child that was eventually born. Compare the similar circumstances of the birth of Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, and John the Baptist.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. A certain man of Zorah] A town in the tribe of Judah, but afterwards given to Dan.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Zorah; a city, of which see Jos 15:33; 19:41.
Of the family, i.e. of the tribe or people, as family sometimes signifies, Jos 7:17; Jer 8:3; 10:25; Amo 3:1; Mic 2:3; Zec 14:18.
Barren, and bare not; an emphatical repetition of the same thing in divers words, which is a usual elegancy, both in Scripture and other authors.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. Zoraha Danite town (Jos15:33) lying on the common boundary of Judah and Dan, so that itwas near the Philistine border.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites,…. Of the tribe of Dan, in which tribe Zorah was, and seems to have lain both on the borders of Judah and Dan, Jos 15:33;
[See comments on Jos 15:33],
[See comments on Jos 19:41], and this man was not a mean man, but of rank and figure, a principal man in the country, according to Josephus g; though the Talmudists h say he was a plebeian:
whose name was Manoah; which signifies “rest”, and has much the same signification as Noah; and by this name he was well known in those times, and among his people:
and his wife was barren, and bare not; had no child, as the Targum; and it is observed by many, that several eminent persons were born of women that had been barren, as Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, and John the Baptist; and it is remarkable, that the strongest man that ever was born of such a woman, as the following account relates. The name of this woman, the mother of Samson, is said i to be Zalalponith; see 1Ch 4:3.
g Antique. l. 5. c. 8. sect. 2. h T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 61. 1. i T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 91. 1. Juchasin, fol. 10. 8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whilst the Israelites were given into the hands of the Philistines on account of their sins, and were also severely oppressed in Gilead on the part of the Ammonites, the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah, a Danite from Zorea, i.e., Sur’a, on the western slope of the mountains of Judah (see at Jos 15:33). Mishpachath Dani (the family of the Danites) is used interchangeably with shebet Dani (the tribe of the Danites: see Jdg 18:2, Jdg 18:11, and Jdg 18:1, Jdg 18:30), which may be explained on this ground, that according to Num 26:42-43, all the Danites formed but one family, viz., the family of the Shuhamites. The angel of the Lord announced to this woman, who was barren, “ Thou wilt conceive and bear a son. And now beware, drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean: for, behold, thou wilt conceive and bear a son, and no razor shall come upon his head; for a vowed man of God (Nazir) will the boy be from his mother’s womb, ” i.e., his whole life long, “to the day of his death,” as the angel expressly affirmed, according to Jdg 13:7. The three prohibitions which the angel of the Lord imposed upon the woman were the three things which distinguished the condition of a Nazarite (see at Num 6:1-8, and the explanation given there of the Nazarite vow). The only other thing mentioned in the Mosaic law is the warning against defilement from contact with the dead, which does not seem to have been enforced in the case of Samson. When the angel added still further, “ And he (the Nazarite) will begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, ” he no doubt intended to show that his power to effect this deliverance would be closely connected with his condition as a Nazarite. The promised son was to be a Nazarite all his life long, because he was to begin to deliver Israel out of the power of his foes. And in order that he might be so, his mother was to share in the renunciations of the Nazarite vow during the time of her pregnancy. Whilst the appearance of the angel of the Lord contained the practical pledge that the Lord still acknowledged His people, though He had given them into the hands of their enemies; the message of the angel contained this lesson and warning for Israel, that it could only obtain deliverance from its foes by seeking after a life of consecration to the Lord, such as the Nazarites pursued, so as to realize the idea of the priestly character to which Israel had been called as the people of Jehovah, by abstinence from the deliciae carnis, and everything that was unclean, as being emanations of sin, and also by a complete self-surrender to the Lord (see Pentateuch, p. 674).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(2) There was a certain man. . . .The narrative of the birth of Samuel (1Sa. 1:1) is similarly introduced.
Zoran.The name means place of hornets. In Jos. 15:33 it is mentioned with Eshtaol among the towns north-east of the Shephelah, and it belonged to Dan (Jos. 19:41). Robinson identifies it with Surah, fourteen miles from Jerusalem, seven miles south of Yalo, west of Kirjath-jearim. It is mentioned again in 1Ch. 11:10; Neh. 11:29. Its conical hill and abundant fountain made it a strong and convenient place.
Of the family of the Danites.There seems to be no clear distinction between family (mispachath) and tribe (shebet), since they are used interchangeably in Jdg. 18:1-2; Jdg. 18:11; Jdg. 18:30. The same word is used of the house of Levi (Zec. 12:13). It has, however, this appropriateness, as applied to Dan, that the tribe seems to have consisted of the single family of Shuham (Num. 26:42).
Manoah.The name (rest) perhaps expressed the yearning of the Israelites in these troubled days.
His wife was barren.We find the same circumstance mentioned of Sarah (Gen. 16:1), Rebekah (Gen. 25:21), Hannah (1Sa. 1:2) Elizabeth (Luk. 1:7). Many of the phrases here used occur in Luk. 1:7; Luk. 1:11; Luk. 1:15; Luk. 1:31; Luk. 2:23. The Talmud (Babha Bathra, 91) says that the name of Samsons mother was Hazelelponi, or Zelelponi (for which they refer to 1Ch. 4:3), and that she was of the tribe of Judah. Zelelponi means the shadow falls on me.
And bare not.The pleonastic addition is common in the forms of ancient literature. Sarai was barren; she had no child (Gen. 11:30). I am a widow woman, and my husband is dead. It often takes the form of both a positive and negative statement, as Thou shalt live, and not die. It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves, &c.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SAMSON’S BIRTH, Jdg 13:2-25.
2. Zorah Identified by Dr. Robinson with the modern Surah, which is situated on a high conical hill about thirteen miles west of Jerusalem, and overlooking the Wady Surar. It was first assigned to Judah, (Jos 15:33,) but afterwards to Dan. Jos 19:41.
Family of the Danites This expression is used interchangeably with tribe of the Danites. Compare Jdg 18:1-2; Jdg 18:11; Jdg 18:30.
Manoah “A person of such great virtue,” says Josephus, “that he had few men his equals, and, without dispute, the principal person of his country. He had a wife celebrated for her beauty, and excelling her contemporaries.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah, and his wife was barren, and did not bare.’
Zorah (modern Sar‘ah?) was a town in the lowlands of Judah (Jos 15:33). It was on the north side of the valley of Sorek (called Zharka in the Amarna letters). Manoah belonged to those of the Danites who had not migrated to Laish (Jdg 18:29). Note that it is ‘the clan of Danites’ not the tribe. The name ‘Manoah’ means ‘resting place, condition of rest’. It may be intended to indicate that his spirit was at rest even in the trying circumstances. But he shared one sadness with his wife. She had had no children, she was barren. When God wished to show His power He often chose a barren woman for the purpose (compare Sarah –Gen 16:1; Rebekah – Gen 25:21; Hannah – 1Sa 1:2; 1Sa 1:5; Elizabeth – Luk 1:7). This was to indicate that the resulting birth was God’s work and the child born was thus His in a special way. This was also true in this case.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An angel foretells the birth of Samson
Jdg 13:2-7.
2And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose 3name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not. And the [an] angel of the Lord [Jehovah] appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold, now, 4thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. Now therefore [And now] beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine, nor strong drink, 5and eat not any unclean thing: For lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child [boy] shall be a Nazarite unto [of] God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of 6the Philistines. Then [And] the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance [appearance] was like the countenance [appearance] of an angel of God, very terrible [august]: but [and] 7I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name: But [And] he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child [boy] shall be a Nazarite to [of] God from the womb to the day of his death.
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg 13:2-3. And there was a certain man of Zorah. In the times of Israels penitence, men rose up filled with the Spirit of God; when this was not the case, God had to bring forth the hero for himself. Samsons election was unlike that of any other Judge. Concerning Othniel and Ehud, it is simply said, and God set them up as deliverers (). Barak was called through Deborah, who was a prophetess. An angel of God came also to liberate the people from Midian; but he came to Gideon, a man of valor already proved. Jephthahs case has just been considered. The election of Samson presents an altogether different phase. He is chosen before he is born. An angel of God comes, not to him, but to his mother. Jephthah is recognized by Gilead as the right man, because he has begun () to triumph over the enemy. In Samsons case, it is predicted to hi mother that her son shall begin () to deliver Israel.
The father of Samson was of Zorah (see below on Jdg 13:25), of the race of Dan; whence Samson is also called Bedan (1Sa 12:11). He bears the beautiful name Manoah, Rest, equivalent to the Greek , Hesychius,a name sufficiently peculiar for the father of so restless a spirit as Samson. The name of his wife is not given. Jewish tradition (Baba Bathra, 91) derives her from the tribe Judah, and with reference to 1Ch 4:3, names her Zelelponi or Hazelelponi. The parents were at first childless. The mother was barren, as Sarah was before her. But it is not related of her, any more than of Sarah, that she prayed for a son. This can only be inferred from the similar instance of Hannah (1Sa 1:10); but it does not appear, that, like Hannah, she made a vow. Nor is it said of her and Manoah that they were old, as in the cases of Sarah and Elizabeth (Luk 1:7). They were pious, uncomplaining people, who lived in retirement, and had hitherto borne their childless condition with trustful resignation. Nevertheless, it was this childless condition that peculiarly adapted the wife for the right reception of the announcement which is made to her. The joy which it inspires prepares her fully for the sacrifice which it requires. It holds out a scarcely hoped for happiness, which she will gladly purchase with the restraints imposed upon her. But this is not the only ground why she is chosen. An announcement like that made to her requires faith in the receiver. The pious disposition of the parents shows itself in this faith, by which, less troubled with doubt than Sarah and Zacharias, they receive as certain that which is announced to them.
Jdg 13:4. And now beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor intoxicating drink. For Samson, the child that is to be born to her, shall be a Nazir of God. The ideas which here come to light, are of uncommon instructiveness. They reveal a surprisingly free and discriminating conception of the life and wants of the Israel of that time. Farreaching thoughts, which still influence the Christian Church of our own day, are reflected in them.
I. The law of the Nazarite and his vow, in Numbers 6, rests upon the great presuppositions which are implied in Israels calling. In Exo 19:6, God says to Israel, Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation; but he precedes it (Jdg 13:5) by the words, Ye shall be a possession unto me out of all nations, for all the earth is mine. All nations are Gods; but among them, Israel was to be his holy people; and the law expresses in symbolic actions the moral ideas through which Israel exhibits itself as holy and consecrated. Within the holy nation, the priests occupy the same relation which the nation holds to the world. Their service, in sacrifice, prayer, and atonement, expresses especially consecration and nearness to God. Moreover, with respect to this service they have likewise a law, whose external command represents the internal idea of their consecration. The command to Aaron is, that the priests, when they go into the tabernacle, are not to drink wine nor strong drink, in order that they may be able to distinguish between holy and unholy, and to teach the children of Israel (Lev 10:9); for wine is a mocker (Pro 20:1) Wine, says Isaiah, with reference to the priesthood of his day (Isa 28:7), has drowned all priestly consecration. The consequences of intoxication show themselves not only in a man like Nabal (1Sa 25:36), but also in the case of a pious man, like Lot.
That death is the wages of sin, the Old Testament teaches on every page. The priests are to abstain from wine, lest they die. Hence, also, they are not to touch a corpse, for it has the nature of sin and uncleanness (Lev 21:1), and the priests are to be holy. But although the special official priesthood was given by law to the tribe of Levi, holiness and consecration of life were not limited to that tribe: every one, no matter what his tribe, can consecrate himself to God, and without the aid of office, visibly realize the general priesthood in his own person. It is the peculiarity of the law, that it expresses every internal religions emotion by means of a visible act. It obliges the inward life to allow itself to be visibly recognized. All Israel was to be holy; but when an Israelite, in a condition of special spiritual exaltation, rising above the common connection between God and the people, as mediated by the priests, vowed himself to God, this act also was made the subject of ordinances, by which the Nazir, as he who thus vowed was called, was distinguished from other men, and held to special obligations. Hence, an Israelite can vow himself to God for a time, and is accordingly during that time holy to God in an especial sense (Num 6:8). Without holding any priestly office, he enters into a free and sacred service before God. Hence, during the whole time of his vow, he is forbidden to touch wine or strong drink, as if he were constantly officiating in the tabernacle, although the priests, when not actually engaged in service, were under no restraint. The priests, generally forbidden to touch a corpse, are yet allowed to do so in the case of a blood relative (Lev 21:1 ff); but the Nazir, who is to look upon himself as if he were ever in the sanctuary, from which every impurity is excluded, is not to know any exception. He may not touch, the dead body of even father or mother. Yea, he is himself, as it were, a temple or altar of God, as appears from the personal mark by which he is distinguished. The priest comes only to the altar; and is forbidden to wear the signs of the idolaters on his hair and beard (Lev 21:5), and is moreover distinguished by his clothing. The Nazir is in the congregation, his clothing is not different from that of others; but he is himself an altar; and therefore, as over an altar, so over his body, and over the head of that body, no iron may be lifted up. When thou makest an altar of stone, says Moses, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy iron1 upon it, thou hast desecrated it (Exo 20:25). Accordingly, Joshua built an altar of stones over which no man had lifted up any iron (Jos 8:31). The reason for this prohibition is grounded, not in the nature of stone, but in the symbolical significance of iron. Iron, as the Mishnah observes (Middoth, iii. 4), must not even touch the altar; for iron is used to shorten life, but the altar to lengthen it (comp. my treatise Schamir, pp. 57, 58). It is well known that other ancient nations regarded iron in the same way. The Egyptians called it Typhons Bones (Plutarch, de Osirid. cap. lxii). Iron, according to the oracle (Pausan. iii. 3, 4), is the image of evil, because it is used in battle.2When, therefore, it was enjoined upon the Nazir to let no knife come upon his head during the time of his vow, the ground of the injunction was none other than this: that since the Nazir, like the altar, is holy and consecrate to God, iron, the instrument of death and terror, must not touch him.3
The Nazir is a walking altar of God; and his flowing hair is the visible token of his consecration, reminding both himself and the people of the sacred vows he has assumed. It is the proper mark of the Nazir, as the linen garment is that of the Levite. By it he is known, and from it probably comes his name. It may be assumed that the signification to devote ones self, to abstain from, of the verb , belongs to it only in consequence of the distinction attached to the . It seems to me that Nazir is equivalent to , long-haired, Cincinnatus, curly-haired, or Harfagr (Haralld hinn Harfagri). For it has been justly remarked that in Numbers 6 the term Nazir is already accepted as a familiar expression. It may be compared with the Latin cirrus, curl, lock, or tuft of hair (cf. csaries = craries); for comparative philology shows that in most verbs beginning with , this letter is a specific Hebrew prefix to the root, so that , to guard, to keep, may be compared with ; , to bear, with ; , brass, with s, serpent, with the onomatopoetic zischen, to hiss; with gemere; with salire, etc. The word would then get its signification diadem, ornament (cf. , in the same sense), just as the Greek , derived from , , comes to signify adornment. To trace the original etymological identity of cirrus, cicinnus, and the Sanskrit kikura, with the Hebrew nazir, or to inquire whether the terms , to shave ones self, and , to cut the hair, are connected with the same root, would be out of place here. Precisely those terms which designate objects of primitive interest to man, are most deeply imbedded in the general philological treasures of all nations. But not to pursue these speculations any farther, it must already appear probable, that the use of nazir in Lev 25:5, where it is applied to the untrimmed vine of the sabbatic year, is to be explained by reference not to the Nazaritic custom of human beings, vowing and consecrating themselves to God, but to the original meaning of the root. The Sabbath-year being time belonging to God (Lev 25:4), no knife was applied during its course to the vine, which from that circumstance was named nazir. This would have been an unsuitable designation, if it had been derived from the vows assumed by the human Nazir; for such subjective activity could not be ascribed to the vine. It was the objective appearance of the Nazir, who, whether man or vine, was holy, and therefore had not been touched by the knife, which gave rise to the name. The name suggests the unshaven condition, the long hair, of the Nazarite, not primarily his consecration, although the sacred character of the person, through the law, gave sanctity to the name and set it apart from common uses, just as the rite of circumcision was indebted for its name (), not to the sacramental character of the rite, but to the mere act of cutting (, ), and then reflected its own sanctity upon the name. Long hair, although without any reference to the Nazaritic institute it may be called (cf. Jer 7:29), was the proper mark of the Nazir, because regularly set apart for this purpose by the law. To sanctify the natural life, is the very thing at which the law constantly aims. By its institutions its spiritual requisitions are rendered visible and personal. The circumcision of the foreskin is after all but the national image of circumcision of the heart, and the Nazaritic institute is the symbol of the general priesthood, in which no sin or impurity is to sully the free service of God. But the visible character in which each of these conceptions appeared, was more than a subjective, mutable image: it was a definite and unchangeable law. It was, to a certain extent, a sacrament. It is instructive to see how the relation of spirit and law affects Biblical language and conceptions. The wearing of long hair, a purely natural act, is first, by spiritual ideas, raised into an expression of the general priesthood, in which man is a living altar; but when long hair has become characteristic of the sacred Nazir, whose duty it is to keep far from impurity, a new verb is derived from his name, with, the sole spiritual signification of withholding ones self from what is unclean. The same process may be noted in connection with circumcision. Originally elevated into a sacrament by the intervention of spiritual ideas, incorporated into the law, it affords occasion for the transfer of its name to the spiritual conceptions of the circumcision of tongue and heart. But especially remarkable is the apprehension of the relation between spirit and law in the history of Samson.
II. Why was it necessary for the hero who should begin to deliver Israel, to be a Nazir? Why was the same election and education not necessary in the cases of the other great judges, as, for instance, Gideon and Jephthah? Were then those heroes not spiritual Nazarites, who gave their lives to the service of God? May we not understand the opening words of Deborahs Song as indicating their spiritual consecration to Jehovah: That in Israel waved the hair, in the peoples self-devotion (see on Jdg 5:2)? No doubt; and for that very reason Samson is distinguished from them. For those men arose in times when the tribes of Israel them selves repented and turned their hearts to God. In Samsons day, the situation was different. Dan and Judah were oppressed, but not repentant. An uprising from within through faith, is not to be expected. It is brought about, therefore, as it were from without, by means of the law. The power of the objective, spiritual law manifests itself. It becomes an organ of deliverance, when the subjective source of freedom no longer flows. The angel would have found no Gideon. A prophetess like Deborah, there was not. But the law abides: it is independent of the current popular spirit. It is thus the last sure medium through which the help of God can come to Israel. This significance of the law, and its objective power, is very instructively set forth before the people in the person of Samson. It is this also which, from Samson onward, becomes the ruling force in the vocation and appointment of deliverers, until the kingship is established, which by the objective rite of priestly anointing, changes David the shepherd-boy into David the victorious ruler. And this instruction concerning the law as a whole, is imparted through the medium of the special law concerning the Nazir, because it is here that the relation to be pointed out comes most clearly to view. For precisely the Nazariteship is, according to the Biblical law, the out-flow of unrequired, voluntary consecration to God on the part of an individual. No doubt, to a certain extent, the earlier heroes, though not Nazarites in form, were such self-devoted men. But heroes such as they do not arise in times when the absence of penitence and faith dulls the prophets and Nazarites (cf. Amo 2:12). Hence, the history of Samson teaches that Israel would have had nothing to hope for from the Nazariteship, if it had had no other than subjective validity. When faith is wanting among the people, no man becomes a Nazir; but the objective law can make of the Nazir, a man. In Samsons case, the Nazariteship makes the hero, the long hair characterizes his strength, the renunciations of the mother consecrate the child. Samson, a Nazarite from his birth and without his own will, becomes what he is only as such, and continues to be a hero only so long as he continues to be a Nazarite. The Nazariteship is first, everything else second, in him. Its power over him is so objective, that it already operates on him before he is born, before anything like free consciousness can be thought of. The command addresses not him whom it concerns, but his mother, and she, during her pregnancy; becomes a female Nazir, in order that her son may be able to become a hero. It is this that properly distinguishes Samson from the other heroes; and its occasion appears in the fact that the narrator could not, as at other times, introduce his story by stating that the tribes had persistently cried unto God.
III. The Mishnah (Nazir, i. 2) already distinguishes between a perpetual Nazarite and a Samson-Nazarite. And in fact, the Nazariteship of Samson is unique, has never repeated itself, and never can repeat itself; for it is conditioned by the history of his age. Samuel also is consecrated by his mothers vow that he shall belong to God, and that no razor shall come upon his head; but there is nothing to show that the mother observed the Nazaritic rules in her own person, nor is anything said about any virtue in long hair in connection with Samuel. Hannah was wholly self-moved in the making of her vow. The case of John the Baptist likewise stands entirely by itself. Here, the birth of the child is indeed announced by an angel, but his character as a Nazarite is expressed in language altogether peculiar: He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. John will be great before God, and because of that greatness will drink no wine. Nothing is said about long hair, and the origin of Johns vow is placed, not in the act of another, but in the strength with which God had endowed himself. The Mishnah puts it as a possible case that a person should vow to be a Nazarite like Samson; that is, the vow is hypothetically so limited that, while it requires him who makes it to wear his hair long, he is not required to bring sacrifices for defilement. Such a vow was named after Samson, because a part of his life was imitated by it. But properly speaking, a vow to be like Samson, is impossible For Samsons vow began not with himself, but with his mother. According to the law in the 6th chapter of Numbers, an Israelite could take a vow upon himself for a longer or, like the four friends of James (Act 21:23), for a shorter period. When the time was expired, he shaved himself, and brought an offering. But no one could vow to be like Samson. It was indeed within the power of a mother to promise to bring up her child like Samson, but even then she had no right to expect the same results as in the case of Samson. It is precisely the impotence of human subjectivity that is demonstrated by Samsons history. It cannot be the wish of all mothers to have Samson-children, when they suffer the hair of their offspring to grow. The angels announcement, through which the spirit in the law begins to operate even in the maternal womb, is the original source of strength. The Spirit of God operates on mother and son, through the Nazariteship as its organ. The power of the Nazir, the holy influence of the law, opens the man himself; the outflow of divine consecration into the life of the consecrated cannot take place without the Spirit of God. The theological doctrine of the preparatory history of Samson, is just this: that while the law in its immutable objectivity is placed over against the subjective forces of prophecy and heroic inspiration, yet it can never of itself, but only by virtue of the Spirit of God pervading and quickening it, become the organ of deliverance.
The Nazaritic institute is the image of the general priesthood, of the fact that outside of the tribe of Levi, it is possible for man to belong wholly to God. The visible acts which it prescribes, represent, as in a figure, the purity and sinlessness of the heart consecrated to God. In the case of Samson, this Nazariteship begins from his mothers womb. Were it in the power of a son born of human parents, to be sinless through the law, Samson the Nazarite ought to have been sinless. But only Christ is the true Nazarite in spirit, whose life realizes the purity of the idea, and whose free love, rooted in God, continues among men from the womb until death. Jacob, the dying patriarch, announced a blessing on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the head of the Nazir of his brethren (Gen 49:26); and there is no reason to doubt that the primitive Christian consciousness interpreted the expression Nazir of his brethren not of Joseph, but found in the and a link connecting the blessing of Joseph with the person of Him who was a Nazir of the brethren of Joseph. It saw in the passage a prophecy of the Messiah, who though not descended from Levi, was yet the true holy and consecrated high-priest. Hence, the opinion that in the language of the evangelist Matthew (Jdg 2:23), that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a , reference is made to the , the Nazir of his brethren, is not to be hastily set aside. Remarkable, at all events, is it that the ancient Jewish interpretation, when Jacob after the blessing on Dan (Gen 49:17) adds the words: I wait for thy salvation, Jehovah! conceives him to glance from the nearer but transient deliverance by Samson, to the more distant but eternal redemption of Messiah (Beresch. Rabba, p. 86 c; cf. the Targums on the passage); and that, as already mentioned, the mother of Samson, in 1Ch 4:3, is named Hazelelponi or Zelelponi, i. e., the shadow falls on me, which may be compared with the words of the angel to the mother of Jesus: the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.
Jdg 13:5. And let no razor come upon his head. Here, and in the history of Samuel, the razor is called , whereas in Num 6:4 is used. Both terms come from the same stem , nudare, to uncover, as it were novare, to renew, whence also novacula, sharp knife, razor. There appears to be less ground for comparison with the Greek , Latin marra, the signification spade being too far removed. On the other hand, a certain relationship of with the Greek , Sanskrit khschura, shears, may not be altogether denied.
He shall begin. For the Philistines oppressed Israel forty years, and Samson judged his people only twenty. Samson began to restore victory to Israel, he did not make it full and final. The angel of God who calls the hero out of the womb of his mother, knows that he will not finish that for which God nevertheless gave him strength. He knows it, and therefore does not speak as he did to Gideon: Thou shalt deliver Israel (Jdg 6:14).
Jdg 13:6-7. And the woman came and told her husband. Before telling him what the angel had said, she excuses herself for having obtained no particular information about the bearer of the announcement. She should have asked him whence he was, but dared not; for he was a man of God, with the look of an angel of God. The angel appeared in human form; but there was an imposing splendor about him, which terrified the woman. Such, probably, had also been the case in Gideons experience. In her narrative she supplies what we do not find in Jdg 13:5, that the childs character, as a Nazir of God, is to last from the womb until the day of his death.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The grace of God shows itself constantly more wondrously. It was to be made ever clearer in Israel that all salvation comes from God, and that without God there is no peace. With God all things are possible. He can raise up children for himself out of stones. His works are independent of human presuppositions and conditions. He has no need of antecedent historical conditions in order to raise up men. When in times of impenitence even vessels are wanting, He creates the vessels He needs.
How differently God proceeds in the election of grace from the methods human thought would conceive, is shown by the history of all previous Judges. The deliverer arises there where the natural understanding would never have looked for him. But Samson God raises up in a manner in which no man ever conjectured the growth of a hero to take place. The other Judges He selected as men: Samson He brought up to be a hero.
The earlier Judges were to a certain extent prepared for their work even before their election. Ehud had the abilities of a Benjaminite, Deborah was a prophetess, Gideon a strong man, Jephthah a successful military leader. When the Spirit of God came upon them, they became Deliverers and Judges. In Samson, God made it known that his grace is able to save Israel even when such persons are not to be found. Before birth, He consecrates the child, through his Spirit, to be a Nazarite. Hence grows a hero.
Earlier Judges were able, like Ehud, to perform single-handed exploits; but they achieved deliverance only in connection with the people. They were all military leaders of Israel, and had to stand at the head of pious hosts. In Samson it is seen that this also is not indispensable. Only individuals among the people were penitent; the tribes, as such, were unbelieving. Therefore the Spirit raised up a single man to be Judge: he alone, without army and without people, fought and delivered.
For this reason, the ancient, deeply thinking church regarded Samson especially as a type of the history of Christ. His birth was similar to that of Jesus. Like the eternal Word who became flesh, he was typically born and consecrated of the Spirit. In Christ, also, it is his sinlessness that presupposes his office as Saviour. The birth of Christ determines his resurrection. He must be born from heaven in order to return to heaven. No one can ascend into heaven but He who came down from heaven.
There was also no penitence in Israel when Christ was born. A few sought the promised Messiah in the prophets. Christ did not come to put himself at the head of a host of believers; but alone, as He was, so He stood among the people. He performs his entire work alone. He needs no legions of angels. His work is unique; and He, the worker, is a solitary hero.
Every believing heart treads in the footsteps of Christ. Fellowship is good in Christian work, but not essential. A Christian can live alone, if he be with Christ.
Starke: God cares for his people when they are in misery, and often thinks of their redemption before they think of it themselves.The same: God connects his grace and gifts with mean things, in order to make men know that everything is to be ascribed to the grace of God, and not to the merits of men.
[Bp. Hall: If Manoahs wife had not been barren, the angel had not been sent to her. Afflictions have this advantage, that they occasion God to show that mercy to us, whereof the prosperous are incapable. It would not beseem a mother to be so indulgent to a healthful child as to a sick.The same: Nature pleads for liberty, religion for restraint. Not that there is more uncleanness in the grape than in the fountain, but that wine finds more uncleanness in us than water, and that the high feed is not so fit for devotion as abstinence.Wordsworth: Samson is a type of Christ: and in all those things where Samson fails, there Christ excels. Samson began to deliver Israel, but did not effect their deliverance (see Jdg 13:1; Jdg 15:20). He declined from his good beginnings; and fell away first into sin, and then into the hands of the enemy. But Christ not only began to deliver Israel, but was able to say on the cross, It is finished.Tr.].
Footnotes:
[1][The English version renders, tool. The word is , in the sense of chisel. The interpretation iron is justified by Jos 8:31, where, with evident reference to Exo 20:25, is substituted for .Tr.].
[2]The following is said to have been uttered by Apollonius of Tyana: Let the iron spare the hair of a wise man. For it is not right that it should touch a place where lie the sources of all the senses, whence all sacred sounds and voices issue, and prayers proceed, and the word of wisdom interprets.Philostrat., Vit. Apollon., viii. 6.
[3]Hence, we cannot agree with the explanations cited and proposed in Oehlers article on the Nasiraat, in Herzogs Encyklopddie (x. 208). A poem by Max Letteris, on the Locks of the Nazarite, in Jolowicz Blthenkranz, p. 239, has entirely missed the idea of the Nazaritic institution.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Dan was one of the tribes of Israel. And this tribe lay near the Philistines’ country. Jacob prophesied concerning this tribe, that Dan should judge his people. Perhaps this prophecy had its fulfillment in the person of Samson. Gen 49:16 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 13:2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name [was] Manoah; and his wife [was] barren, and bare not.
Ver. 2. A certain man of Zorah. ] Samson’s country, much ennobled by his name: as afterwards Co was by Hippocrates, Arpinum by Cicero, Hippo by Augustine, &c.
And his wife was barren.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
man. Hebrew. ‘ish. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Zorah: Jos 15:33, Jos 19:41
barren: Gen 16:1, Gen 25:21, 1Sa 1:2-6, Luk 1:7
Reciprocal: Gen 11:30 – barren Gen 29:31 – he opened Gen 49:16 – General Deu 33:22 – General Jdg 16:31 – between Zorah Jdg 18:2 – Zorah Jdg 18:8 – Zorah and Eshtaol 2Ki 4:14 – she hath no child 1Ch 2:53 – the Zareathites
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jdg 13:2-3. Of the family of the Danites That is, of that tribe or people. His wife was barren, and bare not An emphatical repetition of the same thing in other words, which is a usual elegance both in Scripture and other authors. The angel The Son of God, yet distinguished from the Lord, because he appeared here in the form of a servant, as a messenger sent from God. The great Redeemer did in a particular manner concern himself about this typical redemption.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
13:2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name [was] Manoah; and his wife [was] {a} barren, and bare not.
(a) Signifying that their deliverance came only from God, and not by man’s power.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The announcement of Samson’s birth 13:2-7
The Angel of the Lord again appeared (cf. Jdg 6:11). This time He announced to a barren Danite woman that she would bear a son (cf. Gen 16:11; Luk 1:26-38). Samson’s birth by a barren woman indicated God’s supernatural provision of him for a special purpose. The meaning of Samson’s name may derive from shemesh ("sun") and the diminutive ending on, meaning "little sun" or "sunny boy." Samson’s mother may have named him "little sun" in honor of a Canaanite god. [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 419.] Another view is that Samson’s name connects with Beth-Shemesh, a nearby town. [Note: Lewis, p. 76.] Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth were all barren too. Mary the mother of Jesus also experienced a supernatural conception and birth. Each of these mothers produced a remarkable son.
"What does he [God] do when he has a people who refuse to forsake Baal and have no desire to forsake Philistia? A people grown so used to bondage they don’t even have sense to call out for relief? At least here the very God who judges them (Jdg 13:1 b) begins to work their deliverance-anyway (Jdg 13:2-5). That is grace-grace greater than all our sin, than all our stupidity, than all our density." [Note: Davis, p. 160.]
The appearance of the Angel of the Lord always marked a very significant event in Israel’s history. The only other birth He announced was Isaac’s (Gen 18:1; Gen 18:10). Samson would have an unusual opportunity to serve God.
Samson’s parents were to rear him as a Nazirite from his birth. Normally Israelites assumed the Nazirite vow voluntarily and temporarily. Three laws governed the person under a Nazirite vow in addition to the other Mosaic laws. He was to eat nothing that the grapevine produced, he was to let his hair grow without ever cutting it, and he was to refrain from contact with a dead body (cf. Num 6:1-21). This vow placed the Nazirite in a position of separation to God in a special sense (Num 6:2). Abstinence from wine would have freed Samson from bondage to that drink so he could operate under the control of God’s Spirit consistently (cf. Eph 5:18). Long hair was important because it was a public testimony to the Nazirite’s separation to God. Contact with a corpse precluded worship at Israel’s central sanctuary temporarily, but no contact with dead bodies would enable the Nazirite to have unbroken fellowship with God.
Samson’s mother was to observe certain precautions during her pregnancy to safeguard her special child (cf. Heb 11:23 NIV). "Wine" came from grapes, but "strong drink" (Heb. shakar) was the product of other fermented fruits and grains. We know that the physical condition of a pregnant woman can affect her unborn child. For example, heroin addicts bear babies that need that drug. God did not want Samson under any other influence except Himself, even from his conception.
Samson was to live as a Nazirite because God would "begin" to deliver Israel from the Philistines through him (Jdg 13:5). Samuel and David would complete this task (1Sa 7:10-14; 2Sa 5:17-25). Samson proved unfaithful in his separation to God. John the Baptist, who was apparently another Nazirite from birth, was faithful. He shows us what Samson could have become if he had valued his opportunity to serve God and had preserved his dedication to God. Evidently Manoah’s wife assumed that the Angel was a prophet (Jdg 13:6).