Judges, Ruth: Revised Edition (The NIV Application Commentary)

by K. Lawson Younger

The Nazirite vow is described in Numbers 6:1–21. It could be voluntarily taken by a male or female, for a period of time or for a lifetime. It included three basic prohibitions: • to refrain from consuming wine (yayin) or other intoxicating drink (shekar), in fact, anything from the vine (i.e., grapes, raisins, wine, and any other fermented drink like wine-vinegar, cf. Ruth 2:14; also Num 6:1–4) • to refrain from cutting one’s hair for the duration of the vow (Num 6:5) • to avoid coming into contact with a dead body (Num 6:6–12) These three marks of Samson’s separation “are curiously split between the mother and the son she is to bear, with only the prohibition against the cutting of hair being specifically applied to Samson himself.”19 Moreover, Samson’s vow is not voluntary (usually the Nazirite vow was voluntary) and is to be applied to his entire life (usually it was only for a specific period of time).20 In addition to these three marks, the angel of Yahweh appends the prohibition for Samson’s mother to consume any unclean food during her pregnancy. Since all Israelites were subject to this law, not just Nazirites, this testifies to the condition of the nation as a whole. This law, like many others, seems to have been generally disregarded by the Israelites (or at least the Danites). Thus, the fact that the woman needs to be reminded of this law suggests that it was not being observed in the manner that Yahweh intended. Interestingly, in contrast to the order in Numbe...

But Manoah is not done with his attempted manipulation. He now asks the question, “What is your name, so that we may honor [kabad] you when your word comes true?” (v. 17). This question contains a number of problems. (1) In the ancient Near Eastern context, knowing the name of a heavenly being provided power over that being. So Manoah is still seeking manipulative power through special knowledge. (2) Manoah asks his name in order to honor him—not immediately but after “[his] word comes true” (v. 17). In other words, Manoah still is doubtful about Yahweh’s words. Amazingly, Manoah does not commemorate “the occasion and the site with a Yahweh-honoring altar name.”30 (3) Manoah, having not perceived to whom he is talking, nevertheless would honor (kabad) this person, when only Yahweh is to be honored (kabad).

The angel of Yahweh’s answer to Manoah’s question is a question. This question is verbatim as the questions asked to Jacob in Genesis 32:29, where Jacob asked for the name of the divine wrestling partner but received only this question. The “angel” here does add, however, that the name “is beyond understanding” (peli’y; for this root, cf. Gen 18:14 [“hard”]; Isa 9:6 [“Wonderful”]). The root of the verb pala’ is frequently used to refer to God’s marvelous acts in judgment and salvation (Exod 3:20; Judg 6:13; 1 Chr 16:9, 24; Pss 9:1; 26:7; 139:6). Although the divine messenger provides Manoah with all the connotated hints, he is still unaware of the messenger’s divinity.

Ironically, it is his mother who gives the baby the name Samson (shimshon) (13:24a), a name related to the Hebrew noun shemesh (“sun”), which is also the name of the Canaanite sun-god (as well as in other Semitic) languages. The ending is probably a diminutive (thus, “Little Sun/Shemesh”). This is hardly a name that would be expected after such a double theophany of Yahweh to his mother! Certainly one would have expected a Yahwistic name, one starting or ending with the divine name (e.g., Zechariah [zekaryahu “Yahweh has remembered”], Jehoash/Joash [yeho’ash/yo’ash “Yahweh has given”]). It is incredulous indeed! Even so, by God’s grace, the boy grows up, and Yahweh blesses him (cf. 1 Sam 2:26 [Samuel]; Luke 2:52 [Jesus]).

The statement in Judges 13:25 that Yahweh’s Spirit begins (halal) to impel or stir (pa‘am) Samson in Mahaneh Dan,36 between Zorah and Eshtaol, introduces motifs that will be important throughout the account. Yahweh will accomplish what he has predicted (cf. 13:5).

The theophanic story will, however, only reinforce the negative characterization of Samson. Even with his special, miraculous birth and Nazirite status, Samson will prove to be the judge who is least interested in being a deliverer. He is portrayed as a “self-gratifying brute,” “a prankish womanizer” “whose acts of deliverance are rarely better than by-products of his spiteful nature.”40 The last hope of Israel in Judges is, then, a “judge/ deliverer” “who chases women instead of enemies and who avenges personal grievances instead of delivering his nation from the oppression.”41

Apathy. What is especially striking about this cycle is the incredible apathy of the Israelites toward both spiritual matters and the oppression in general. It is hard to understand how a people who have experienced God’s grace and tasted the good gifts he gives can be so unresponsive, dull, and indifferent about their spiritual lives. For example, the fact that Manoah’s wife needs to be reminded about the law concerning the eating of unclean things suggests that this law is not being observed in the manner Yahweh intended. The Israelites seem to have a total lack of interest in the things of God and, in particular, their covenant relationship to him. This makes Yahweh’s intervention in the situation at the time of the Philistine oppression that much more amazing. It is not due to any repentance by Israel, because Israel does not even want deliverance from the oppression! It is based solely on his kindness and faithfulness to his covenant. It is his act of pure grace toward them.

Even if Samson will not live for God, God will use his sinful lifestyle to accomplish the beginning of the deliverance of his people.

Lack of spiritual perception. Like their countrymen, Samson’s parents evince a lack of spiritual perception. (1) His father Manoah is skeptical and unbelieving. He tries to manipulate God through obtaining special knowledge of God’s name in order to give him power. But Yahweh will not give Manoah that knowledge. He will not allow his name to be misused. In attempting to gain the upper hand over God, Manoah unnecessarily delays God’s work, not just in his life but in the life of the nation. (2) Samson’s nameless mother is more spiritually perceptive than his father, but only somewhat. She gives him his inappropriate name, especially in light of the fact that she has experienced the two theophanies of Yahweh that revealed the coming birth of the child.

No other deliverer in the book of Judges matches Samson’s potential. Yet in spite of “all these advantages and special attention, he accomplishes less on behalf of his people than any of his predecessor deliverers.”42

This verse clearly reveals the character of Samson. The text’s emphasis on “seeing” stresses that Samson is a man dominated by his senses, not logic. He follows his sensual instincts, instincts that find foreign women more intriguing than those of Israel. These carnal proclivities overwhelm his perception of matters that any thinking man would know better. Samson’s personality seems to be a degeneration of the other out-group judges (see the Introduction to Judges, pp. 47–48).47 “Gideon is ruled by logic, Jephthah by uninformed belief, and Samson by lust, which can—and does in Samson’s case—overrule all reason, all sense, all faith.”48

Now, in the case of Samson, we find an Israelite judge who blatantly disregards the prohibition. In this, Samson is the polar opposite of Othniel.

None of this persuades Samson. His mind is made up. Stubbornly, he insists, “Get her for me; she’s the right one for me” (lit., “for she is right [yashar] in my eyes”; v. 3).50 The last statement is an anticipatory link with the double conclusion’s refrain (lit.), “and every man did what was right [yashar] in his own eyes” (17:6; 21:25). Samson is insensitive and disrespectful toward his parents and their grief over the matter. In short, he dishonors his father and mother. Moreover, he is “totally calloused toward the theological implications of his demand, let alone the implications” for his calling as a Nazirite.51

God, who does not cause humans to sin, can nevertheless use human sin and folly to accomplish his divine purpose. In other words, God uses Samson in spite of his wrong motives and actions (cf. Gen 45:8; 50:20; 2 Chr 25:20; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:28–29). “From the following stories it becomes clear that left to himself, Samson would never have become involved in God’s or even Israel’s agenda. Left to themselves, the Israelites would have been satisfied to continue to coexist with the Philistines. But Yahweh has other plans.”52 Samson’s marriage to a Philistine causes all of the events of Judges 14:5–15:19.

Samson has, in dealing with the lion, produced a corpse. There is nothing wrong in protecting himself, but according to the Nazirite vow, “if someone [something] dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair that symbolizes their dedication,” one had to go immediately to the tabernacle and undergo a lengthy restoration ritual. This was an eight-day ritual that included shaving one’s head, offering a sin offering (hatta’t) and a burnt offering (‘olah), rededicating oneself for the period of the Nazirite vow, and offering a year-old male ram as a guilt offering (’asham) (Num 6:9–12). But to do all this would really cramp Samson’s style! It is inconvenient to travel to the tabernacle, and it would waste time, money, and resources. Besides, he has a woman on his mind. So, instead of keeping the Nazirite requirement concerning defilement through uncleanliness, Samson “went down and talked with the woman, and he liked her” (lit., “she was right [yashar] in his eyes”; Judg 14:7). Quite simply, God and his law are not important to Samson, only what is right in his eyes.

This is even clearer in the next episode (14:8–9). Some time later Samson returns to marry the Timnite. On the way, he deliberately turns aside to see the lion’s carcass, in flagrant violation of his Nazirite status. What he finds is truly unusual. Bees do not normally inhabit corpses; flies and maggots do. But in this decay and decomposition, Samson discovers a “swarm” or community (‘edah) of bees, not only existing but producing sweetness. Apparently God has provided this as a further means of “stirring” Samson. As an ordinary Israelite, Samson should have left the honey in the corpse alone (Lev 11:24–40, esp. 27); as a Nazirite, even more so. Instead, he scoops out some honey that the bees have made, eating it and giving some to his parents to eat. Of course, he does not tell them about the corpse for the same reason as before. Not only does he not care about his own ritually unclean status, but he cares little for that of others, including his parents, who are now ritually unclean because of his action. The only thing that matters to Samson is the satisfaction of his own appetites and cravings. Furthermore, his action shows that he knows what he is doing is in contrast to his Nazirite status. Webb aptly states: in 13:4–5: “Now take care that you don’t drink wine or strong drink, nor eat anything unclean, for . . . the boy will be a Nazirite of God.” It will become clear in 16:17 that Samson has known all along that he is a Nazirite, and his concealment of the source of...

Empowered by the Spirit of Yahweh,62 Samson goes to Ashkelon (20 mi/32.2 km away),63 murders thirty Philistine men, and robs them of their clothes—just so he can pay his debt to his companions for losing the bet over his sure winner of a riddle. His unbridled anger sets the stage for his bride being given to another.

Two observations are in order. (1) It is Samson’s own fault that he lost the bet. It was a sure winner if he had just persevered and kept his mouth shut. Instead, despite his great physical strength, he is completely helpless when confronted with the love of women, and he cannot resist divulging the answer. (2) The act of killing the thirty men—which is no doubt a mighty achievement—is motivated by Samson’s anger and vengeance. This is murder and larceny. The motive is not to deliver Israel from the Philistines or even to bring judgment on them. It only serves his purposes. But even this does not placate his rage; Samson burns with anger and returns home.

It is the acts of injustice by the Philistines that are the main cause of the escalation of violence in the account and that justly culminate in the destruction of Gaza’s temple, the Philistine rulers, and their subjects. Samson’s retaliations prove that he is operating on the same principle as they are. Working backward, Polzin summarizes that the Philistines want Samson for slaughtering their own people; but he had done this because they had killed his wife and father-in-law; but they had done this because he had burned their fields; but he had done this because his father-in-law had given away his wife; but he had done this because Samson had gotten angry and left; but he had done this because his wife had given the riddle’s answer to her kinsmen; but she had done this to avoid being burnt up by them. . . . 64

Thus, while Samson is at home sulking, his wife is given to his companion who attended him at his wedding (14:20). In other words, his father-in-law sees an opportunity to marry his daughter to one of his own people—no doubt a better social move on his part (cf. Laban’s actions in Gen 29:14–30, esp. vv. 26–27; 1 Sam 18:19–21). Such a move is stimulated by Samson’s return to his father’s house, which leads his father-in-law to assume that Samson is displeased with his daughter and has divorced her (he uses the term “hate,” which can technically connote divorce).

WITH SAMSON’S BELATED RETURN (Judg 15:1),65 the plot thickens. He suddenly shows up in Timnah with a young goat,66 assuming that nothing has changed. His father-in-law stops him at the door (literally) and proposes a new arrangement, his younger daughter, who is more attractive than her older sister (v. 2). “For someone who operates according to ‘what seems right in his eyes,’ this offer should have been appealing.”67 But Boling aptly observes that no one can tell Samson how to find a wife.68 Even though he left the wedding in a rage, this does not seem to Samson to be a good reason to give his wife to someone else. Apparently, he expects to return to his wife and resume life as if nothing has happened.69 Thus, Samson swears revenge: “This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them” (v. 3).

Samson then captures three hundred foxes (shu‘alim, cf. Song 2:15),70 ties them tail to tail in pairs, and fastens a torch to every pair of tails—an act of prowess on his part! Lighting the torches, he lets them loose in the standing grain71 of the Philistines, burning the shocks, standing grain, vineyards, and olive groves72—a thoroughgoing destruction (Judg 15:5)! While truly an amazing feat, it is motivated purely on Samson’s desire for retaliation and is wrong. Note Exodus 22:6: “If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.” Once again, Samson disregards God’s law in order to do what is “right” in his eyes (i.e., get personal revenge).73

Perhaps tired, the lone-ranger-judge escapes to a cave in the rock of Etam (a Heb. word meaning “place of the birds of prey,” which may anticipate what will transpire as a result of Samson’s soon-to-be-narrated feat).79 The Philistines, intent on finding Samson, come and camp near Lehi (“jawbone,” an anticipatory mentioning since the name was received after the incident that now unfolds).

The term “fresh” implies that the jawbone is still strong, not dry and brittle.84 But it also implies that the jawbone is from a recently slain donkey (i.e., a polluted carcass).85 Practically speaking, Samson uses what is available (it is an improvised weapon, cf. 3:31; 4:21), but it was ritually unclean. So, in picking up this item, he again shows his disregard for his Nazirite vow. After finishing his grisly business and chanting his taunting ditty, Samson discards the jawbone, and the place receives the name, Ramath Lehi (“jawbone hill”).

The epilogue to this climactic slaughter of the Philistines records Samson’s first prayer, the first time that he calls on Yahweh. But it is immediately plain that this is only due to the exhaustion from the massacre, a desperation of thirst. From the tone of Samson’s prayer, it seems clear that this is little more than “an impudent harangue”86 and a demand for water (cf. Israel’s demands in the wilderness). You have given into the hand of your servant this great victory, and now will I die of thirst, and will I fall into the hands of the uncircumcised? (author’s translation) In the first line Samson speaks better than he knows. In the next two lines he rants at Yahweh to do something about his thirst! The suspense is sustained to the very end as Samson uses the same pejorative (“uncircumcised”) as his parents (14:3) to describe the Philistines (15:18). Purely out of his grace, God provides water through a rocky place at Lehi. Samson drinks and is revived. So the spring is called En Hakkore (“the spring of the caller”).

The second section concludes with a note that Samson “led” (i.e., judged; Judg 15:20) Israel for twenty years in the days of the Philistines. The phrase “in the days of the Philistines” is the only time that the statement of the length of “judging” is qualified in the book of Judges, and it is a qualification that is negative in scope.

In matters of motivation, Samson is no different from the Philistines! He is motivated by revenge and retaliation, and he commits murder, destruction of private property, and so on. In many respects Samson manifests a number of characteristics of the fool (kesil) in the book of Proverbs. In particular, this can be seen in how the fool brings sorrow to his father and mother (Prov 10:1; 17:21), bitterness (17:25), and calamity (19:13). He has little regard for them (15:20). See also Proverbs 10:23; 13:20; 14:7; 17:12; 18:6; 29:11. If one studies the fool in Proverbs and then reads the Samson narrative, one is struck by how much Samson is almost the personification of foolishness.

The point is that God’s people are working on the same principles and exhibiting the same behavior as the unbelieving, uncircumcised Philistines.

THE GAZA PROSTITUTE (16:1–3). This short episode is packed with significance. Just as all of the problems of the second section (14:1–15:20) stemmed from Samson’s “going” to Timnah and “seeing” a Philistine woman, so the problems in this final section stem from Samson’s “going” to Gaza and “seeing” a prostitute (’ishshah zonah, cf. Prov 6:23–35). Samson’s going to a prostitute is once again indicative of his lack of regard for God’s law. Moreover, he goes to Gaza, a Philistine city, which requires his traveling through the length of Philistia.88 This certainly speaks to intent. This is not a slip-up, a case of falling into sin. This is a deliberate rebellious act on Samson’s part.

The feat in 16:3 is impressive, a truly miraculous exploit.89 City gates were not light objects. For cities like Gaza, they were typically two stories high, and their heavy posts were set in firm sockets. To haul this gate for some considerable distance to the hill opposite Hebron multiplies the magnitude of the act. The distance between Gaza and Hebron is about forty miles (64.4 km) and involves an ascent of more than two thousand feet. While Samson does not carry the gate structure all the way to Hebron (only to a hill opposite Hebron), he must have carried it some considerable distance. Hebron was the chief city of Judah, and so this seems to be Samson’s rebuttal for what the Judahites did to him (15:11–13). Although he escapes from Gaza by doing this, later he will be enslaved there (16:21).

Significantly, Delilah is the only woman in the Samson cycle whose name is supplied (cf. the wife of Manoah, his Timnite wife, and the prostitute of Gaza). By only supplying Delilah’s name and using it seven times, the narrator singles her out as the most portentous of the four females in the story. While the text does not specify whether Delilah is Israelite or Philistine, the latter seems more likely in the context of the Samson cycle.96 Samson’s preferences have been for foreign women, not Israelites (at no time does Samson evince the slightest interest in Israelite women). Delilah is not connected to a man. No mention is made of her father, a brother, or a husband, even deceased. Yet, she seems to have her own house. In the world of the Old Testament, a woman was usually connected to a man. Thus Delilah’s unconnectedness raises questions about her status. The rulers (lit., “tyrants”)97 of the Philistines make the most of this opportunity. This time, there is no threat or coercion (as there was in the case of Samson’s wife); rather, they offer Delilah an extraordinary bounty for information concerning the secret of Samson’s strength (lit., “see in what his strength is great” [koah gadol]) and “how we may tie him up [’asar]” so that “[we may] subdue [‘anah] him” 16:5). They each offer her 1,100 shekels of silver, giving her a total of 5,500 shekels (an absurdly fantastic amount for this time period).98 This demonstrates how much they wanted Samson out of the way.

At this point, a word is in order concerning the myth of Samson’s size. Samson is most commonly pictured as a hulk, a mammoth of incredible size and strength. While there is obviously in the biblical text a satirical characterization of the Philistines as ignorant, culturally challenged morons, they cannot be so stupid as to not recognize the obvious. If Samson were a Goliath-type behemoth, then obviously the secret to his strength would be in the size of his muscles! So the Philistines would be foolish to keep trying to overcome him (cf. the experience at Lehi). The Philistine rulers would be even dumber to pay such a price for the obvious, and Delilah would be the mother of all dummies if Samson were a man with fifty-inch biceps. But Samson must have been a relatively ordinary-looking man in size and weight. His strength is not even in his long, seven-braided hair. Therefore, his strength is not in the obvious; it is in Yahweh, who is working through his special, Yahweh-called, Nazirite status. Moreover, it is clear in what transpires that the Philistines are convinced that Samson’s strength lies in supernatural or magical contexts. This is seen in that Samson offers the Philistines magical solutions, and they accept each and every one of his suggestions as legitimate possibilities. In the ancient Near East, certain materials were thought to have magical properties in and of themselves or in the right quantity or combination.

There were two types of looms used in this period: the horizontal loom and the vertical loom. From the description given of Delilah’s loom it appears to be the former type. Four stakes were driven into the ground in a rectangular pattern. The threads that would make up the warp of the fabric were tied at regular intervals to sticks on both ends, and the sticks were then used to stretch out the threads between the stakes. When the ends of each stick were braced behind the stakes the threads would be stretched horizontal to the ground, taut for weaving. A shuttle would then be tied to the thread that was to be woven in as the woof of the fabric with a bar being used to separate alternating threads of the warp to allow the shuttle with the woof thread to pass through. Once the woof thread was in place the pin would be used to tighten that row against the previous rows. Samson has now become quite creative for he is suggesting that his hair be substituted for the woof thread. This would, however, be a logical magical procedure in that the hair was considered to contain one’s life essence and the weaving would be a binding action. When Samson jumps up he pulls the whole loom with him snapping the end sticks off the four stakes between which the fabric was stretched.102

Sadly, Samson’s confession demonstrates that he has known all along that he is a Nazirite. This is a powerful comment on all of Samson’s previous acts in which he has demonstrated total disregard for his Nazirite status.

sleep and thought, ‘I’ll go out as before and shake myself free.’ But he did not know that the LORD had left him.” The Spirit of Yahweh is no longer empowering him. As each of the seven braids is cut, so is the Nazirite status finally severed. The gap between the breaking of the first two Nazirite prescriptions and the breaking of the third has provided the narrator with time to underline God’s long-suffering. God has continually stood by and invigorated Samson “so long as he clings to the one last strand of the naziriteship, the prohibition against shaving.”108

Places of enforced labor like the one in which Samson spends the last months of his life were equipped with a number of handmills for grinding.109 These were “saddle-querns,” consisting of two complementary stone slabs: the lower millstone (proverbial for its hardness) was usually a basalt stone imported from the Hauran region, and the upper millstone made of basalt or sandstone was quite heavy.110 Kneeling in front of the quern, the miller moved the upper millstone up and down the lower stone, thus grinding the grain between the two. It was difficult labor, especially in the prison-type mills like the one Samson is in.

THE OPENING VERSES OF THIS FINAL SECTION of the Samson cycle introduce a new twist: The Philistines lay claim to the supremacy of their god Dagon (16:23–24). Dagon is the Hebrew form of the important Upper Mesopotamian and West Semitic deity Dagan, an important grain deity. The Philistines apparently adopted the deity from the local Semitic population,113 no doubt in some syncretistic form with an original Aegean grain deity.114 In the biblical texts, he appears as a grain deity.115 In this connection, Samson’s burning of the grain stocks is seen to be more serious. Likewise, in their excitement over the capture of Samson, it is understandable why the Philistines in their victory116 give the credit for this to Dagon (note especially the third line): Our god has delivered our enemy into our hands, the one who laid waste our land and multiplied our slain.

The first line of this prayer raises expectations that perhaps finally Samson is genuinely turning to Yahweh in humility and proper faith. But the next two lines dash this. Samson is portrayed as repeatedly putting personal ambitions ahead of Yahweh’s interests. There is virtually no difference between Samson and the Philistines with respect to seeking revenge. Rather than praying, “O Yahweh, let me deliver Israel,” Samson’s prayer is for personal revenge for his eyes. Self-interest dominates him to the end. Yet Yahweh controls the “circumstances so that Samson becomes an unwitting (if not unwilling) agent of counterattack upon the Philistines.”121

Gropingly finding the two support pillars, Samson bellows his last words, “Let me die with the Philistines!” (v. 30). Pushing the columns out of their sockets, he brings down the temple structure on the Philistines and himself. The excavation of a Philistine temple at Tell Qasile reveals a structure with “a long room whose roof was originally supported by two wooden pillars set on round, well-made stone bases, placed along the center axis.”125 The temple of Dagon in Gaza probably had a similar construction. It is perhaps ironic that unwittingly—it was certainly not his intention—Samson keeps the law about tearing down cultic installations (Deut 12:2–3) when Yahweh empowers him to destroy the temple of Dagon. Webb adeptly summarizes the transpiring spectacle: The ensuing scene of death and destruction is for Dagon a debacle of the greatest magnitude. The words of praise for their god must have died coldly on the lips of his devotees. Subtly, and without any crude fanfare of the explicit, the narrator underlines the power of Yahweh, the irrelevance of Dagon. The victory is unquestionably Yahweh’s, even if it is only achieved through the suffering of his servant.126 Samson kills more in his death than during his life. This is especially true since the dead in the temple include a god! In spite of Samson’s personal motive of revenge, Yahweh uses Samson to begin to deliver Israel, not so much in the political sphere as in the theological sphere. There can be no doubt as to who ...

In the Samson cycle, three Philistine women play an important role. Samson marries a Philistine woman, has an affair with a Philistine harlot, and loves another Philistine, Delilah. All this was in contrast to God’s law. Though he does inflict casualties on the Philistines, he does not deliver Israel from their oppression. In fact, Samson never led the Israelites in battle.128 Samson serves as a microcosm of Israel for its respective failures to fulfill their obligations to Yahweh. Just as he repeatedly neglects his Nazirite obligations to YHWH by engaging in impure acts and relations with foreign women, so the tribes of Israel [are] negligent of their obligations to YHWH as an elect people by engaging in cultically disloyal acts and by neglecting to expel foreigners from the land.129

All of the cyclical (major judge) accounts from Othniel to Jephthah have implied “a competition between Yahweh and other gods for the allegiance of Israel.”131 But it has been in the out-group judges (Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson) that this theme has manifested itself more particularly. But only in the Samson cycle is the god itself physically destroyed (with its obvious theological ramifications). Ironically, Samson, the strong man of the book, reveals himself as essentially the weakest, weaker than any of his predecessor judges, for Samson is subject, a slave to physical passion—the lowest kind of subjugation. Because his passions demand women, he is at the mercy of womankind—a deplorable situation from the point of view of a patriarchal society.132

This interpretation has been greatly reinforced by the English poet John Milton in his work Samson Agonistes (1671). This work is a tragedy formed on the Greek model, being composed partly in blank verse and partly in unrhymed choric verse of varied line length. In it, Milton employs the Old Testament story of Samson to inspire the defeated English Puritans with the courage to triumph through sacrifice. Thus Milton has Samson, the tragic hero, emerging from his disastrous blindness and powerlessness enriched and ennobled, willing to sacrifice his own life for the sake of the divine mission.133 In an ironic way, according to this interpretation, Samson is successful as a savior, conquering more in death than in life, proving “that the ‘other gods’ are no gods at all, and that Yahweh alone is worthy of Israel’s devotion.”134 The analogy of Samson to Christ is easy to make. Emphasizing what may appear as parallels between Samson and Christ, this way of understanding Samson can quickly overshadow the vast bulk of the biblical narrator’s characterization of the final deliverer. Thus Samson, like Christ, was raised up by God, announced by an angel, conceived miraculously, rejected by his people, and handed over to pagan overlords, and his saving work was consummated in his death. In this way, he was a “forerunner of the greatest Savior of all.”135

As Block points out, the statement concerning Samson’s killing more Philistines in his death than in his life is not a vindication of Samson but rather is a tragic note on which this squandered life ends.139 “This man, with his unprecedented high calling and with his extraordinary divine gifts, has wasted his life. Indeed, he accomplishes more for God dead than alive”140—not because of Samson but because of Yahweh.

The clear and lengthy portrayal of Samson in Judges 13–16 is hardly a characterization that parallels the person of Jesus Christ. In the context of Judges, Samson is far from the standard of Christ. He is one of the most narcissistic persons in all the Bible. Self-gratification is what drives this man. Never in the Samson narrative does he operate in anyone’s interest but his own. He does not care about God’s plan or any of the divine standards of either his place as an Israelite or his Nazirite status.141 He does not care about the will of his parents or the hearts of the lovers with whom he consorts. All are to be manipulated for his sake.

Sexual purity was clearly not a concern to Samson. Yet this is hardly a minor concern for a believer, let alone a leader of God’s people. The commandment against adultery (Exod 20:14) is not simply against the act but also against the issues involving the inner person: thought, intent, and motive. It is impossible to commit adultery without thought, intent, and motive being contrary to God’s will. Thus, God demands purity in our thought life as well as in our action. Jesus explains this in Matthew 5:28 by pointing out that if anyone looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The entire double conclusion is unified by the four-time repetition of the refrain (author’s translation): “In those days there was no king. . . . Every man did what was right in his own eyes” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).2 This refrain emphasizes through a double entendre that during the period of the judges there was no physical king, but more importantly no spiritual king! Thus, the NIV’s “everyone did as they saw fit” is literally “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”3

The narrative introduces a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim, who confesses that he has stolen9 eleven hundred shekels of silver from his unnamed mother (obviously a woman of substantial wealth). The name “Micah” is a short form of Mikayahu, meaning “Who is like Yahweh?” This is ironic, since Yahweh is so absent from this story. His overt disregard for the fifth and eighth commandments demonstrates a brazen attitude to Yahweh and his law.

Micah’s mother utters a curse, and this seems to motivate Micah to return the stolen silver, principally because he is afraid of the fulfillment of this curse. The reaction of his mother is to counteract the curse with a blessing: “Yahweh bless you, my son!” (17:2). What seems to underline Micah’s mother’s curse and blessing is the ancient Near Eastern concept of magic.13 This becomes clearer from what will transpire in the story.

At this point, according to the law prescribed in Leviticus 6:1–6, Micah—who has confessed his sin of stealing and repaid the principal (i.e., the exact amount stolen from his mother)—should do two more things. (1) He should acknowledge his sin before Yahweh at the tabernacle by paying restitution to his mother for the crime (i.e., one-fifth of the principal involved). (2) He should sacrifice a guilt offering through the priest for atonement. But it is more than obvious that the law is not being followed in this story. Israel has no spiritual king.

IN THE NEXT EPISODE, A YOUNG LEVITE TRAVELING from Bethlehem in Judah finds his way northward to Micah’s house. He has been living (lit., sojourning) in Bethlehem. Why is a young Levite living in Bethlehem in Judah? Bethlehem is not a Levitical town in Judah (Josh 21:9–16). Moreover, Judges 18:30 states that this Levite is a descendant of Gershom, the son of Moses (Exod 2:22; 6:18–20), which means that he is a member of the Kohathite clan of the Levites, who were allotted ten towns in Ephraim, Dan, and Cisjordanian Manasseh (Josh 21:5, 20–26). Thus this Levite should not have been living in Bethlehem in Judah. The failure of the Israelites to obey the law has probably resulted in a lack of support for the Levites and may explain the man’s wandering in search of subsistence (see Deut 12:19; 18:1–8).