Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 14:10 - 14:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_14:10-14.
And Samson made there a feast; for such is the custom of young men. He did not take her with him into his father’s house, after the marriage was settled, but remained in Timnah, and there gave the feast. Among the Philistines it was customary for the bridegroom ( áָּçåּø ) to arrange the banquet. At the wedding of Cana, also, described by St. John (Jdg_2:10), the bridegroom seems to have been the entertainer. But this was not the case when Laban gave his daughter to Jacob, or when Tobias married the daughter of Raguel (Tob_8:19). In those instances, the parents of the bride give the feast.
Marriage feasts were much liked among all nations. When, in the Odyssey (4:3), Telemachus comes to king Menelaus, the latter is just celebrating the nuptial feasts of his children. Among the Romans, the name repotia was in use for the entertainments which (according to Festus) were given on the day after the marriage at the new husband’s house (cf. Horace, Sat. ii. 60). Plutarch makes the question, Why even law-givers have appointed a certain degree of luxury to be observed in connection with such feasts, a subject of discussion in his Symposium (lib. iv. quæJames 3). Samson’s marriage-celebration lasted seven days. The parents-in-law of Tobias, in their joy, appropriated fourteen days. But down to late times luxury and sensuality are more characteristic of such feasts than is compatible with their proper observance. Neither the spirit of Samson, nor the piety of Tobias fills and governs them, albeit in some instances the duration of those ancient celebrations may be rivaled. We hardly seem to have taken a long leap backward, when in the fourteenth century we hear it provided by the Ravensburg Regulation concerning weddings, that “the nuptial celebration shall only last till the next day, no longer” (Birlinger, Volksthümliches, ii. 399); or when, in 1643, the Würtzburg bishop, John Philip, orders that the custom of protracting banquets through three days be discontinued, “as a useless and hurtful expense” (Schaltjahr, i. 445). For even in our day, like excesses occur, wherever there is money and wantonness. So late as ten years ago, it was stated that in Swabia the feasting attendant upon a village wedding still frequently lasted from four to five days (Meier, Schwab. Sagen, p. 479).
Jdg_14:11. And when they saw him, they chose thirty companions, who were with him. A bridegroom is like a king’s son. His wedding is his coronation. Hence, also, crown and chaplet are not wanting for the wedded pair. For the same reason they have also a following. These are ancient, universally diffused ideas, which it would lead us too far to collect together from all nations and languages. In comparatively recent times, the Jews have minutely traced the analogy of the bridegroom with the king, through all the customs pertaining to them respectively, even to the point of calling attention to the fact that çָúָï and îֶìֶêְ have each three letters. (On the proofs that çúï ãåîä ìîìê , compare the liturgical works, of which Tania, ed. Cremona, 1565, p. 130, and Taschbaz, of R. Meier of Rotenburg, p. 45, may here be especially cited.)
Accordingly, the ëִּÎְàåֹúí , “when they saw him,” is to be so understood, that when Samson appeared, i. e. publicly, both at the time of the marriage, concerning the manner of which nothing is said, and during the seven festive days, it was always with a retinue of thirty companions, somewhat as in our day brides are still attended by suites of bridesmaids.
åַéּ÷ְçåּ , and they chose. It was customary, no doubt, when a daughter or son of the city was married, for the bridegroom to provide himself with a retinue. As Samson was a stranger, his bride and her father told him whom to invite, and therefore the writer says “they chose.” The number of young men chosen was thirty. Samson’s parents seem to have been in good circumstances, and hence the bridegroom appeared not without splendor, as the giver of a seven days’ feast. That thirty was the unvarying number, cannot be maintained. The ancients had a philosophical number, which they called the “wedding,” and which consisted of five or six. (Both chosen on account of their being formed from 2 × 3 and 2 + 3, one even, the other odd.) But 5 × 6 is also = 30. In later times, also, the Jews had many brides’-men. In Worms, their number had been restricted to eight. The later Jews called such a brides’-man ùùáéï , which term does not, however, come from the Syriac, as Sachs thought (Beiträge, i. 82), but is only the Hebraized form of sponsor (otherwise auspex, paranymphios, cf. Mat_9:15).—The idea of Josephus, which Bertheau adopts, that the thirty young men were to watch Samson, is to be rejected. For, in the first place, nothing was as yet known concerning Samson that could render him so seriously suspected; and, in the next place, it is manifest from Jdg_14:15, that they were invited on the part of the bridegroom himself.
Jdg_14:12-13. I will put forth a riddle unto you. The custom of propounding riddles for amusement is very ancient. The acuteness which exercised itself therein, was, as it were, the counterpart of that which invented the language of figure, signs, and symbols. For it brought to light again the secrets which the latter had locked up. “In ancient times,” says Plutarch, “the Greeks were already in the habit of propounding riddles to each other.” It is related of the maiden Cleobuline, the daughter of a wise man, that she was so ingenious, as to play with riddles as if they were dice, propounding or solving them with equal ease. The banquet of the seven wise men, in Plutarch, shows the high estimation in which the diversion was held; and Cleodemus, the physician, who was unskillful at solving riddles, is not unaptly rebuked by Æsop, for holding such occupation to be suitable only for girls when engaged in knitting girdles and hoods, but not for intelligent men. Athenæus, also, in his work (pp. 453–459), cites large extracts from the book of Clearchus on riddles, and adds, “that the unraveling of such riddles is very similar to the pursuit of philosophy, and that therefore their solution, as a sign of wisdom, is held in favor, and deemed an appropriate mode of entertainment at table.” We, however, pass by these examples from Clearchus, not only because they were already brought to the notice of expositors by Bochart, but especially because in the case of Samson’s riddle the real stake at issue is higher than a garland for the winner, or the drinking of a forfeit-cup by the loser. It evokes a stern conflict.
Then I will give you thirty garments ( ñְãִéðִéí ) and thirty changes of raiment ( çֲìִéôֹú áְּâָãִéí ). With this explanation, the more recent expositors would probably agree. By a “change” of raiment we are to understand a dress of state—a Sunday suit, as we would say—for which the every-day dress may be exchanged on festive occasions. The Targum, however, has another explanation, which deserves to be mentioned. Like the Septuagint and Josephus, it translates çֲìִéôֹú (changes) by àöèìéú , óôüëç ; assuming thereby for çָìó , a signification which indeed it sometimes seems to have, namely, to fight, to wound (Sept ðáôÜóóåéí , ôéôñþóêåéí ). For óôüëç is the classical term for a soldier’s dress. In like manner, it translates ñְãִéðִéí by ôìãñéí , i. e. balteus, the girdle or belt which the soldier buckled around his body (cf. 2Ki_5:23).—It was thus no small price that was put upon the solution of the riddle. But in other cases also it was probably not unusual for large sums to be staked. Thus, if we are to believe Dius, quoted by Josephus (Antiq. viii. 5, 3; cf. Jablonski, Pantheon Ægypt., Proleg., p. cxiv), Solomon and Hiram lost a great deal of money to each other. Plutarch relates how that the Ethiopian king staked many cities and villages on a riddle propounded to Amasis, and would have won them, had not the philosophical Bias come to the aid of the Egyptian monarch. It was in consequence of solving a riddle that the legendary Persian hero was permitted to marry Rudabe, the mother of Rustem. According to ancient Scandinavian law, criminals could save themselves from death by means of a riddle (Olin Dalin, Gesch. Schwedens, German, i. 155). The same idea occurs in German riddle-books (Simrock, Räthselbuch, p. 463; Menzel, d. Dichtung, i. 427).—King Heidrik in Ridgotland had a severe war with Gester Blinde, king in Gothland. Finally, he challenged him to solve riddles. The latter invoked Odin, and conquered (Olin Dalin, i. 186).
Jdg_14:14. Out of the consumer came material for consumption, and out of the terrible came sweetness. The translator must take care not to destroy the ambiguity of the term àֹëֵì , consumer. For this reason, the rendering of De Wette and Arnheim, “vom Fresser kommt Frass” [from the feeder comes feed], is not good; for, on the one hand, Frass [feed, a term used only for the food of beasts] is not applicable to the honey which is meant, and on the other hand, human beings [do not feed, but] eat. Ewald’s rendering, “aus dem Esser kam ein Essen” [out of the eater came an eating, i. e. something eatable], is unsuitable, because the lion, who is meant, is not an Esser, eater, nor yet as Bertheau renders, a Speiser [both terms being used of human beings only]. Equally erroneous is it to translate òַæ by “sour.” For the antithesis between this word and îָúåֹ÷ is here to be taken in a wider sense, so as to give rise to a second equivoque; for îָúåִֹ÷ means not only “sweet,” but metaphorically also “pleasant,” agreeable. The ingenuity of the riddle consists precisely in this, that the ambiguity both of its language and contents can be turned in every direction, and thus conceals the answer. It is like a knot whose right end cannot be found,—a figure from which the sense of the Hebrew çåּã , to propose a riddle, as also that of the Greek ãñῖöïò (cf. ãñῖðïò , the braided fishing net), is doubtless to be derived. The Gordian knot was likewise an emblematical riddle. Samson’s problem distinguishes itself only by its peculiar ingenuity. It is short and simple, and its words are used in their natural signification ( àֹëֵì is to consume, in general, without regard to the specific form or nature of the consumption, and òַæ is terrible, as “the strong one,” whether in a good or evil sense, always is). It is so clear as to be obscure. It is not properly liable to the objection, that it refers to an historical act which no one could know. The act is one which was natural in that country. Its turning-point, with reference to the riddle, was, not that it was an incident of Samson’s personal history, but that its occurrence in general was not impossible.
The ingenuity of the riddle shows itself further in that it applies equally well both to an historical occurrence and a mere abstract conception. This was a characteristic of ancient popular riddles in general, and indicates their origin. Just as it was an art to represent historical facts symbolically by pictures (of which the modern rebus is an insipid distortion), so it was an art out of such abstractions to disinter an historical fact. Most popular riddles call for the exercise of this art. The instance showing most likeness to the riddle proposed by Samson, is found in a story current in North Germany, and communicated by Müllenhoff (Sagen, p. 504): A man was condemned to death. His wife intercedes for him. The judges offer to let him go, if she can propose a riddle which they shall not be able to solve. The woman says:—
“ As ik hin güng, as ik wedder kam,
Den Lebendigen ik uet den Doden nam.
Süss (Sechs) de güngen de Saewten (den Siebenten) quitt,
Raet to, gy Herren, nu ist Tyt.”
The woman had found the carcass of a horse by the way, and in it a bird’s-nest, and in the nest six young birds. The six young ones she took with her, whereby these became quit of the seventh; and thus she had taken the living out of the dead. It went with the wise judges even as it did with the proud Philistines—they guessed nothing.
Footnotes:
[Jdg_14:12.— ñְãִéðִéí . Dr. Cassel translates this word by the general term Gewande, garments. He apparently considers the only distinction between the ñְãִðִéí and the çֲìִôֹú áְּéָãִéí , to be that between common and more costly garments (see below). But the ñְãִéðִéí are probably under-garments, tunicœ, shirts, made of a fine linen. The derivation of the word ñָãִéï , and whether it be related to the Greek óßíäùí (Sept.), can hardly be determined.—Tr.]
Quibus parere necesse est.
Because she was an alien. He does not impose upon his father’s house that in which he allows himself. That would have been an insult to the law and customs of Israel.
“An after drinking.” The Sept. renders îִùְׁúֶּä (Jdg_14:10) by ðüôïò , a drinking.
Cf. Jalkut, Shophetim, n. 70, p. 11 c.
Cf. Plutarch, on the doctrine of the Timœus concerning the origin of souls.
[That is, a cup of unmixed wine, or of wine mixed with salt-water, to be emptied at one draught. See Smith’s Dict. Antiq., s. v. “Symposium.” It will be remembered that the Greeks always mingled water with their wine. They considered it not only unhealthy, but barbarous, to drink clear wine, which may suggest an explanation of the above-mentioned penalty.—Tr.]
[In German, the act of eating on the part of beasts is called fressen; on the part of human beings, essen or speisen. The nearest approach we have to this distinction in English is between feeding and eating.—Tr.]
[“As I came along, I took the living out of the dead; six got quit of the seventh; guess away, my masters, now is the time.”—Tr.]