Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 13:2 - 13:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_13:2-7.
The father of Samson was of Zorah (see below on Jdg_13:25), of the race of Dan; whence Samson is also called Bedan (1Sa_12:11). He bears the beautiful name Manoah, “Rest,” equivalent to the Greek ‘́ Çóõ÷ïò , Hesychius,—a name sufficiently peculiar for the father of so restless a spirit as Samson. The name of his wife is not given. Jewish tradition (Baba Bathra, 91) derives her from the tribe Judah, and with reference to 1Ch_4:3, names her Zelelponi or Hazelelponi. The parents were at first childless. The mother was barren, as Sarah was before her. But it is not related of her, any more than of Sarah, that she prayed for a son. This can only be inferred from the similar instance of Hannah (1Sa_1:10); but it does not appear, that, like Hannah, she made a vow. Nor is it said of her and Manoah that they were old, as in the cases of Sarah and Elizabeth (Luk_1:7). They were pious, uncomplaining people, who lived in retirement, and had hitherto borne their childless condition with trustful resignation. Nevertheless, it was this childless condition that peculiarly adapted the wife for the right reception of the announcement which is made to her. The joy which it inspires prepares her fully for the sacrifice which it requires. It holds out a scarcely hoped for happiness, which she will gladly purchase with the restraints imposed upon her. But this is not the only ground why she is chosen. An announcement like that made to her requires faith in the receiver. The pious disposition of the parents shows itself in this faith, by which, less troubled with doubt than Sarah and Zacharias, they receive as certain that which is announced to them.
Jdg_13:4. And now beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor intoxicating drink. For Samson, the child that is to be born to her, shall be a “Nazir of God.” The ideas which here come to light, are of uncommon instructiveness. They reveal a surprisingly free and discriminating conception of the life and wants of the Israel of that time. Farreaching thoughts, which still influence the Christian Church of our own day, are reflected in them.
I. The law of the Nazarite and his vow, in Numbers 6, rests upon the great presuppositions which are implied in Israel’s calling. In Exo_19:6, God says to Israel, “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation;” but he precedes it (Jdg_13:5) by the words, “Ye shall be a possession unto me out of all nations, for all the earth is mine.” All nations are God’s; but among them, Israel was to be his holy people; and the law expresses in symbolic actions the moral ideas through which Israel exhibits itself as holy and consecrated. Within the holy nation, the priests occupy the same relation which the nation holds to the world. Their service, in sacrifice, prayer, and atonement, expresses especially consecration and nearness to God. Moreover, with respect to this service they have likewise a law, whose external command represents the internal idea of their consecration. The command to Aaron is, that the priests, when they go into the tabernacle, are not to drink wine nor strong drink, in order that they may be able to distinguish between holy and unholy, and to teach the children of Israel (Lev_10:9); for wine is a mocker (Pro_20:1) Wine, says Isaiah, with reference to the priesthood of his day (Isa_28:7), has drowned all priestly consecration. The consequences of intoxication show themselves not only in a man like Nabal (1Sa_25:36), but also in the case of a pious man, like Lot.
That death is the wages of sin, the Old Testament teaches on every page. The priests are to abstain from wine, lest they die. Hence, also, they are not to touch a corpse, for it has the nature of sin and uncleanness (Lev_21:1), and the priests are to be holy. But although the special official priesthood was given by law to the tribe of Levi, holiness and consecration of life were not limited to that tribe: every one, no matter what his tribe, can consecrate himself to God, and without the aid of office, visibly realize the general priesthood in his own person. It is the peculiarity of the law, that it expresses every internal religions emotion by means of a visible act. It obliges the inward life to allow itself to be visibly recognized. All Israel was to be holy; but when an Israelite, in a condition of special spiritual exaltation, rising above the common connection between God and the people, as mediated by the priests, vowed himself to God, this act also was made the subject of ordinances, by which the Nazir, as he who thus vowed was called, was distinguished from other men, and held to special obligations. Hence, an Israelite can vow himself to God for a time, and is accordingly during that time holy to God in an especial sense (Num_6:8). Without holding any priestly office, he enters into a free and sacred service before God. Hence, during the whole time of his vow, he is forbidden to touch wine or strong drink, as if he were constantly officiating in the tabernacle, although the priests, when not actually engaged in service, were under no restraint. The priests, generally forbidden to touch a corpse, are yet allowed to do so in the case of a blood relative (Lev_21:1 ff); but the Nazir, who is to look upon himself as if he were ever in the sanctuary, from which every impurity is excluded, is not to know any exception. He may not touch, the dead body of even father or mother. Yea, he is himself, as it were, a temple or altar of God, as appears from the personal mark by which he is distinguished. The priest comes only to the altar; and is forbidden to wear the signs of the idolaters on his hair and beard (Lev_21:5), and is moreover distinguished by his clothing. The Nazir is in the congregation, his clothing is not different from that of others; but he is himself an altar; and therefore, as over an altar, so over his body, and over the head of that body, no iron may be lifted up. “When thou makest an altar of stone,” says Moses, “thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy iron upon it, thou hast desecrated it” (Exo_20:25). Accordingly, Joshua built an altar of stones “over which no man had lifted up any iron” (Jos_8:31). The reason for this prohibition is grounded, not in the nature of stone, but in the symbolical significance of iron. Iron, as the Mishnah observes (Middoth, iii. 4), must not even touch the altar; for iron is used to shorten life, but the altar to lengthen it (comp. my treatise Schamir, pp. 57, 58). It is well known that other ancient nations regarded iron in the same way. The Egyptians called it “Typhon’s Bones” (Plutarch, de Osirid. cap. lxii). Iron, according to the oracle (Pausan. iii. 3, 4), is the image of evil, because it is used in battle.When, therefore, it was enjoined upon the Nazir to let no knife come upon his head during the time of his vow, the ground of the injunction was none other than this: that since the Nazir, like the altar, is holy and consecrate to God, iron, the instrument of death and terror, must not touch him.
The Nazir is a walking altar of God; and his flowing hair is the visible token of his consecration, reminding both himself and the people of the sacred vows he has assumed. It is the proper mark of the Nazir, as the linen garment is that of the Levite. By it he is known, and from it probably comes his name. It may be assumed that the signification “to devote one’s self, to abstain from,” of the verb ðָæַø , belongs to it only in consequence of the distinction attached to the ðָæִéø . It seems to me that Nazir is equivalent to êáñçêïìüùí , long-haired, Cincinnatus, curly-haired, or Harfagr (Haralld hinn Harfagri). For it has been justly remarked that in Numbers 6 the term Nazir is already accepted as a familiar expression. It may be compared with the Latin cirrus, curl, lock, or tuft of hair (cf. cœsaries = cœraries); for comparative philology shows that in most verbs beginning with ð , this letter is a specific Hebrew prefix to the root, so that ðָèַø , to guard, to keep, may be compared with ôçñÝù ; ðָèַì , to bear, with ôëÜù ; ðçָùׁ , brass, with œs, ðָçָùׁ serpent, with the onomatopoetic zischen, to hiss; ðִçָí with gemere; ðæַì with salire, etc. The word ðֵæֶø would then get its signification diadem, ornament (cf. æִøִ , in the same sense), just as the Greek êïììüò , derived from êüìç , êïìåþ , comes to signify adornment. To trace the original etymological identity of cirrus, cicinnus, and the Sanskrit kikura, with the Hebrew nazir, or to inquire whether the terms îýñïìáé , to shave one’s self, and êåßñåéí , to cut the hair, are connected with the same root, would be out of place here. Precisely those terms which designate objects of primitive interest to man, are most deeply imbedded in the general philological treasures of all nations. But not to pursue these speculations any farther, it must already appear probable, that the use of nazir in Lev_25:5, where it is applied to the untrimmed vine of the sabbatic year, is to be explained by reference not to the Nazaritic custom of human beings, vowing and consecrating themselves to God, but to the original meaning of the root. The Sabbath-year being time belonging to God (Lev_25:4), no knife was applied during its course to the vine, which from that circumstance was named nazir. This would have been an unsuitable designation, if it had been derived from the vows assumed by the human Nazir; for such subjective activity could not be ascribed to the vine. It was the objective appearance of the Nazir, who, whether man or vine, was holy, and therefore had not been touched by the knife, which gave rise to the name. The name suggests the unshaven condition, the long hair, of the Nazarite, not primarily his consecration, although the sacred character of the person, through the law, gave sanctity to the name and set it apart from common uses, just as the rite of circumcision was indebted for its name ( îåּìָç ), not to the sacramental character of the rite, but to the mere act of cutting ( îåּì , óìßëç ), and then reflected its own sanctity upon the name. Long hair, although without any reference to the Nazaritic institute it may be called ðֵæֶø (cf. Jer_7:29), was the proper mark of the Nazir, because regularly set apart for this purpose by the law. To sanctify the natural life, is the very thing at which the law constantly aims. By its institutions its spiritual requisitions are rendered visible and personal. The circumcision of the foreskin is after all but the national image of circumcision of the heart, and the Nazaritic institute is the symbol of the general priesthood, in which no sin or impurity is to sully the free service of God. But the visible character in which each of these conceptions appeared, was more than a subjective, mutable image: it was a definite and unchangeable law. It was, to a certain extent, a sacrament. It is instructive to see how the relation of spirit and law affects Biblical language and conceptions. The wearing of long hair, a purely natural act, is first, by spiritual ideas, raised into an expression of the general priesthood, in which man is a living altar; but when long hair has become characteristic of the sacred Nazir, whose duty it is to keep far from impurity, a new verb is derived from his name, with, the sole spiritual signification of “withholding one’s self from what is unclean.” The same process may be noted in connection with circumcision. Originally elevated into a sacrament by the intervention of spiritual ideas, incorporated into the law, it affords occasion for the transfer of its name to the spiritual conceptions of the circumcision of tongue and heart. But especially remarkable is the apprehension of the relation between spirit and law in the history of Samson.
II. Why was it necessary for the hero who should begin to deliver Israel, to be a Nazir? Why was the same election and education not necessary in the cases of the other great judges, as, for instance, Gideon and Jephthah? Were then those heroes not spiritual Nazarites, who gave their lives to the service of God? May we not understand the opening words of Deborah’s Song as indicating their spiritual consecration to Jehovah: “That in Israel waved the hair, in the people’s self-devotion” (see on Jdg_5:2)? No doubt; and for that very reason Samson is distinguished from them. For those men arose in times when the tribes of Israel them selves repented and turned their hearts to God. In Samson’s day, the situation was different. Dan and Judah were oppressed, but not repentant. An uprising from within through faith, is not to be expected. It is brought about, therefore, as it were from without, by means of the law. The power of the objective, spiritual law manifests itself. It becomes an organ of deliverance, when the subjective source of freedom no longer flows. The angel would have found no Gideon. A prophetess like Deborah, there was not. But the law abides: it is independent of the current popular spirit. It is thus the last sure medium through which the help of God can come to Israel. This significance of the law, and its objective power, is very instructively set forth before the people in the person of Samson. It is this also which, from Samson onward, becomes the ruling force in the vocation and appointment of deliverers, until the kingship is established, which by the objective rite of priestly anointing, changes David the shepherd-boy into David the victorious ruler. And this instruction concerning the law as a whole, is imparted through the medium of the special law concerning the Nazir, because it is here that the relation to be pointed out comes most clearly to view. For precisely the Nazariteship is, according to the Biblical law, the out-flow of unrequired, voluntary consecration to God on the part of an individual. No doubt, to a certain extent, the earlier heroes, though not Nazarites in form, were such self-devoted men. But heroes such as they do not arise in times when the absence of penitence and faith dulls the prophets and Nazarites (cf. Amo_2:12). Hence, the history of Samson teaches that Israel would have had nothing to hope for from the Nazariteship, if it had had no other than subjective validity. When faith is wanting among the people, no man becomes a Nazir; but the objective law can make of the Nazir, a man. In Samson’s case, the Nazariteship makes the hero, the long hair characterizes his strength, the renunciations of the mother consecrate the child. Samson, a Nazarite from his birth and without his own will, becomes what he is only as such, and continues to be a hero only so long as he continues to be a Nazarite. The Nazariteship is first, everything else second, in him. Its power over him is so objective, that it already operates on him before he is born, before anything like free consciousness can be thought of. The command addresses not him whom it concerns, but his mother, and she, during her pregnancy; becomes a female Nazir, in order that her son may be able to become a hero. It is this that properly distinguishes Samson from the other heroes; and its occasion appears in the fact that the narrator could not, as at other times, introduce his story by stating that the tribes had persistently “cried unto God.”
III. The Mishnah (Nazir, i. 2) already distinguishes between a perpetual Nazarite and a Samson-Nazarite. And in fact, the Nazariteship of Samson is unique, has never repeated itself, and never can repeat itself; for it is conditioned by the history of his age. Samuel also is consecrated by his mother’s vow that he shall belong to God, and that no razor shall come upon his head; but there is nothing to show that the mother observed the Nazaritic rules in her own person, nor is anything said about any virtue in long hair in connection with Samuel. Hannah was wholly self-moved in the making of her vow. The case of John the Baptist likewise stands entirely by itself. Here, the birth of the child is indeed announced by an angel, but his character as a Nazarite is expressed in language altogether peculiar: “He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink.” John will be great before God, and because of that greatness will drink no wine. Nothing is said about long hair, and the origin of John’s vow is placed, not in the act of another, but in the strength with which God had endowed himself. The Mishnah puts it as a possible case that a person should vow to be a Nazarite like Samson; that is, the vow is hypothetically so limited that, while it requires him who makes it to wear his hair long, he is not required to bring sacrifices for defilement. Such a vow was named after Samson, because a part of his life was imitated by it. But properly speaking, a vow to be like Samson, is impossible For Samson’s vow began not with himself, but with his mother. According to the law in the 6th chapter of Numbers, an Israelite could take a vow upon himself for a longer or, like the four friends of James (Act_21:23), for a shorter period. When the time was expired, he shaved himself, and brought an offering. But no one could vow to be like Samson. It was indeed within the power of a mother to promise to bring up her child like Samson, but even then she had no right to expect the same results as in the case of Samson. It is precisely the impotence of human subjectivity that is demonstrated by Samson’s history. It cannot be the wish of all mothers to have Samson-children, when they suffer the hair of their offspring to grow. The angel’s announcement, through which the spirit in the law begins to operate even in the maternal womb, is the original source of strength. The Spirit of God operates on mother and son, through the Nazariteship as its organ. The power of the Nazir, the holy influence of the law, opens the man himself; the outflow of divine consecration into the life of the consecrated cannot take place without the Spirit of God. The theological doctrine of the preparatory history of Samson, is just this: that while the law in its immutable objectivity is placed over against the subjective forces of prophecy and heroic inspiration, yet it can never of itself, but only by virtue of the Spirit of God pervading and quickening it, become the organ of deliverance.
The Nazaritic institute is the image of the general priesthood, of the fact that outside of the tribe of Levi, it is possible for man to belong wholly to God. The visible acts which it prescribes, represent, as in a figure, the purity and sinlessness of the heart consecrated to God. In the case of Samson, this Nazariteship begins from his mother’s womb. Were it in the power of a son born of human parents, to be sinless through the law, Samson the Nazarite ought to have been sinless. But only Christ is the true Nazarite in spirit, whose life realizes the purity of the idea, and whose free love, rooted in God, continues among men from the womb until death. Jacob, the dying patriarch, announced a blessing “on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the head of the Nazir of his brethren” (Gen_49:26); and there is no reason to doubt that the primitive Christian consciousness interpreted the expression “Nazir of his brethren” not of Joseph, but found in the “and” a link connecting the blessing of Joseph with the person of Him who was a Nazir of the brethren of Joseph. It saw in the passage a prophecy of the Messiah, who though not descended from Levi, was yet the true holy and consecrated high-priest. Hence, the opinion that in the language of the evangelist Matthew (Jdg_2:23), “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Íáæùñáῖïò ,” reference is made to the ðְæéø àֶçָéå , the “Nazir of his brethren,” is not to be hastily set aside. Remarkable, at all events, is it that the ancient Jewish interpretation, when Jacob after the blessing on Dan (Gen_49:17) adds the words: “I wait for thy salvation, Jehovah!” conceives him to glance from the nearer but transient deliverance by Samson, to the more distant but eternal redemption of Messiah (Beresch. Rabba, p. 86 c; cf. the Targums on the passage); and that, as already mentioned, the mother of Samson, in 1Ch_4:3, is named Hazelelponi or Zelelponi, i. e., “the shadow falls on me,” which may be compared with the words of the angel to the mother of Jesus: “the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”
Jdg_13:5. And let no razor come upon his head. Here, and in the history of Samuel, the razor is called îåֹøָä , whereas in Num_6:4 úַּòַø is used. Both terms come from the same stem òָøָä , nudare, to uncover, as it were novare, to renew, whence also novacula, sharp knife, razor. There appears to be less ground for comparison with the Greek ìÜῤ ̓ äïí , Latin marra, the signification “spade” being too far removed. On the other hand, a certain relationship of òָøָä with the Greek îõñüí , Sanskrit khschura, shears, may not be altogether denied.
He shall begin. For the Philistines oppressed Israel forty years, and Samson judged his people only twenty. Samson began to restore victory to Israel, he did not make it full and final. The angel of God who calls the hero out of the womb of his mother, knows that he will not finish that for which God nevertheless gave him strength. He knows it, and therefore does not speak as he did to Gideon: “Thou shalt deliver Israel” (Jdg_6:14).
Jdg_13:6-7. And the woman came and told her husband. Before telling him what the angel had said, she excuses herself for having obtained no particular information about the bearer of the announcement. She should have asked him whence he was, but dared not; for he was a “man of God,” with the look of an “angel of God.” The angel appeared in human form; but there was an imposing splendor about him, which terrified the woman. Such, probably, had also been the case in Gideon’s experience. In her narrative she supplies what we do not find in Jdg_13:5, that the child’s character, as a Nazir of God, is to last from the womb until “the day of his death.”
How differently God proceeds in the election of grace from the methods human thought would conceive, is shown by the history of all previous Judges. The deliverer arises there where the natural understanding would never have looked for him. But Samson God raises up in a manner in which no man ever conjectured the growth of a hero to take place. The other Judges He selected as men: Samson He brought up to be a hero.
The earlier Judges were to a certain extent prepared for their work even before their election. Ehud had the abilities of a Benjaminite, Deborah was a prophetess, Gideon a strong man, Jephthah a successful military leader. When the Spirit of God came upon them, they became Deliverers and Judges. In Samson, God made it known that his grace is able to save Israel even when such persons are not to be found. Before birth, He consecrates the child, through his Spirit, to be a Nazarite. Hence grows a hero.
Earlier Judges were able, like Ehud, to perform single-handed exploits; but they achieved deliverance only in connection with the people. They were all military leaders of Israel, and had to stand at the head of pious hosts. In Samson it is seen that this also is not indispensable. Only individuals among the people were penitent; the tribes, as such, were unbelieving. Therefore the Spirit raised up a single man to be Judge: he alone, without army and without people, fought and delivered.
For this reason, the ancient, deeply thinking church regarded Samson especially as a type of the history of Christ. His birth was similar to that of Jesus. Like the eternal Word who became flesh, he was typically born and consecrated of the Spirit. In Christ, also, it is his sinlessness that presupposes his office as Saviour. The birth of Christ determines his resurrection. He must be born from heaven in order to return to heaven. No one can ascend into heaven but He who came down from heaven.
There was also no penitence in Israel when Christ was born. A few sought the promised Messiah in the prophets. Christ did not come to put himself at the head of a host of believers; but alone, as He was, so He stood among the people. He performs his entire work alone. He needs no legions of angels. His work is unique; and He, the worker, is a solitary hero.
Every believing heart treads in the footsteps of Christ. Fellowship is good in Christian work, but not essential. A Christian can live alone, if he be with Christ.
Starke: God cares for his people when they are in misery, and often thinks of their redemption before they think of it themselves.—The same: God connects his grace and gifts with mean things, in order to make men know that everything is to be ascribed to the grace of God, and not to the merits of men.
[Bp. Hall: If Manoah’s wife had not been barren, the angel had not been sent to her. Afflictions have this advantage, that they occasion God to show that mercy to us, whereof the prosperous are incapable. It would not beseem a mother to be so indulgent to a healthful child as to a sick.—The same: Nature pleads for liberty, religion for restraint. Not that there is more uncleanness in the grape than in the fountain, but that wine finds more uncleanness in us than water, and that the high feed is not so fit for devotion as abstinence.—Wordsworth: Samson is a type of Christ: and in all those things where Samson fails, there Christ excels. Samson began to deliver Israel, but did not effect their deliverance (see Jdg_13:1; Jdg_15:20). He declined from his good beginnings; and fell away first into sin, and then into the hands of the enemy. But Christ not only began to deliver Israel, but was able to say on the cross, “It is finished.”—Tr.].
Footnotes:
[The English version renders, “tool.” The word is äֶøֶá , in the sense of “chisel.” The interpretation “iron” is justified by Jos_8:31, where, with evident reference to Exo_20:25, áַּøְæֶì is substituted for äֶøֶá .—Tr.].
The following is said to have been uttered by Apollonius of Tyana: “Let the iron spare the hair of a wise man. For it is not right that it should touch a place where lie the sources of all the senses, whence all sacred sounds and voices issue, and prayers proceed, and the word of wisdom interprets.”—Philostrat., Vit. Apollon., viii. 6.
Hence, we cannot agree with the explanations cited and proposed in Oehler’s article on the Nasiraat, in Herzog’s Encyklopddie (x. 208). A poem by Max Letteris, on the “Locks of the Nazarite,” in Jolowicz Blüthenkranz, p. 239, has entirely missed the idea of the Nazaritic institution.