Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 14:15
And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson’s wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? [is it] not [so]?
15. on the seventh day ] Would the young men have waited all this time before pressing the woman to extract the answer? In Jdg 14:17 she is said to have tried herself to find it out all the seven days. The two statements are inconsistent. The LXX and Peshitto read on the fourth day; but this is suspiciously like what we should expect after in three days Jdg 14:14. Most critics think that the numbers in Jdg 14:14-15 were added to the original text in order to heighten the difficulty of the riddle and the despair of the Philistines.
unto us ] LXX unto thee. Samson could not be expected to tell the Philistines himself.
to impoverish us ] lit. take possession of, dispossess us. The reflex. stem has the meaning come to poverty in Gen 45:11, Pro 20:13 etc.
is it not so? ] The Hebr. requires a slight correction: ‘was it to impoverish us that ye invited us hither?’ So five Hebr. mss., Targ.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
On the seventh day; they had doubtless spoken to her before this time, but with some remissness, supposing that they should find it out; but now their time being nigh slipped, they press her with more vehemency, and put her under a necessity of searching it out.
To take that we have, i.e. to strip us of our garments; and so your civility will end in gross unkindness and injustice.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And it came to pass on the seventh day,…. Not on the seventh day of the feast, for some time before that they applied to his wife, and she pressed him hard to disclose it; but on the sabbath day, as Kimchi, and so Jarchi says, on the seventh day of the week, not on the seventh day of the feast, for it was the seventh day of the feast; this is so clear, that the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, instead of the seventh, read the fourth day:
that they said unto Samson’s wife, entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle; that is, persuade him to tell the meaning of it to her, that she might declare it to them:
lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire; in which she now was, not as yet being taken home to her husband, and her in it; this they said to terrify her, and make her importunate with Samson to explain the riddle to her, if he had any value for her, and her life:
have ye called us to take that we have? invited them to the wedding feast, to strip them of their clothes, and even take their very shirts off of their backs, which they must have been obliged to part with, if they could not explain the riddle, or send for other suits and shirts from their own houses: “is it not so?” verily this is the case, nor can it be understood otherwise than a contrived business between thee and thy husband, to get our raiment, woollen and linen, from us.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(15) On the seventh day.When they were in despair.
Lest we burn thee and thy fathers house with fire.As, indeed, they ultimately did (Jdg. 15:6). If Samson appears in no very favourable light in this chapter, the Philistines show themselves to be most mean, treacherous, and brutal.
To take that we have.The Hebrew expression is strongerto spoil us, or make us paupers. The is it not so? is added to show the vehemence of the question.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. On the seventh day Not of the week, (as Bush,) but of the feast. It was not till the last day of the feast that, feeling their case was hopeless, they went to the barbarous extreme of threatening to burn her and her father’s house with fire. It is probable, as Keil remarks, that “the woman had already come to Samson every day with her entreaties, from simple curiosity; but Samson resisted them until the seventh day, when she became more urgent than ever in consequence of this threat of the Philistines.” It is probable, too, that they had, without any threat, asked her before the seventh day to find out for them the meaning of the riddle.
Entice thy husband Persuade him; induce him.
That he may declare the riddle Evidently their meaning was, that she should persuade Samson to tell her the solution of the riddle, and then that she should privately make it known unto them.
Have ye called us to take that we have Literally, Is it to make us poor ye have called us? Do you intend to rob us of our property, that you and your father are leagued together to make us the victims of Samson?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And so it was that on the seventh day they said to Samson’s wife, “Entice your husband, that he may declare to us the solution to the riddle, lest we burn you and your father’s house with fire. Have you invited us so as to take what we have? Is that not so?”’
Time passed by. It passed not only a ‘three day’ period but a ‘seven day’ period, a longer standard period of time (compare the ‘three days’ journey and the ‘seven days’ journey so often found in Genesis). We must remember that the Philistines had no concept of what we know of as a week. That was an Israelite conception.
Then the men began to panic and the situation turned ugly. They could not bear the thought of losing their fine and expensive clothing to an Israelite. (Samson had succeeded in antagonising them. What he had not considered was how they would react). So they pressurised Samson’s ‘wife’, warning her that if she did not entice the answer out of him by the time the wedding feast was over they would burn her father’s house with her inside it (compare Jdg 12:1. This was clearly considered a standard punishment by powerful men offended. See also Jdg 15:6). These were not pleasant men and their pride was hurt. And they were the warrior ruling class. They accused her of bringing them there with the intention of taking their fine clothes. The threat was real, compare Jdg 15:6. We see here the typical Philistine male, proud, aggressive and unyielding, and with a contempt for all others.
It would appear that it was customary in a Philistine marriage for the wife to continue living in her father’s house, being regularly visited by the husband who would bring a gift when he visited (see Jdg 15:1 where she was still there even though she had married another and would thus have been otherwise expected to have moved in with him). This was probably because regularly the husbands would be away on army duty, and it was therefore safer for their wives to be in her family home. Alternately it may be that the husband was expected to move into the bride’s house and become a part of her family. If that be so we find that later Samson, not having done this, brought a gift to rectify matters. Thus she would still be living at home when the wedding was over.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jdg 14:15. That he may declare unto us The LXX. Syriac, and Arabic, instead of unto us, render the passage, that he may declare unto thee.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The Philistines solve the riddle by means of treachery. Samsons anger and payment of the forfeit
Jdg 14:15-20.
15And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said19 unto Samsons wife, Entice [Persuade] thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy fathers house with fire: have ye called [invited] us to take that we have [plunder us]? is it not so? 16And Samsons wife wept before him and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a [the] riddle unto the children [sons] of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee? 17And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted [during which they had their feast]: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him [pressed him hard]: and she told the riddle to the children [sons] of her people. 18And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them, If ye had not ploughed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. 19And the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil [attire], and gave [the] change [changes] of garments unto them which expounded 20the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his fathers house. But [And] Samsons wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend [who had attended him].
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg 14:15.. Dr. Cassel treats all that comes after the phrase, and it came to pass on the seventh day, down to the same phrase in Jdg 14:17, as parenthetic, and consequently renders by the pluperfect: and they tad said. Cf. below.Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
The sthetic beauty and psychological truth which characterize the narrative notwithstanding its compressed brevity, and which would be incomparable even though the narrative were not found in the Bible, and had not divine truth for its contents and object, can scarcely be adequately pointed out, so manifoldly do they manifest themselves. The drama is represented with such historical life-likeness, and its development is so natural, that while no one could foresee why the wedding should give rise to a conflict, yet in the sequel it becomes manifest that its occurrence was unavoidable. Samson really loved the maiden of Timnah, and took the full measure of youthful delight in the nuptial banquet and festival; but it is impossible for an Israelite, as he is, to enter into any kind of close connection with the enemies and oppressors of his people, without getting into a conflict. It must never be supposed that covenants, even in the simplest relations of life, can be made with those who are opponents in principle and tyrants in disposition. No occasion is so slight, but it suffices to inflame the fires of antagonism. Samson is too genial of nature to be a far-seeing party man; but he deceived himself when he expected to find a covenant of love and fidelity in a Philistine family. The preventing cause lay not only in his opponents, but also in himself, in that he was always, even unconsciously, showing who he was. Everything appeared to be harmonious when he propounded the riddle. He did it in the most peaceful spirit, from the impulse of an active mind. But it immediately brought the hidden antagonism to light. For they to whom it was proposed for solution were Philistines. As such, they would at all events be put to shame, if they failed to solve it. At the same time, it is true, the nobility of Samsons disposition reveals itself, in contrast with the vulgar natures of the Philistines. He, for his part, risks thirty times the value of what, in case of failure, each of the thirty has to pay. This is the very reason why, in their covetousness, they accept the wager. The result was natural. They cannot solve the riddle, but neither are they willing to admit this. They are too vain to be humbled by an alien, but especially too covetous to endure a loss. They therefore turn to Samsons young wife. Had she not been a Philistine, they would not have dared to do this. But, as it is, they expect to find in her an ally against the Israelite, even though he be her husband. She seems indeed to have resisted for a while,until they arouse both her fears and her vanity. Her fears, by the threat to burn her fathers house over her head; her vanity, by hinting that probably the riddle was only put forth in order to plunder the guests. The latter suspicion she may have found especially intolerable, women being ever peculiarly sensitive to similar surmises of village slander-mongers. Perhaps, however, she merely invented these threatening speeches afterwards, in order to pacify Samson. For else, why did she not confess the truth to Samson? That alone would have ended the trouble. Either he would have felt himself strong enough to protect her, and to humble the miserable enemies, or he would have consented to the sacrifice of appearing to be vanquished. But she did not do this, just because she did not forget that she was a Philistine. Samson, she conjectured, would not allow himself to be humbled. She sought, therefore, to persuade him by means of that very antagonism for the sake of which she betrayed him. She complained, weeping, that he still treated her like her countrymen, and also kept from her that which he would not tell them. She desires to make it appear that her love has so entirely brought her over to his interests, that she thought not to be put on the same footing with her countrymen. This would have been the right relation. The wife may assist no party but that of her husband. But she only dissembled, in order to betray. Finally, on the seventh day,the sun was already declining,she had so tormented the hero, that he told it to her. He had a heart not only great, but also tender, which at last succumbs to the prayers and tears of the wife whom he loves and holds to be true. The treachery is completed. The miserable Philistines act as if they had themselves found the solution, and claim the reward. Then a light goes up for Samson. He sees the whole contrast,the incongruity and error of a covenant with Philistines. Before the treason of which he has been made the subject, the mists with which a seductive sensuality had obscured, his vision are scattered. National wrath and national strength awake within him. His whole greatness reveals itself. He does not refuse the Philistines the promised reward. But the manner in which it is given, is full of contempt and humiliation. He throws to them the spoils of thirty slain Philistines. He leaves the woman, and returns to Israel. The conflict has begun, and Samsons true calling becomes manifest. He who wears the consecration of God on his head, cannot revel in the houses of Philistines.
Jdg 14:15. And it came to pass on the seventh day. More recent expositors have made no remarks on this difficult statement. To assume that the Philistines first applied themselves to the woman on the seventh day, is rendered impossible by Jdg 14:17, which says that she wept before Samson seven days. The LXX. therefore, read here, on the fourth day, because Jdg 14:14 states that for three days they were not able to find the solution. Considering how easily and may be interchanged, the substitution of seven for four appears very likely. But the clearer it seems that the reading should be, on the fourth day, the more surprising it is that the Masora retained on the seventh day. The Masora, however, supposed the Sabbath to be meant by the seventh day,an opinion also followed by some of the older expositors (cf. Serarius), but which cannot be correct.20 For in Jdg 14:17 a seventh day is again mentioned, which cannot, however, be another Sabbath; for as the first seventh day is, by the supposition, the fourth, so this second is the seventh, day of the wedding-feast. The reading on the seventh day can be retained, if the passage which begins immediately after it in Jdg 14:15, and extends to the same phrase in Jdg 14:17, be regarded as a sort of parenthesis. The writer was already on the point of stating that after they had ineffectually puzzled over it for three days, Samson on the seventh day told it to his wife, when it occurred to him first to interpose the statements of Jdg 14:15-17, as showing the motives by which Samson was influenced. Accordingly, on the seventh day, in Jdg 14:17, only continues what the same words in Jdg 14:15 had begun. The statement in the parenthesis that she wept before him seven days, falls in with this view. The idea is, that from the time at which she began, she continued to torment him throughout the whole seven-day period of the feast. Throughout the whole week, therefore, instead of cheerful guests, Samson had sullen Philistine faces, and, instead of a happy wife, crocodile tears and reproaches.21
Persuade thy husband, that he declare unto us the riddle. , persuade; most frequently, it is true, befool, entice by flattery. Very significant is the expression, that he declare unto us the riddle. If he tells it to her, they intimate, he will have told it to them. For do not they and she constitute an us? She belongs to them, and must act accordingly, if she would not incur their enmity against herself and her house.
Have ye invited us to plunder us? is it not so? is the kal infinitive with suffix, and is to be derived from , to inherit, to get by conquest, to take into possession. The word is aptly chosen here. When Israel was taking possession of the land, was a word in constant use. The Philistines mockingly ask whether they were invited that Israel, in the person of Samson, might conquer, inherit, their property. , at the close, is an interrogative particle, like the Latin ne, used enclitically.
Jdg 14:16. Thou dost but hate me, . Samson, she intimates, must look on her as one looks on a person who belongs to a hostile tribe, seeing that he conceals the solution of the riddle from her as well as from the other people of the city. The woman, pressed to decide between her people and Samson, inclines to the Philistines. A lesson for Samson and others like him.
Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother. It is true, he deferred not to father and mother in the matter of his marriage, but not from want of reverence for them. They are his most beloved. To them he brings of the honey. (Very insipidly, Josephus adds here that he brought honey to the woman also.) And the woman, in the midst of her flatteries and tears, must endure to hear him say to her: Have I not told it to my parents, and shall I tell it to thee? To be sure, it would have been inexcusable to have put his parentsand such parents!on the same level with a Philistine woman.
Jdg 14:18. Before the sun went down. Here also we have the poetical name (instead of the form ), for the sun, cf. on Jdg 8:13. Beautiful is the expression , to come, for to set. The sun comes home, as it werecomes into his house, like a bridegroom after his wedding. On the other hand, when the sun rises, the Hebrew says that he goes forth into activity, forth for victory like a hero.
Had ye not ploughed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. The answer of the angry Samson is elegantly couched in the form of a proverb, full of spirit, as are all his sayings which have been preserved. It starts from the experience that buried treasures come to light, when the soil is turned by the plough. (Tages, the Roman Genius, was fabled to have been thus ploughed up.) But not every one knows where to draw the furrow. The Philistines would not have known it; but his heifer had shown them the way. The comparison is not very flattering to the traitoress, but quite appropriate. For no merit accrues to the heifer when it ploughs the right furrow: it has been shown to it. So also the woman: she has solved nothing, but only played the traitor.
Jdg 14:19. And he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them. Why to Ashkelon? Against the people of Timnah he could not turn his wrath. He had eater with them, and he would not withdraw himself from the obligations he had assumed. But their conduct had awakened him to a sense of the great national contrast between them and Israel. At this moment he felt that Israel lay in the bands of servitude. Between his people and the Philistines no other treaty existed, than that which is made by the cowardly and the God-forsaken with their enemies. Israel endured servitude, because it had fallen away from its ancient spirit. It ventured no longer on resistance.
All this came home to Samsons mind at this moment. He determined to give a proof of Israelitish strength. Hence we read, the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, a remark always found where Israel manifests a determination to lift up heart and hand against the enemies of God. His relations would have advised him to collect money and buy the garments. It was a divine inspiration which moved him to pay by battle. Why did he go to Ashkelon? Because there were rich and valiant men there, whom it was worth while to attack and overcome. Probably it was a nuptial party, graced, as his own had been, with thirty attendant grooms-men, that he surprised. It was not done in the midst of peace. There was no peace between Philistines and Israel. He conquered the thirty Philistines (members, perhaps, as we have said, of a nuptial train) with the sword, as he vanquished his own retinue in a conflict of intellect. The fame of the wonderful young Israelite resounds through the land. No reprisals are made. The princes of the Philistines look on the occurrence as a private affair. But a silent quaking of conscience, such as seizes on tyrants when a fresh spirit stirs itself among the oppressed, contributed no doubt to the preservation of repose.
Took their attire, . Chalitsah () is the military equipment, of which the fallen are stripped, cf. 2Sa 2:21. There, the Sept. renders it ; here, . This supports the opinion of the Targum, adduced above, that the promise of Samson referred to military garments. For the chaliphoth (changes of garments) which he paid, were doubtless part of the chalitsoth, or military suits, which he took; so that Samson did not first sell his booty, and then buy new garments. It is in harmony with the dramatic course of the action, that Samson flung to his treacherous friends, as the price of their deception, garments snatched from their own countrymen.
And he went up to his fathers house. His wrath blazed up into a national flame against the Philistine brood. He turns his back upon them, and goes home. It seems to be his intention never to come back. How little they were worthy of him, is shown by the conduct of the woman, after his departure. That she may not be without a husband in consequence of her treason, she is rewarded with the hand of another man. One of the companions for whose sake she deceived Samson, marries her. To treason she adds infidelity. Meanness of disposition gives birth to everything that is bad. It can neither love nor be faithful; but least of all can it comprehend a man such as Samson was.
A survey of only that which chapter 14 shows of Samson, should have excited the attention of those who find pleasure in comparing him with Hercules. While all the ancient statements about the Greek hero have value only as the vehicles of mythico-symbolical ideas, Samson appears in the midst of history, wearing the living hues of actual existence. Hercules, the more the later Greeks take him historically, the more he assumes the character of a coarse giant and glutton, who, averse to culture, kills his master; while Samson is at once portrayed as a genial man, of noble disposition. It were more feasible to institute a comparison between Samson and many traits in the character of Ulysses, were it not that in the latter, as in Greek heroes generally, there is wanting the pathos of the national champion, and that elevation of spirit which, in the case of Samson, breaks through the fetters of even his deepest sensuality. It is already a misapprehension when some would assign twelve exploits to Samson, seeing that his whole life is given for a testimony; but when his slaying of the thirty Philistines is counted as the second (as e. g. by Bertheau), there is a want of understanding even of the Heraclean performances. These are a didactic poem; what is told of Samson, signifies an ethical deed. The deeds of Hercules have no mutual connection: those of Samson, ethico-historical in their nature, are conditioned one by the other. The succeeding history, related in chap, 15, connects itself with what has gone before.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
[Henry (on Jdg 14:10; Jdg 14:12): It is no part of religion to go contrary to the innocent usages of the places where we live; nay, it is a reproach to religion, when those who profess it give just occasion to others to call them covetous, sneaking, and morose. A good man should strive to make himself, in the best sense, a good companion.The same: If ye had not ploughed with my heifer, you had not found out my riddle. Satan, in his temptations, could not do us the mischief he does, if he did not plough with the heifer of our own corrupt nature.The same: And he went up to his fathers house. It. were well for us, if the unkindness we meet with from the world, and our disappointments in it, had but this good effect upon us to oblige us by faith and prayer to return to our heavenly Fathers house, and rest there.The same: Samsons wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend. See how little confidence is to be put in man, when those may prove our enemies whom we have used as our friends.Bp. Hall (on Jdg 14:19): If we wonder to see thirty throats cut for their suits, we may easily know that this was but the occasion of that slaughter whereof the cause was their oppression and tyranny.
Wordsworth: At the marriage feast of Cana in Galilee, Christ manifested forth his glory (Joh 2:11). But at this marriage in Timnath, Samson betrayed the first signs of moral weakness and degeneracy.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[19][Jdg 14:15.. Dr. Cassel treats all that comes after the phrase, and it came to pass on the seventh day, down to the same phrase in Jdg 14:17, as parenthetic, and consequently renders by the pluperfect: and they tad said. Cf. below.Tr.]
[20]Least correct of all would it be, with Lilienthal, to leave the words out because the Knigsberg MSS. did not have them.
[21][Dr. Cassels explanation of this matter does not strike me favorably. It certainly fails to justify the remark of Jdg 14:17 : she wept before him seven days. The natural explanation seems to be this: As soon as the riddle was given, the young wife at once began to teaze for its solution. Refusal both stimulated her curiosity and wounded her vanity, so that even before the end of the first day she had recourse to the argument of tears. Day by day she renewed the assault, but always ineffectually. Finally, on the seventh day she brings a new argument, furnished her by the guests. For the first three days of the festivities these had sought to solve the riddle in a legitimate way. Such appears to be the import of the remark in Jdg 14:14 : and they could not in three days expound the riddle. What they did on the next three days is not stated. They may have remained inactive, trusting in some way to compass the solution at last, or they may have been already ploughing with Samsons heifer. But if the latter, they had not yet recourse to threats. On the last day of the feast, however, when they find that waiting has been as ineffective as working, and that the wifes importunities (of which they were probably cognizant, even though they did not stimulate them), have likewise accomplished nothing, they resort to threats against the wife. The latter thereupon becomes more urgent and tearful than ever, and gains her point. Compare Bertheau and Keil, who give essentially the same explanation.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Jdg 14:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson’s wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? [is it] not [so]?
Ver. 15. On the seventh day, that they said. ] Being loath to lose the wager, they set the woman awork: so doth the devil oft. Many a man’s head he breaketh with his own rib: and this bait he hath found to take so well, that he never changed it since he crept into Paradise.
Lest we burn thee.
a Act. and Mon., fol. 1557
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
seventh. The Septuagint reads “fourth”.
is it not so? The italics reveal the uncertainty of Authorized Version. Many codices read “hither”, which yields better sense. Hebrew text reads simply “not”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
in Bad Company
Jdg 14:15-20; Jdg 15:1-8
What strong confirmation is afforded, by Samsons experience, of the misery of a mixed marriage! This Philistine wife had no real love for him, and was more readily influenced by her own people than by her husband. How could she enter into his desire to emancipate Israel? To carry out his life-purpose of freeing Israel, He must break with her. Notice how this poor wife was visited with the very chastisement from which she hoped, by treachery, to save herself. Compare Jdg 14:17 and Jdg 15:6.
Samsons riddle is constantly being verified. We all have to encounter lions. Happy are we if we rend them in the power of the Holy Spirit! And have we not often discovered that the very sorrow, trial, or temptation which we dreaded most and which threatened to destroy us, has yielded the strength and sweetness, the meat and honey, which have enriched us for all after-time? Samson shared these with his mother and father. Let us never keep to ourselves those glorious lessons and results which we may have won in conflicts and sorrows that only the eye of God has witnessed. Let others share their benefit.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
on the seventh day: The LXX reads “on the fourth day;” with which the Syriac and Arabic agree. This, as Dr. Wall observes, is certainly right; for it appears from Jdg 14:17, that she wept the remainder of the seven days; for which there could have been no time, if they did not threaten her till the seventh.
Entice: Jdg 16:5, Gen 3:1-6, Pro 1:11, Pro 5:3, Pro 6:26, Mic 7:5
lest we burn: Jdg 12:1, Jdg 15:6
take that we have: Heb. possess us, or, impoverish us
Reciprocal: Jdg 15:3 – though Est 4:14 – but thou Ecc 10:13 – beginning 1Co 2:4 – not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jdg 14:15. On the seventh day, they said, Entice thy husband They had doubtless spoken to her before this time, but with some remissness, supposing that they should find it out; but now their time being nigh spent, they put her under a necessity of searching it out. To take that we have That is, to strip us of our garments.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
14:15 And it came to pass {g} on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson’s wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? [is it] not [so]?
(g) Or as the seventh day drew near, for it was the fourth day.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Samson’s losses 14:15-20
The writer called the Timnite "Samson’s wife" even though the engaged couple had not yet consummated their marriage (Jdg 14:15).
"The usual length of a [wedding] celebration was seven days and the marriage was not consummated until the end of that period." [Note: Cundall and Morris, pp. 165-65.]
Samson’s loyalty to his parents above his "wife" is understandable since he had not yet consummated his marriage to her (Jdg 14:16). Samson’s "wife" was afraid that her guests would kill her and her family because of Samson’s riddle. Ironically, Samson could have defended her and her family easily with his great strength. Evidently the Philistines thought she had some part in proposing the riddle and either knew the answer to it or could find out what the answer was.
Samson "could not withstand the corrosive influence of three or four days of weeping." [Note: Ibid., p. 166.]
He finally told her the answer, and she then passed it on to the Philistines in a misguided attempt to protect herself and her father’s household.
"In calling her a ’heifer’ he was ridiculing her for her untamed and stubborn spirit (cf. Jer 50:11; Hos 4:16)." [Note: Lindsey, p. 405.]
Perhaps to avoid recognition or to preclude having vengeance taken on him by the Philistines in Timnah, Samson trekked down to Ashkelon 23 miles southwest of Timnah. There he killed 30 Philistine men and took their clothes as booty. He gave these garments to the wedding guests and went back home to Zorah in disgust without claiming his bride, who had deceived him.
The writer said God’s Spirit motivated Samson to slaughter the 30 Philistines in Ashkelon (Jdg 14:19). Samson was not just taking personal revenge for what his Timnite guests had done to him. He was perhaps unwittingly fulfilling his role as a judge in Israel by slaying the enemies of God’s people. This was an act of holy war, though Samson appears to have carried it out with carnal vengeance. He did God’s will but for the wrong reason. God had chosen Samson as His instrument to begin defeating the Philistines, and He would use him for that purpose even though Samson was a reluctant servant. Thus we see God’s providence overcoming the problem that Samson posed.
It was after Samson had paid his debt of 30 garments that the text says he became angry. The object of his wrath here was his "wife," not the Philistines. Samson did not intend to abandon his plan to marry the Timnite (Jdg 15:1-2). He went back home to let his anger cool.
". . . instead of looking at the wrong by which Samson felt himself aggrieved, and trying to mitigate his wrath, the parents of the woman made the breach irreparable by giving their daughter as a wife to his companion." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, p. 413.]
Samson’s self-will ironically yielded no satisfaction for him. By disregarding his God-given privileges he lost his bet with the Philistines, his wardrobe, his wife, and his honor. Samson’s basic problem was that he did not submit to God’s authority over his life. This authority problem manifested itself first in his refusal to submit to his parents’ authority (Jdg 14:3; cf. Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25). Samson did not exercise self-discipline. He let his passions control him (cf. 1Co 9:27). Self-discipline is essentially a matter of submission to God’s authority, not a matter of self-denial. Separation is essentially unto God, not just from things.