Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 13:8 - 13:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_13:8-23.
[2 Jdg_13:12.—Dr. Cassel renders the clause more literally: “What will be the manner of the boy, and his doing?” But the rendering of the E. V. correctly interprets the language of the original, and agrees with our author’s exposition. Whatever obscurity there may appear to be in Jdg_13:12, is removed by Jdg_13:8; for it is clear that the petition preferred in Jdg_13:12 can be no other than that made in Jdg_13:8. îִùְׁôַּè äַâַּòַø is the statute or precept (cf. the monastic term “rule”) to be observed with regard to the boy—the right treatment of him by his parents; and, similarly, îַòֲùׂäåּ is that which they are to do to him. The genitives are genitives of the object, cf. Ges. Gram. 114, 2; 121, ***—Tr.].
[2 Jdg_13:17.—“ îé ùְׁîֶêָ ; properly quis nomen tuum, equivalent to quis nominaris îִé asks after the person, îַä after the nature, the quality, see Ewald, 325 a.” (Keil).—Tr.].
The adventure with the angel takes upon the whole the same course as the similar incident in the life of Gideon (cf. on Judges 6). The angel here comes and goes as there, yields to entreaties to tarry, receives an offering, disappears in the flame. But the present passage discloses also new and beautiful features, growing out of the mutual relations of Manoah and his wife. The peculiar characteristics of both husband and wife are most delicately drawn. Manoah is a pious man, he knows how to seek God in prayer, and is not unbelieving; but the statements of his wife do not appear to him to be sure enough, he would gladly have them confirmed. And for the instruction and strengthening of Israel, that faith may be full and strong, not being compelled to content itself with the testimony of one woman only to the wonderful event,—God, having respect to the unawakened condition of the people, allows himself to be entreated. But although Manoah sees in the second appearance of the angel the fulfillment of his prayer, he still recognizes in him nothing but a man ( àִéùׁ ). And truly, nothing is more difficult for man, even though he prays, than to receive the fulfillment of prayer! The believing obedience of Manoah to the commands touching his wife’s conduct with reference to the promised child, although he conceives them to be delivered by no other than a man, indicates that the coming and preaching of such a man, here spoken of as a “man of God,” was nothing unusual. There had probably been a lack only of such obedience as Manoah here shows him. What is more surprising, is, that even when the angel declines to eat of his bread, Manoah yet does not perceive that his visitor is not a man. He had intended, according to the manner of ancient hospitality, as known also to Homer, first to entertain his guest, and then to inquire after his home and name. Such inquiries have interest, and afford guarantees, only in the case of a man. But even the answer concerning the “wonderful” name, does not yet excite his attention. It is only after the angel’s disappearance in the flame that he perceives,—what, however, none but a believing heart could perceive,—that he who had just departed was not a man. The wife shows herself more receptive and sensitive to the presence of a divine being. To her, the stranger’s appearance, even at his first visit, seemed like that of an angel. At his second visit also, she speaks of his coming in language usually applied to angels,—“Behold, he hath appeared unto me ( ðִøְàָä , Jdg_13:10). She had needed no proof or explanation. She asks no questions, but knows what he has said to her heart; and hence, she also is in no dread when now it becomes manifest that it was indeed an angel of God. Her husband is apprehensive of death; she is of good courage, and infers the contrary. She had long since foreboded the truth, and belongs to the number of those women of sacred history whose sensitive hearts enabled them to feel and see divine secrets, and whose appearance is the more attractive, the more unbelieving and unreceptive the times are, in which, as here, angels reveal themselves to women rather than to men. For although it is Manoah who prays that the man of God may come again, he appears not to him, but again to the wife. He waits, however, while she, intuitively certain that though feelings of reverence do not allow her to entreat him to tarry, he will nevertheless do so, hastens to call her husband.
Jdg_13:12-13. And Manoah said, When now thy words come to pass, what will be the manner of the boy and his doing? It is peculiar that notwithstanding the plain words told him by his wife, Manoah cannot rest satisfied with them. Doubtless, it could not but appear singular to him, that his wife tells him of what she is to do, although the call to be a Nazir pertains to the son whose birth is promised. Of such directions, the Mosaic statute contained no traces. It appeared to him as if the report of his wife must contain a misunderstanding on this point. He therefore asks twice, what is to be done with the child, since hitherto he had principally heard only what the mother is to do. Hence, the angel answers him plainly: “What I commanded the mother, that do!”
Nor eat any unclean thing. It had already been said in Jdg_13:4, “Thou shalt drink neither wine nor intoxicating drink, nor eat any thing unclean.” The older expositors identified this prohibition as to food and drink with that imposed on Nazarites in Num_6:4. But this is not altogether accurate, as appears from Jdg_13:14 of our passage. Express mention is here made of all that Num_6:4 forbade to be eaten, namely, everything that comes from the vine, and yet it is added, “nor eat any unclean thing.” Numbers 6 does not speak at all of anything “unclean,” as forbidden to the Nazarite, because no Israelite was allowed to eat what was unclean. Here the angel adds this injunction, first, because it was a time in which much of the law and customs of Israel had perhaps fallen into neglect; and, secondly, in order to serve to Manoah and his wife as an explanation of all that was enjoined upon the latter. The wife was to abstain from the use of everything that can render unclean, because a holy and pure consecration was to rest on him whom she was to bring forth.
Jdg_13:17 ff. Why askest thou after my name, and it is Peli? Renewed attention must constantly be directed to the nice discrimination with which the designations Jehovah, Elohim, and the Elohim, are used in the narrative. Whenever the narrator speaks, he always writes Jehovah. Concerning Samson, the expression (Jdg_13:5) is, that he will be a Nazir of Elohim; because there Elohim indicates the general divine afflatus by which he is to be surrounded, and is the term also used in Num_6:7 : “For the consecration of his God ( àֱìֹäָéå ðֵæֶø ) is upon his head.” When the believing parents first speak, they speak, as in Jdg_6:20 (see above), of the man or angel of “the God,” i. e., the God of Israel (Jdg_13:6; Jdg_13:8). Especially, however, do they characterize themselves in Jdg_13:22-23. Manoah anticipates death, “for we have seen Elohim,” a divine being in general. The wife, impressed by the appearance and announcement, says: “If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not have accepted our offerings.” Whenever full faith returns in Israel, the full name of Israel’s God, Jehovah, returns with it.
But when Manoah asks the angel for his name, the reply is not, Jehovah, but ôìàé . The Masora reads ôֶּìִé , Peli; later authorities (cf. Keil in loc.), ôִּìְàִé , Pilei. In either case, the word is adjective, but identical in meaning with ôֶּìֶà . In Isa_9:5 (6), it is said: “Unto us a child is born, and his name is ôֶּìֶà .” His name is Wonder, Wonder-worker. Isa_29:14, which passage serves literally to explain our present passage, says: “ åָôֶìֶà äִðְðִé éåֹñִó ìְäַôְìִéà àֶúÎäָòַíÎäַæֶּä äַôְìֵà ìָëֵï , I will continue to show myself doing wonders to this people, doing wonder upon wonder.” The epithet of wonder points to the power of him to whom it is applied. He who is a wonder, does wonders. In Isa_9:5 (6) the child is named Pele, not as a passive wonder, but as active; all its epithets are active: Pele, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father, Prince. Hence, here the angel also calls himself Peli, Wonder-worker. for what he does appears extraordinary. A child was chosen in the matrix, and endued with the power of doing wonders. God testifies in times of distress that He saves Israel by wonders, and does not cease, even in their ruin, to interest himself wonderfully in their behalf. Ordinary means of salvation are wanting. God ever again manifests himself in Israel as the òùֵֹׁäÎôֶìֶà , “the wonder-worker,” as He is styled Exo_15:11. As such He gives his name in Jdg_13:18, and shows his power in Jdg_13:19, when He reveals himself in the wonderful manner of his vanishing away: for the expression åּîַôְìִéà (“he caused a wonder”), in the latter verse, refers back to ôֶּìִàé , Peli, of Jdg_13:18. The name Manoah had not understood; but in the deed he recognized the God of wonders.
The key to the whole narrative is contained in this word. It sets forth that Israel’s preservation and deliverance rest not in itself, but in the grace of Him who is wonderful and does wonders beyond all understanding, not merely in nature, but also in human life and history. Those explanations are therefore wholly insufficient, which render the word by “secret” or “ineffable.” From the old Jewish point of view, this interpretation is intelligible; for to them the external ineffableness of the name Jehovah appeared to be its chief characteristic. Jacob, when he wrestled with the angel, asked after his name. “Why askest thou?” replied the angel, and gave it not. As he wrestled in the night, so he gave no name. Here the unseen corresponds with the unnamed. But in the instance of Samson’s parents, the angel is seen. What he says and does is manifest and visible. It is stated with emphasis, that both “saw” ( øֹàִéí ). If the angel, by saying, “Why askest thou after my name?” had designed to refuse an answer to Manoah’s question, he would have contented himself with these words. But he gives him a name, and that name teaches that Manoah is to attend rather to the message than the manner of him who brings it. If from the word “Peli” Manoah was to learn that the name for which he asked was “ineffable,” he would on hearing it have already perceived that the messenger was no man, for there was only One to whose name this could apply. But it was not till afterwards that Manoah made this discovery. The angel, however, does not design, in this manner to reveal himself. As in the case of Gideon, so here, the deed is to show who the announcer was. Therefore, with fresh kindness, he gives him the name he bears. Angels on earth are always named from their mission and work. The Word of the New Covenant, likewise, when He became flesh, was called Christ Jesus, from his work. The angel in saying “Peli,” gave one of the names of God,—that name to which his work here testified ( ìַòֲùׂåֹú åּîַôְìִà ). Manoah received it as the name of a man, as later a man occurs named Pelaiah ( ôְּìָàéָä , Neh_8:7).
[Bush: The petition of Manoah reminds us also that the care of children is a great concern, and that those who have the parental relation in prospect can make no more suitable prayer at the throne of grace than that of the pious Danite on this occasion. Who upon the eve of becoming parents have not need to say, as said Manoah, “Teach us what we shall do to the child that shall be born.”—Bp. Hall: He that before sent his angel unasked, will much more send him again upon entreaty.—The same: We can never feast the angels better, than with our hearty sacrifices to God.—Bush (on Jdg_13:23): This was a just mode of arguing; for such mercies were both evidences and pledges of God’s love; and therefore were rather to be considered as earnests of future blessings, than as harbingers of ill. The woman in this showed herself not only the strongest believer, but the wisest reasoner. The incidents related may teach us, (1) That in times of dark and discouraging providences or sore temptations we should remember the past experience of God’s goodness as a ground of present support. “Account the long suffering of God to be salvation.” He that hath so kindly helped us and dealt with us hitherto, means not to destroy us at last. (2) That the sinner oppressed with a sense of his deserts has no reason to despair. Let him remember what Christ has done for him by his bloody sacrifice, and read in it a sure proof, that he does not design his death.—Tr.].
Footnotes:
[Jdg_13:8.— äַéּåּìָּã . This form may be the imperfect of pual, with the article used as a relative; but it is probably more correct, with Keil (after Ewald, 169 d), to regard it as the pual participle, the preformative î being fallen away. Even then, however, the more regular mode of writing would be äéֻּìָּã .—Tr.].
[Jdg_13:12.—Dr. Cassel renders the clause more literally: “What will be the manner of the boy, and his doing?” But the rendering of the E. V. correctly interprets the language of the original, and agrees with our author’s exposition. Whatever obscurity there may appear to be in Jdg_13:12, is removed by Jdg_13:8; for it is clear that the petition preferred in Jdg_13:12 can be no other than that made in Jdg_13:8. îִùְׁôַּè äַâַּòַø is the statute or precept (cf. the monastic term “rule”) to be observed with regard to the boy—the right treatment of him by his parents; and, similarly, îַòֲùׂäåּ is that which they are to do to him. The genitives are genitives of the object, cf. Ges. Gram. 114, 2; 121, ***—Tr.].
[Jdg_13:17.—“ îé ùְׁîֶêָ ; properly quis nomen tuum, equivalent to quis nominaris îִé asks after the person, îַä after the nature, the quality, see Ewald, 325 a.” (Keil).—Tr.].
åַéֶּòְúַּø , as in Gen_25:21; Exo_8:25.