Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 14:5
Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him.
5. and his father and his mother ] A later addition made for the purpose of conforming Samson’s marriage to the ordinary type, in which the preliminaries were arranged by the parents. The encounter with the lion and the interview with the woman clearly shew that Samson was alone.
a young lion ] The lion was once common in Palestine, especially in the desert S. of Judah (Isa 30:6), and in the valley of the Jordan; it has disappeared since the time of the crusades.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 5. A young lion roared against him.] Came fiercely out upon him, ready to tear him to pieces.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
His father and his mother accompanied him, either because they were now acquainted with his design, or to order the circumstances of that action which they saw he was set upon, or to watch if they could find any occasion to take him off from his intention.
Came to the vineyards of Timnath, whither he had turned aside, either by a Divine impulse, or upon some real or pretended occasion.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5-9. a young lionHebrew,a lion in the pride of his youthful prime. The wild mountain passesof Judah were the lairs of savage beasts; and most or all the “lions”of Scripture occur in that wild country. His rending and killing theshaggy monster, without any weapon in his hand, were accomplished bythat superhuman courage and strength which the occasionalinfluences of the Spirit enabled him to put forth, and by theexertion of which, in such private incidental circumstances, he wasgradually trained to confide in them for the more public work towhich he was destined.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath,…. They were prevailed upon to go with him, either because they perceived his affections were so strongly set upon a wife, that they thought it advisable to agree to it, lest it should be of bad consequence to him, or because he let them know that the thing was of God, and what was his design in it:
and came to the vineyards of Timnath; the land of Canaan was a land of vineyards, and particularly that part of it which was inhabited by the Philistines and Phoenicians; and though we nowhere read of the wine of Timnath, yet frequent mention is made in authors of the wine of Ashkelon, Gaza, and Sarepta, inhabited by the above people; these vineyards seem to have lain somewhat out of Samson’s way; but hither he turned on some account or another from his parents, perhaps to eat some grapes:
and, behold, a young lion roared against him; not a whelp, that is expressed by another word, but one more grown, and is afterwards called a lion simply; and, by the Targum, a lion, the son of lions or lionesses; which seeing him in the vineyards, where he was lurking, came out to meet him, and roared at him in a hideous manner, and came up to him to destroy him: these creatures, though now more rare in those parts, were at this time frequent, and in later times: see
1Sa 17:34 and several writers y make mention of lions in Mesopotamia and Syria; and Strabo z, and Pliny a speak of a city in Phoenicia near Sidon, called the city of lions, because perhaps it had been much infested with them; and for a like reason it may be some cities in the tribes of Judah and Simeon were called Lebaoth and Bethlebaoth, Jos 15:32.
y Strabo. Geograph. l. 16. p. 514. Curtius, l. 8. sect. 1. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 16. z Geograph, l. 16. p. 520. a Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 20.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When Samson went down with his parents to Timnath, a young lion came roaring towards him at the vineyards of that town. Then the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, so that he tore the lion in pieces as a kid is torn ( lit. “like the tearing in pieces of the kid”), although he had nothing, i.e., no weapon, in his hand. David, when a shepherd, and the hero Benaiah, also slew lions (1Sa 17:34-35; 2Sa 23:20); and even at the present day Arabs sometimes kill lions with a staff (see Winer, Bibl. R. W. Art. Lwe). Samson’s supernatural strength, the effect of the Spirit of Jehovah, which came upon him, was simply manifested in the fact that he tore the lion in pieces without any weapon whatever in his hand. But he said nothing about it to his parents, who were not eyewitnesses of the deed. This remark is introduced in connection with what follows.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(5)
The vineyards of Timnath.All this part of Palestine, and especially the neighbouring valley of Sorek (Jdg. 16:4), was famous for its vines (Isa. 5:2; Jer. 2:21). The hills of Judah, which at that time were laboriously terraced up to the summit, like the hill-sides of the Italian valleys, were peculiarly favourable for vineyards (Gen. 49:11). Now they are bleak and bare by the denudation of centuries, but might by labour be once more rendered beautiful and fruitful.
A young lion.Literally, a lion of lions, like a kid of goats (Judges xiii, 15). That lions and other wild beasts were still common in Palestine, we see, both from the direct statement of the fact (1Ki. 10:19; 2Ki. 17:25, &c.), from the incidents which show it to have been so (1Sa. 17:34; 2Sa. 23:20; 1Ki. 13:25; 1Ki. 20:36), and from the names Arieh (2Ki. 15:6), Lebaoth (lionesses, Jos. 15:32), Beth Lebaoth (Jos. 19:6), Shaalbim (jackals), Zeboim (hyenas), &c.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother He overcame their scruples, and they accordingly accompanied him to Timnath to consummate the betrothal. The laws and customs of the age required the parents of the bridegroom to be parties in negotiating the marriage of a son, and for this purpose must Samson’s parents go down with him to the residence of the desired maiden.
The vineyards of Timnath “There were then vineyards belonging to Timnath,” says Thomson, “as there now are in all these hamlets along the base of the hills and upon the mountain sides. These vineyards are very often far out from the villages, climbing up rough wadies and wild cliffs.”
A young lion roared against him His parents seem to have been in advance. “At present lions do not exist in Palestine, though they are said to be found in the desert on the road to Egypt. They abound on the banks of the Euphrates between Bussorah and Bagdad, and in the marshes and jungles near the rivers of Babylonia. But though they have now disappeared from Palestine, they must in ancient times have been numerous. The names Lebaoth, (Jos 15:32,)
Beth-lebaoth, (Jos 19:6,) Arieh, (2Ki 15:25,) and Laish, (Jdg 18:7,) were probably derived from the presence of lions, and point to the fact that they were at one time common. The strength, courage, and ferocity of the lion are proverbial. The terrible roar of the lion is expressed in Hebrew by four different words, between which the following distinction appears to be maintained: shaag (here and Psa 22:13; Psa 104:21; Amo 3:4) denotes the roar of the lion while seeking his prey; naham (Isa 5:29) expresses the cry which he utters when he seizes his victim; hagah (Isa 31:4) the growl with which he defies any attempt to snatch the prey from his teeth; while naar is descriptive of the cry of the young lions. Jer 51:38.” Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
A recent ingenious attempt (in “Scribner’s Monthly” for July, 1871) to explain away the common and traditional sense of this passage, and to give a new solution of Samson’s riddle, demands, perhaps, a notice here. It asserts that Samson rent no young lion, but smashed or demolished a winepress, and renders this sentence, “Behold, the lion-cup called loudly to invite him.” It affirms that , young lion, is meant for , a cup, and that cup of lions means a winepress, which was made of hewn stone and resembled a great cup or goblet, and was hence called cup of lions, or lion-cup. The roaring ( ) is explained of the raging of wine when it is red in the cup. Samson being a Nazarite, wine was his enemy, and when he heard it raging, and saw it giving its colour in the mammoth cup, he treated it as a tempting foe, and rent the winepress to fragments. It is also claimed that , in Jdg 14:8 means properly a ruin, or heap, and is applicable to a broken winepress, but not to the dead carcass of a lion; and rendered carcass in the same verse, is, when we leave out the matres lectionis and , the same word ( ) which is rendered winepress in chap. Jdg 6:11. Further, it is argued that a broken winepress would be a tempting receptacle for bees, while a dead carcass would be repulsive; and that by destroying this property of the Philistines he was injuring the enemies of his people and thus fulfilling his mission, while the rending of a lion would have been no act of destruction against the Philistines, but a blessing, in thus ridding their vineyards of dangerous beasts. The writer finally gives the following solution of the riddle: Out of the wine-press, which consumes or eats grapes by the million, came forth wine, one of the three leading meats of the Bible, (corn, wine, and oil;) and out of the strong (or the lion-cup, capable of overcoming the mightiest potentates of the earth) came forth sweetness, (or the honey Samson had taken out of the ruins of the winepress.)
To all this it may be easily replied: 1. The changing of into is wholly arbitrary, and opens the way to such unbounded license in criticism as is not to be accepted unless for weightier reasons than this expositor has offered. 2. To speak of a winepress roaring to meet one, is, to say the least, a very strange expression, and a use of Hebrew that has no parallel in the Bible. is often used of the roaring of the lion, but never of the fermentation of grapes, or the raging of strong drink. 3. The rent carcass of a lion may be as appropriately called a ruin ( ) as a smashed winepress, or the fallen trunk of a tree, (Eze 31:13,) or the misfortunes of the wicked, Pro 29:16. 4. To omit the two letters and from the word , in which they each have the full power of a consonant, and thus make the word , is to set at defiance all sound principles of criticism. To omit or ignore the so-called matres lectionis, or assume that they are nowhere consonants, is violently to change the orthography of perhaps a tenth or more of all the words in the Hebrew language. 5. The notion that bees would not have entered a lion’s carcass is sufficiently refuted in our note on Jdg 14:8; and the idea that Samson, when suddenly attacked by a lion, would have paused to reflect whether he would injure or bless the Philistines by rending it, may be safely passed over without further notice. 6. Finally, this new solution of Samson’s riddle is less apt and clear than the traditional one, and is of too little worth to justify such a laboured effort and such arbitrary criticism as must be undertaken to make it even plausible. We should add, that, contrary to the evident import of Jdg 14:17, which says that Samson told his wife the riddle, and she explained it to the Philistines, this new exposition assumes that Samson, by a play on words, (like lion-cup and lion-cub,) deceived his wife, and so his thirty companions never correctly solved his riddle. In this case he surely should have demanded of them the thirty changes of garments, and not have succumbed to their treachery and fraud.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ Then Samson went down, and his father and his mother, to Timnah, and came to the vineyards of Timnah, and, behold, a young lion roared against him.’
It is clear that they made their separate ways to Timnah so that his parents were not with him when he met the ‘young lion’, or possibly that he had lingered behind, gathering grapes, so that they were ahead and were not aware of his doings, hidden by the trees. ‘A young lion.’ This means a young lion at its most dangerous, eager and ready for the hunt, in the prime of life (Psa 104:21; Pro 20:2; Isa 5:29; Jer 2:15). ‘Roared against him’ signified his direct designs on Samson. Perhaps the young lion was intended to strengthen his courage in the face of what was to come, or in order to manifest Yahweh’s approval of his actions, or indeed both. They were in the vineyards of Timnah. It was a land of many lions ( 1Sa 17:34 ; 2Sa 23:20; 1Ki 13:24) and flourishing vineyards.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jdg 14:5. Behold, a young lion roared against him It appears from this and many other passages, that there were lions in Judaea; whence several places had their names. See Jos 15:32; Jos 19:6. Every one knows, that a young lion, just come to its full strength, is the fiercest of all the species. Josephus tells us, that Samson throttled this lion with his hand: if this was the case, he must first have strangled him, and then have torn him in pieces. For some curious remarks upon this subject, we refer to Scheuchzer on the place.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Samson goes down to Timnah, with his parents, to speak with his bride-elect. On the way, he meets and tears a young lion.
Jdg 14:5-9.
5Then went Samson [And Samson went] down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath [Timnathah], and [they] came to the vineyards of Timnath [Timnathah] and behold, a young lion roared against him [came to meet him, roaring]. 6And the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] came mightily [suddenly] upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent [as one rends] a kid, and he had nothing in his hand but [and] he told not his father or his mother what he had done. 7And he went down, and talked with the woman; and she pleased Samson well [was pleasing in the eyes of Samson]. 8And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion: and behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion. 9And he took thereof in his hands, and went on [,] eating [as he went], and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them [them not] that he had taken the honey out of the carcass of the lion.
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg 14:5. And Samson went down, with his father and mother, to Timnathah. The parents give way; at all events, they now first go down, with Samson, to see the maiden, and ascertain more about her. The proper object of the journey appears from Jdg 14:7, where we are told that Samson talked with the woman, and she pleased him. Hitherto he had only seen her (Jdg 14:1). His parents urge him to speak with her, in order to convince himself of her character;2 and he determines to do so. On this account, the statement of Jdg 14:3 is repeated in Jdg 14:7 : she pleased him now, after speaking with her, as formerly after seeing her; he therefore persists in his suit, and appoints the time of his marriage. The hope of the parents that the woman, by her want of agreeableness and spirit, would discourage their son, is not realized. No such want seems to have existed, so far as he was concerned.
And a young lion came to meet him, roaring. Samson went to Timnathah to look for a wife, not to engage in a lion-hunt. The comparison of his lion-fight with that of Hercules in Nemea, is altogether superficial and uncritical; and the idea that his victory is to be regarded as the first of twelve exploits,3 has no foundation either in his spirit or history. The Nemean victory, as I hope yet to show elsewhere, is the expression of a mythical symbolism, and is accordingly, to a certain extent, an epos complete in itself. Samsons conflict with the lion is an incidental occurrence. It was neither the object of his expedition originally, nor did it come to be its central point of interest afterwards. The chief difference between the two stories lies in the totally different vocations of the heroes: Hercules wrestles with beasts, conquers the hostility which, according to the Hellenic myth, inheres in Nature; Samson is a conqueror of men, a national hero who triumphs over the enemies of his people and their faith, a champion of freedom, whose strength is so great that he can well afford to expend a little portion of it in a passing encounter with a lion. Samson is not elected to take the field against lions and foxes,that would never have given him a name in the history of Israel; but his strength and dexterity are great enough to enable him to make use of even lions and foxes, dead or alive, as means of his national conflict. Among his exploits, only the blows are reckoned, which he inflicted on the Philistines,not the occasional means which he employed in their delivery. As little as Davids royal vocation was rooted in the battles of his shepherd days with lions and bears, so little was Samsons destiny as a hero the outgrowth of his victory over the lion whom he did not seek, but who quite unexpectedly roared out against him. He had left his parents a little space, and when near the vine hills of Timnathah had entered into a wilderness skirting the road, when the monster rushed upon him.
Jdg 14:6. And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, . The peculiar force of is, that it expresses the fortunateness of an occurrence, its happening just at the right time. In the very moment of need, the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him. In five passages where the expression Spirit of Jehovah occurs (Jdg 3:10; Jdg 6:34; Jdg 11:29; Jdg 13:25, and here), the Chaldee translation renders it spirit of heroic strength (geburah); for God also is a Gibbor, a Hero, and the translator wishes in this way to distinguish between the spirit of prophecy, the spirit of divine speech, which was also a spirit of God (cf. e. g., the Targum on Num 24:2 to Num 27:11, and also 1Sa 10:6, etc., ), and the spirit of heroic action. But the original, very justly, makes no distinction; for in the view of divine doctrine all that man does is referred to the Spirit-source. Nothing succeeds without God. Samson needs that moral strength which does not fear the lion. The might, not of his arms, but of his soul, was of the first importance. For courageous undertakings, there is need of divine inspirations. Hence, the attack of Samson on the lion is here ascribed to an impulse of the Spirit of God, as well as Jephthahs resolution to attack Ammon in his own country (Jdg 11:29). And it is to be further noted, that in every case the expression is, not the Spirit of Elohim, but the Spirit of Jehovah; for it was He on whom Israel was to believe, and from whom, for his own glory and the salvation of Israel, proceeded the power which Samson possessed against the enemies who knew not Jehovah.
And he rent him. It was a terrible lion that came to meet him: a , a term especially used when the rapacious and bloodthirsty nature of the lion is to be indicated. Bochart explains the compound name very beautifully by means of , especially here, where the fierceness of the lion is opposed to the weakness of a hoedus, kid of the goats. is equivalent to , to rend asunder. As the lion comes rushing towards him, Samson awaits him, seizes him, and rends his jaws asunder. And this he did as easily as if it were a kid of the goats. For the remark, as one rends a kid, does not imply that it was customary always to rend kids in this manner, but simply means that a kid could not have been more easily overcome than this powerful lion was. According to some ancient statements, Hercules choked his arms; and it is undoubtedly with reference to this that Josephus says of Samson also, that he strangled () the monster. According to a French romance, Iwain, the romantic hero of the Round Table, derived his epithet, Knight of the Lion, from the fact that after a long struggle he had choked a lion: il prist Lionian parmi la gorge as poinz. si lestrangla. Cf. Holland, Chretien de Troyes, p. 161.
And he had nothing in his hand. He had gone forth to look for a wife, not expecting a battle. If, however, it be nevertheless surprising that a young man like Samson carried no weapons, we are to seek for the reason of it in the domination of the Philistines. Those tyrants suffered no weapons in the hands of the conquered, and hindered and prohibited the introduction of them and the traffic in them (cf. 1Sa 13:20). The suspicion of the enemy had found matter enough for its exercise, if young men like Samson had come armed into their cities. But even without arms, the heroic strength of Samson everywhere evinces itself; for not iron, but the Spirit, gives victory. Pausanias (Jdg 6:5) tells of Polydamas, a hero of Scotussa in Elis, who lived about 400 b. c., that he overcame a great and strong lion on Olympus, without a weapon of any kind.
And he told not his father or his mother what he had done. It is certainly instructive to institute a comparison between Samson and the numerous lion-conquerors of history and tradition. For it reveals Samsons greatness of soul in a most significant way. To him, the victory over the lion is precisely not one of the twelve labors which in the Heraclean mythus is glorified by tradition and art. He wears no lions skin in consequence of it. He makes so little ado about it, that he does not even inform his parents of it, probably in order not to startle them at the thought of the danger to which he has been exposed. For, at that time, he could not yet have thought of his subsequent fanciful conceit. There is nothing unusual about his appearance and demeanor, when he again overtakes them. He exhibits neither excitement nor uncommon elation. The divine spirit that slumbered in him has just been active; but the deed he performed under its impulse appeared to him, as great deeds always do to great souls, to have nothing of a surprising character about it, but to be perfectly natural. Others are impressed to astonishment by what to such persons are but natural life utterances. What we call geniality, what in Samson appears as the result of divine consecration, cannot exhibit itself more beautifully. It is the fullness of spirit and strength in men, out of which exploit and heroism flow as streams flow from their sources. To this very day, it is only small spirits, albeit often in thick books, who watch like griffons over each little thought that occurs to them, fearing to lose the mirror in which they see themselves reflected, and the lion-skin with which proprietorship invests them. Of Samsons victory nothing had ever been heard, had it not furnished him with the means for indulging in a national raillery against the Philistines.
What subjects of ostentation these conflicts with lions have everywhere been. Neither the great Macedonian nor the Roman Emperors, could dispense with them. An Alexandrian poet procured for himself a life-long pension from the Emperor Hadrian, by showing him a flowering lotus sprung from the blood of a lion whom the Emperor had slain. (More definite references to this and following passages, as also discussions of them, will be contained in my Hierozoicon. Other material, being already found in Bochart and the older commentators (cf. Serarius ad locum), may here be passed over.) The extravagance of the later writers of romance, both eastern and western, was no longer content with common lion-encounters for their heroes. The Arabian Antar conquers a lion although the heros feet are fettered. For Rustem and Wolfdieterich such exploits are performed even by their horses. It was only when the crusades put the knightly spirit to the test in the land of the lion, that Europeans experienced the historical terribleness of such conflicts. And few of them had the strength and resoluteness of Godfrey of Bouillon, who stood his ground against a bear, or of the bold and powerful Wicker von Schwaben, who, near Joppa, killed a great lion with the sword in his hand (Albert Aquensis, vii. 70; Wilken, Gesch. der Kreuzzge, ii. 109). Yet these men are not myths, because such deeds are ascribed to them; nor do we suspect only mythical echoes in the stories that are told of them.
The deed of Samson is executed with such ease and freedom, and represented with such simplicity and naturalness, that if the narrative were not historical, it would be impossible to account for its origin. And yet, according to some, it is a mythical reflection of the legend concerning Hercules. The theories of these critics have their false basis in the Hellenistic one-sidedness by which the relation, according to which the myth must receive its symbols from nature and history, is often quite reversed, so that historical life-utterances are attenuated into ideas and mythical phantasies. It is as easy to show that every lion-conqueror, down to Grard of our own days,yea, that all menageries to the contrary notwithstanding, the lion himself must be declared mythical, as it is to prove that Samsons encounter with a lion, in a region where the animal was then indigenous, related without the least approach to ostentation, and performed in the greatness of an unassuming spirit, cannot be historical.
Jdg 14:8. And after a time he returned. The betrothal had taken place, the wedding was to follow.4 Samson and his parents descended the same road again. As the hero came to the spot where on their recent journey he turned off from the road, and had the adventure with the lion, the incident came again into his mind, and he turned aside once more, in order to see what had become of the dead lion. Then he found that a swarm of bees had settled themselves in the skeleton of the beast.
The swarm of bees is significantly spoken of as the , the congregation of bees. Commonly, designates the congregation of the Israelitish people, as regulated by the law. It is only on account of its wonderful social organization that a swarm of bees, but no other brute multitude,5 was denoted by the same name.6 Horapollo, in his work on Hieroglyphics (lib. i. 62), informs us that when the Egyptians wished to picture the idea of a people of law ( ), they did it by the figure of a bee.
The skeleton of the lion had been thoroughly dried up by the heat, for which process, as Oedmann7 long ago remarked, scarcely twenty-four hours are required in the East. In this case many days had intervened. That bees readily settle in situations like the present, long since freed from all offensive odors, is well known from what expositors have adduced from Bochart and others. The instance of the swarm found settled in the head of the slain Onesilaus, in Amathus, may also, familiar as it is, be alluded to (Herodot. v. 114). The opinion of the ancients, that bees originate out of the carcasses of steers, wasps out of those of asses, and other insects out of dead horses and mules, may perhaps have some connection with the observation of phenomena like that which here met Samsons eye (cf. Voss, Idololatria, lib. iv. p. 556, and others).
Bees must have a place of refuge from the weather. It has been observed, in recent times, that at present the bees of southern Palestine are smaller in size, and of a lighter yellow brown color than those of Germany (Ritter, xiv. 283). The term , honey, is connected with , bee (by an interchange of r and s). It is a remarkable fact, to which I have already directed attention in my Berlin Wochenblatt, 1863, that our German [and by consequence, our English] names for wax and honey are perfectly identical with the Semitic terms for the same objects, although in an inverted relation. The Hebrew (pronounce: dvash), honey, answers to the German Wachs (O. H. G. wahs), English, wax; and the Hebrew (donag), wax, to the German Honig (honec), English, honey; and this is the only proper explanation to be given of the etymology of these German words.
Jdg 14:9. And he took thereof. The word , according to my view, has nothing to do either with a signification to tread, or with the idea of seizing, making ones self master of; but has preserved its original meaning in the later usus lingu of the Mishna and Talmud, where it bears the signification to draw out, as bread is drawn out of the oven. The examples given by Buxtorff are borrowed from the Aruch of R. Nathan (172 a), where they may be found still more plain. Of bread in the oven it is said, , it is drawn out and put into the basket. R. Nathan also justly explains our passage by this signification. For Samson, in like manner, drew the honeycomb out of the hive, and put it on the palm of his hand (). Kimchi takes it in the same way (in his dictionary of roots, sub voce, near the close). Hence also, , mirda, is the oven-fork, with which things are drawn-out of the fire, Latin rutabulum. It is easily seen that a widely diffused root comes to view here (comp. forms like rutrum, rutellum, from eruo, erutum, Greek , , , etc.).
He drew out the honey, and as he had no other vessel, took it on his hand, and refreshed himself with it in the heat of the day, as Jonathan strengthened himself with it after the battle (1Sa 14:29). He also gave to his parents, who likewise relished it; but neither did he now tell them whence he had taken it. It would have involved telling them the history of the encounter with the lion; and though they might not now have been terrified by it, they would doubtless have caused a great deal of talk about it.
Roskoff,8 in his book Die Simsonssage und der Heraklesmythus, 1860, p. 65, thinks that the circumstance of Samsons eating of honey taken from the lions skeleton, is a proof that the rule by which the Nazarite was required to abstain from anything unclean had not yet received its later extension, and that consequently the Mosaic law was not yet in existence. We cannot regard this position as very well founded. For this reason, if no other, that the Book which is intimately acquainted with the Mosaic law, relates this act of Samson without the addition of any explanatory remark. And it has very good reason for adding no explanation; for the objection proceeds upon a view of Samsons Nazaritic character which is foreign to the Book, and greatly affects the proper understanding of his history. The truth is, the hero was not at all such a Nazarite as the sixth chapter of Numbers contemplates. The introduction to his history clearly shows that definite prescriptions concerning food and drink were given only to his mother; concerning himself,9 nothing more is said than that no razor is to come upon his head. It is only upon this latter obligation, as the history shows, that the strength of his Nazariteship depends. The Nazariteship, abstractly considered, is an image of the general priesthood. On Samson particularly there rests a glimmer of that gospel freedom, with reference to which the Apostle says to the disciples: All things are yours. From the consecration of his spirit, Samson has a typical strength by which to the pure all things are pure. Samson can do everything, and that, as the ancients explained of their Samson-Nazarite, without sin-offerings; only one thing he may not do,desecrate this his consecration, sin against this spirit itself. But this his freedom is naturally held within bounds by his calling. It must have war against the Philistines for its cause and goal. The Apostles meaning is, All things are yours, if ye be Christs. Samson may do everything, when the honor of his God against the hereditary enemy is at stake. This freedom was given him, not that he might live riotously, as with Delilahfor which reason he fellbut only to do battle. Herein lies the key to the profound observation of the narrator, when the parents of Samson did not approve of his proposed marriage with the woman of Timnah: They knew not that this was an occasion from God. The whole Samson was an occasion from God against the Philistines. It is therefore also with a profound purpose that the hero himself is not commanded to abstain from wine and unclean things. He is born, to a certain extent, in a state of pure consecration, in which for the ends of this consecration everything becomes pure to him. He continues to be the hero, even when he eats that which is unclean, and marries foreign women, which yet, according to Jdg 3:6, forms one of the causes of divine judgments; but he falls, when in divulging his secret he does that which, though not in itself forbidden, profanes his consecration.
Samsons character, in that spiritual freedom which makes war on the Philistines, is a type of the true Christian freedom,so long as it does not consume itself.
It would therefore lead to useless hair-splitting, to inquire whether it was right in Samson to bring of the honey to his parents without telling them whence he had taken it. He brought it as an evidence of his childlike heart, and committed no wrong. It was a Talmudic question, whether the honey was unclean, although the rule enjoined on Samsons mother extended only to the time of her sons birth. He was silent about the history of the honey, in order to avoid boasting.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Samson is stronger than lions and more cunning than foxes. He must be this in order to conquer the Philistines. For there is no one to assist him. The Philistines have enervated, terrified, desecrated Israel. Israel, on their account, has no more faith in its faith. It is afraid of the strength of its own spirit. Desirous of peace at any price, it has surrendered even its own sentiments and beliefs.
Beautiful, on this account, is the use which the ancient church made of Samson the Lion-slayer as a type of Christ. The rending lion is also an image of Satan, the destroyer of men. As Samson rends the lions jaws asunder with his hands, so Christ tears to pieces the kingdom of Satan and death. Hence the old custom of putting the picture of Samson the Lion-conqueror on church doors. But that lion who goes about seeking to snatch us away from Christ is still ever terrible. The battle with him is still daily new. The victory, however, is sure, if only we believe in the conquest of the true Samson. But if we have the Spirit only on our tongues, and not in our souls, we shall never conquer like Him. Only faith will enable us to stand. But every victory flows with honey; and with it we refresh father and mother. Every new victory strengthens the old love.
Starke: They who do the greatest works, make the least noise and boasting about them. Enmity and war are easily begun, but not so easily ended. The Philistines could readily make an enemy of Samson, but to make a friend of him was more difficult.The Same: Christian, imitate, not Samsons deed, but his faith and obedience.Lisco: Samsons life and deeds can be rightly judged only when viewed, not as those of a private person, but as the activity of a theocratic deliverer and judge.
[Wordsworth: He told not his father or his mother, though they were not far from him at the time (Jdg 14:5). So our Lord would not that any one should spread abroad his fame. He said, Tell no man (Mat 8:4; Mat 16:20). Hitherto, then, Samson, in his spiritual gifts, in his self-dedication to God, in his strength, courage, and victory, and in his meekness and humility, is an eminent type of Christ. But afterwards he degenerates, and becomes in many respects a contrast to Him. And thus, in comparing the type and the antitype, we have both encouragement and warning, especially as to the right use to be made of spiritual gifts, and as to the danger of their abuse.Bp. Hall: The mercies of God are ill bestowed upon us, if we cannot step aside to view the monuments of his deliverances; dangers may be at once past and forgotten. As Samson had not found his honeycomb, if he had not turned aside to see his lion, so we shall lose the comfort of Gods benefits, if we do not renew our perils by meditation.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[2]Cf. Abarbanel in locum. The offense of such marriages, the later Jews, with reference to Samson and Solomon, sought to avoid by assuming that the heathen had caused their women to be converted to the true religion. Cf. Danz, Baptismus Proselytorum, 26; Meuschen, Nov. Test. in Talm., p. 263.
[3]This idea has been set forth with special plausibility by Bertheau, and is justly and ably combated by Keil.
[4]The assumption of earlier expositors, that an interval of a year must elapse between betrothal and marriage, is after all but an arbitrary one.
[5][The exception in Psa 68:31 (30), is only apparent. , the congregation of bullocks, like the beast of the reed, is a metaphorical mode of designating a body of menTr.
[6]Hence also the Sept. .
[7]Vermischte Samml. aus der Naturkunde, vi. 135. Rosenmller, Morgenland, No. 462.
[8]On a general refutation of whom we cannot here enter He agrees in his results, for the most part, with Bertheau and Ewald.
[9]Jerusalem Talmud, Nazir, cap. 1, Hal. 2, etc.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him.
The young lion, roaring against Samson, is a figure of the accursed rage of the devil, against all the spiritual seed of Jesus. No sooner is a soul awakened from the death of sin to a life of righteousness, but Satan roars. While the young man in the gospel was coming to Christ, the Devil threw him down, and did tare him. Luk 9:42 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 14:5 Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him.
Ver. 5. Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother. ] Who were overcome by his importunity; and being loath to cross his desires, yielded to him, though against their own judgments.
And, behold, a young lion.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a young lion. Lions once abounded in Palestine. Hence names Lebaoth (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:6). Arieh (2Ki 15:25). Laish (Jdg 18:7). See also 1Sa 17:36. 1Ki 13:24, &c).
against him = at meeting him.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
against him: Heb. in meeting him, Jdg 14:5
Reciprocal: Jos 15:10 – Timnah 1Sa 17:35 – smote him 2Sa 23:20 – slew a lion 1Ch 11:22 – slew a Psa 91:13 – tread Jer 2:15 – young lions Heb 11:33 – stopped 1Pe 5:8 – as
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
While going to Timnath, Samson was attacked by a young lion which he killed with his bare hands, because of the strength he received from God. Later, when he returned to take her home to marry her, Samson went aside and found honey in the carcass. He took some, ate it and gave some to his parents to eat without telling them where he got it. Samson prepared a feast according to the usual custom and the bride’s parents invited thirty friends to join them. Samson told a riddle which they could not solve without the aid of Samson’s bride. When she persuaded him to tell her the meaning of the riddle and then the guests revealed its answer to Samson, he said they would not have known if they had not plowed with his heifer. To fulfill his obligation of a suit of clothing for each of the thirty, the Spirit of the Lord caused him to go to Ashkelon and slay thirty men.
With his anger aroused against his wife, Samson left her there and returned to the home of his parents. He did not intend to break off the marriage, as will be seen in the next chapter, but his father-in-law gave his daughter to the friend Samson had chosen at the feast ( Jdg 14:5-20 ).
Jdg 15:1-5 When Samson went down to Timnath at the time of the wheat harvest to visit his wife in her chamber, his father-in-law told him he had given her to his best man. He offered Samson a younger daughter, but he was enraged because the covenant made by his parents when they paid the dowry had been broken. He caught 300 jackals, which are much like foxes, and tied pairs of them together with torches between their tails. Their release into the standing grain caused the harvest to be burned shock and all. Even the nearby olive groves were destroyed ( Jdg 15:1-5 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Jdg 14:5-6. And his father and mother Who accompanied him, either because they were now acquainted with his design, or to order the circumstances of that action which they saw he was set upon. The Spirit of the Lord came mightily Increased his courage and bodily strength. As he would have rent a kid As soon and as safely. Told not, &c. Lest by their means it should be publicly known; for he wisely considered, that it was not yet a fit time to awaken the jealousies and fears of the Philistines concerning him, as this would have done.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jdg 14:5-20. Samsons Marriage.As he could not take an unwelcomed bride to his fathers house, Samson resolved to contract a marriage in which his wife would remain at her fathers house (Jdg 9:2*). Jdg 14:5 conveys the idea that his parents after all gave their consent, and even went down with him to the wedding. This in itself is improbable, and there is no indication of their presence at Timnath or of their returning home. Moore plausibly suggests that a later writer, taking offence at the story of an improper marriage, inserted and his father and his mother in order to regularise it. The same applies to Jdg 14:10.
Jdg 14:6. Cf. Davids and Benaiahs exploits (1Sa 17:34-36, 2Sa 23:20) and Hercules fight with a Nemean lion.
Jdg 14:8. Omit to take her, a gloss which spoils the sense. Samson was returning home when he turned aside to see the lions carcase.
Jdg 14:10. Read And he went down to the woman, and made a feast there. For young men read bridegrooms.
Jdg 14:11. The sense is not good, they being undefined. Making a slight change, read and he took thirty companions, and they were with him. At Syrian village weddings the bride groom is still attended by a bodyguard of young men (Ca. Jdg 3:1 f.).
Jdg 14:14. As a poetical expression of a remarkable incident, Samsons couplet is perfect; but it was not a good riddle, as the Philistines could know nothing of the facts alluded to
Jdg 14:15. They got the answer not by wit, but by guile. Probably in three days and on the seventh day should be omitted. Read And they were not able to guess the riddle, so they said to Samsons wife, etc. He is called her husband, and she his wife, though as yet they were only betrothed.The end of Jdg 14:15 reads in some MSS and the Targum, Have ye called us hither to impoverish us?
Jdg 14:18. The word for sun cannot be right, and a very slight change gives the reading: Before he entered into the chamber. The week of ante-nuptial festivities was ending, the marriage day had at length come, when the thirty youths read the riddle and enjoyed their triumph.Samsons retort expressed his fierce contempt for the Philistines who had played him false, the women and the men alike.
Jdg 14:19. In his rage he rushed away home, leaving the marriage unconsummated, regardless of the feelings of the bride and her family.
Jdg 14:19 a is evidently a later insertion.
Jdg 14:20. The indignant father at once gave the bride to Samsons groomsman, and the interrupted wedding was completed.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Samson’s disregard of God’s grace 14:5-9
The first recorded indication of Samson’s superhuman strength is his ability to tear the lion apart with his bare hands (Jdg 14:6). A young lion tried to leap on Samson (Jdg 14:5), but instead the Spirit of the Lord leaped upon him (Jdg 14:6). The writer probably intended this incident to show Samson that God could empower him to dismember the Philistines. However, Samson did not abandon his plan to marry the Timnite but proceeded down to her home to continue his courtship. The phrase translated "looked good to Samson" (Jdg 14:7) literally means "was right in the eyes of Samson." Likewise the phrase "looks good to me" (Jdg 14:3) is literally "is right in my own eyes." Thus Samson was typical of the ordinary Israelite who also "did what was right in his own eyes" (Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25).
Even though God strengthened him, Samson used that strength for his own purposes, not to fulfill God’s will. Note David’s very different reaction to God enabling him to kill a lion and a bear in 1Sa 17:34-37.
"Like bees in a carcass, Israel was to inhabit a country of idolaters, a country that became habitable for God’s community only through the death of God’s enemies." [Note: Martin Emmrich, "The Symbolism of the Lion and the Bees: Another Ironic Twist in the Samson Cycle," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):70.]
Bees normally do not inhabit cadavers; flies and maggots do. This unusual situation provided a temptation and a test of Samson’s character. When he scraped the honey out of the lion’s carcass with his hand (Jdg 14:9), he broke part of his Nazirite vow. Nazirites were not to touch dead bodies (Num 6:6). He thought so little of his privileged position as separated to Yahweh that he forfeited some of that separate condition to satisfy his appetite (cf. Esau). Perhaps he did not tell his parents about the honey because he knew that he would have disappointed them for having broken his vow. By giving them some of the unclean honey without telling them that it was unclean, Samson callously led them into defilement. His parents had previously sanctified him, but now he desecrated them.