Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 16:4 - 16:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_16:4-20.
[2 Jdg_16:9.— åְäָàִøֵá éùֵׁá ìָäּ áָּçֶãֶø : “and the lurker sat for her in the apartment.” In itself considered, àֹøֵá might be collective, as rendered by the E. V. (cf. Jdg_20:33); but, although other Philistines may have been near at hand, it would be difficult to conceal the presence in the room itself of more than one, and hence it would hardly be attempted, ìָäּ is dat. commodi. The rendering, “with her,” adopted also by Cassel (and De Wette), is not indeed impossible, but gives to ìְ a meaning which it rarely has, and which is here less suitable.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_16:18.—The reading ìִé of the keri is evidently the correct one, notwithstanding Keil’s remarks in favor of ìָäּ . Keil would make the clause a remark inserted by the narrator: “for he had showed her ( ìָäּ ) all his heart.”—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_16:19.— åַúְּâַìַּç : “and she shaved.” The piel is not causative here; compare the pual in Jdg_16:17. The E. V. seems to accept the interpretation of the Vulgate and Alex. Sept., which translate ìָàִéùׁ by “barber.” “The man” ( ìְäָàִéùׁ = ìָàִéּùׁ ) is probably the Philistine who was on duty at the time as “lurker;” and Delilah calls on him, in order to have somebody near to defend her should Samson wake during the shearing process. Cf. Keil.—Tr.]
[5 Jdg_16:20.— àִðָּòֵø : Dr. Cassel translates, will mich ermannen, “put on and assert my manhood.” He supposes Samson to see the Philistines, and to express his determination to give them battle as heretofore (see below). But not to say that ðִðְòַø will not bear this sense, it seems clear that the “other times” refer to the previous attempts of Delilah to master his secret.—Tr.]
By giving the name of the place where, and of the woman whom, Samson loved, the narrator already foreshadows the temptation into which he placed himself. The Nachal (Valley of) Sorek is evidently named after a variety of the grape—in appearance almost stoneless, yet provided with a soft stone, and productive of a precious red wine (cf. Jer_2:21; Isa_5:2)—which elsewhere gives the name Kischmi to an Arabian island (Ritter, xii. 452). Of the position of the Nachal Sorek we have no other tradition than that of Eusebius, who knew a place named Sorech (al. l. Barech), north of Eleutheropolis, in the vicinity of Zorah, the home of Samson. But this tradition can scarcely be accepted. For the place, judging from the connection of the narrative, cannot have been remote from Gaza (cf. Jdg_16:21). Nay, even the immediate connection of our narrative with the previous occurrence in Gaza, points to the vicinity of the latter city. Moreover, it is to be supposed that precisely in the region indicated by Eusebius, all Philistine supremacy was abrogated by the growing fear of Samson’s activity as Judge. Nor is it difficult to see that the tradition followed by Eusebius, connects itself with the exegesis of Jdg_13:25. It will therefore be an allowable conjecture, to assume as the theatre of the sad catastrophe which is now related, the present wretched village Simsim, whence the Wâdy (Nachal) Simsim, passed by the traveller on the way from Gaza to Ashkelon, where it debouches, derives its name (Ritter, vi. 68). It is remarkable that another, albeit in this respect erroneous tradition, led astray by the name Askulân, Ashkelon, has identified this wâdy with the brook Eshcol, which must indeed be sought near Hebron, but which likewise derived its name from the grapes of that region.
The name of the woman would not have been given by the narrator, had he not wished to intimate the same idea which R. Mair expressed (Sota, 9, 2; Jalkut, n. 70), when he remarked, that even if Delilah had not been her name, she might nevertheless properly be so called, because àú ëåäå ãéìãìä , “she debilitated his strength.” The form ãìãì (from Chaldee ãìì ) has clearly also given rise to the name ÄáëéäÜ , which is given to Delilah in the Septuagint and in many MSS. of Josephus, and which is therefore probably not a false reading. We meet also with a Greek female name Äáëßò , äáëßäïò . The name Delilah reminds us readily of the onomatopoetic German word ein-lullen [English, to lull asleep], Greek âáõêáëÜù (whence a proper name Âáýêáëïò ). Sensuality sings and lulls the manly strength of the hero to sleep. The voluptuous chiefs of the Philistines know this full well, and therefore they say:
Jdg_16:5. Persuade him, and see wherein his great strength lieth. Samson was no giant, coarse and elephantine, like a Cyclops; otherwise, they would have been at no loss to explain his strength. The shoulders on which he bore the gate-doors of Gaza were not sixty ells apart, as in the figurative expression of the Talmud. He was regularly built, although we may conceive of him as tall and stately; full of spirit, yet good-natured and kind, as the possessor of true divine genius always is.
But on this very account, because physically he did seem very different from themselves, and as they knew not the power of divine inspiration, they entertained the wide-spread superstition, still current in the East, that he had some occult means at his service, from which he derived his unusual strength. The expressions for amulets and charms for such and similar purposes, are still very numerous in the Persian and Arabic idioms. Rustem, according to the Iranian legend, could not have overcome Isfendiar, if he had not previously learned the charm which gave the latter his strength. Scandinavian mythology, also, puts Thor in possession of his highest strength, only when he puts on the girdle which assures it to him. Even in Germany, the superstition was prevalent until comparatively recent times, that persons had sometimes become “fearfully strong” through the use of demoniac flesh (Meier, Schwäb. Sagen, p. 111). In the year 1718 a person confessed that the devil had given him a receipt, in the possession of which he felt himself stronger than all other men (cf. Tharsander, Schauplatz unger. Meinungen, ii. 514 f.).
It was all important for the Philistines to learn Samson’s charm, in order to render it powerless. They hear of his love for Delilah. They were aware that before this the hero had failed to withstand the cajoleries of the woman he loved. In both earlier and later times, the orientals were conversant with the dangers which often arise to even the greatest heroes and kings, from their weakness toward women. Tradition and poetry are full of it. In the apocryphal Esdras (I. Esdras 4:26 f.) we read: “Many have gone out of their wits for women, and have become slaves on account of them. Many have perished, and erred, and sinned, by reason of women.” And the Turkish poet Hamdi says: “Brother, if thou comest to women, do not trust them. Women have deceived even prophets.” Though this be true, all women are not thereby defamed. Traitors like Delilah are only those who are such as she was, just as the only lovers of treason are cowardly men, like the Philistines, who dare not meet greatness openly.
And we will give thee eleven hundred pieces of silver each. It is a very mean trade that is here driven with the affections of Samson. It is an instance so deterrent, that it might well move deeply and instruct both young and old. The woman of Timnah betrayed Samson either from fear or from Philistine zeal: this one sells him for money; and the Philistines with whom she trades are very careful in making their promises. It is not enough, they stipulate, that she ascertains the secret; it must be such that use can be made of it, and that with the particular specified result. This carefulness shows that the cold-blooded Philistines knew with whom they had to do. So much the sadder is it to see Samson lavish caresses on such a woman. The sum for which Delilah consents to sell the hero is not insignificant. Since each of the princes promises 1,100 shekels of silver, and since, according to Jdg_3:3, the number of princes may be set down as five, the sum pledged amounted to 5,500 shekels, between 4,500 and 5,000 [Prussian] Reichsthaler [i. e., between 3,000 and 3,500 dollars].—Had Curius, the Roman, been less niggardly towards Fulvia, his scortum, the Catilinian conspiracy might perhaps have been more successful (Sallust, Catilina, 23).
Jdg_16:6-9. If they bind me with seven fresh cords. Delilah accepts the offers held out by treason, and begins to insinuate herself into Samson’s favor by inquiries about his strength. But Samson does not tell her the truth. Why not? Because from that moment he would have beer obliged to have nothing more to do with her. For her questions reminded him of the divine origin of his strength, which was not given for such a house, and which after a true answer could no longer be secure there. As soon as he told the truth, he must either depart or perish, separate from his charmer or suffer. The mediæval poetry in which heroes of superior origin live peaceably with women, but are obliged to separate from them as soon as these begin to inquire after their descent, represents the same thought in poetical garb. The wife’s questions, however, in these fictions, are not put with treasonable intent. They nevertheless drive the man away (cf. my work: Der Schwan, p. 21, etc.).
Want of confidence and national fellowship do not permit Samson to give the true answer to Delilah. But if these be wanting, how can he consort with her, even leaving her questions out of view? That this is not impossible, is but too plain; but the explanation of it is unpleasing. Samson, in his sensual sports, lays no claims to morality, and the heroism, in which he feels himself secure, sleeps under the pleasing sensations of the play. He would continue to divert himself, and therefore prefers not to tell the truth. In the “seven cords,” however, he already hints at the “seven locks” of his head. Here is the germ of his fall. He seeks to quiet Delilah by some sort of answer. Seven cords of animal tendons, not yet stretched (cf. Saalschütz, Archäologie, i. 141, note 8), are undoubtedly sufficient to render a strong man incapable of defending himself. It was an answer which Delilah might reasonably believe, while for himself it contained no danger; for who will put the cords on him, except by his own permission? Even when at a subsequent visit Delilah had the cords in readiness, and coaxed him to allow her to bind him with them, he could still consent to be passive. Had the Philistines actually attacked him, it would but have afforded him a desirable opportunity for an heroic feat. But the Philistines are careful, and keep at a distance until they see how the trial will end. When Delilah raises the cry of Philistines, Samson rends the cords asunder as so many threads of tow. He gave a proof of his strength, but gained no victory.
That which the principle of evil here attempts against the hero, Scandinavian mythology, in the Edda, represents inversely. The “Ases” (demigods) are afraid of the “Wolf” (the representative of evil). They persuade him to allow himself to be bound, in order to show his strength. He tears asunder one chain after another, until he is bound by means of a singular cord, whose symbolical sense makes it the same as that under which Samson succumbs: for it is the cord of sensuality.—It is a distorted form of our narrative which we find in the Slavic story of the strong son, who rends the rope in pieces, but succumbs under the thin string, which cuts into his flesh.
Jdg_16:10-12. If they bind me with new ropes with which no work was ever done. Samson’s contempt of the Philistines is so great, that he does not even become angry with Delilah, whose behavior nevertheless could not but appear suspicious to him. And she knows her power over him so well, that, after the ancient manner of women, she seeks to escape the reproaches which he might be expected to make against her, by anticipating them with her own against him. And that with all the brazen effrontery characteristic of women whose charms are great and whose hearts are bad. “I saw Apame,” it is said in the apocryphal Esdras (I. Esdras 4:29 ff.), “taking the crown from the king’s head, and striking him. If she laughs upon him, he laughs; if she is angry at him, he flatters her, that she may be reconciled to him.” Delilah, with treason in her heart, dares to tax Samson with falsehood. But she uses this feigned sensitiveness and her crocodile tears to renew her attempts to gain his secret and her reward. Still he does not tell her the truth; but yet she makes an advance towards her end. It could not be otherwise. For although Samson’s greatness only jests, it is nevertheless true that his godlike strength was not given for sport. The playfully received reproach that he had told her lies, drives him involuntarily a step nearer the truth which her demand profanes. Satan already draws his snares one stitch closer. For when he tells her that he can be bound by new cords “with which no work has been done,” the added qualification is not an empty and meaningless one. He was already once bound with “new cords” (Jdg_15:13), and set himself free. But the cords “with which no work has yet been done,” are an image of his strength; the hair of his head also is unprofaned—no razor has ever touched it. Strength and consecration were characteristic of the things yet uncontaminated by the uses and defilements of life. The vehicle on which the ark of God is transported must be drawn by animals never before yoked, and must itself be new. The Philistine diviners (1Sa_6:7) know this; the law of Israel also recognizes the principle, in its requirement that the red heifer of purification shall be one upon whom yoke never came (Num_19:2). Availing himself of this belief, Samson speaks of “new cords, which have never done service,” in order by this suggestion of special strength in them, to make his answer more credible, while it at the same time gives a reflection of the truth with regard to himself.
But the treason does not yet succeed. The Philistine spy, who is present but concealed ( áֶּçָãֶø , in the inner apartment), must for the second time depart, disappointed and gloomy. The cords fall from his arms like threads. It was for him but a pleasant pastime thus to give Delilah one more proof of his strength, hoping perhaps to deter her from further questioning. If he did believe this, it could only be in consequence of his magnificent confidence, which in the consciousness of strength verged toward weakness. But natures like Delilah’s do not relax: avarice and vexation urge them on. In the Old-French romance of Merlin, that wise man says that such women are, “hameçonsa prendre poissons enrivière, reths a prendre les oiseaulx a lapipée, rasouers tranchans et affilez.”
Jdg_16:13-14. If thou weavest the seven locks of my head into the web. He still conceals the truth; but also once more yields a step. The untruth constantly diminishes, the danger constantly increases. He thinks no longer of actual ropes; he speaks already of the locks of his head. Formerly, he hinted at them, under the figure of that which is untouched of labor, but named cords; now he names his hair, but does not yet speak of its untouched consecration. So organically does his own noble nature press him onward into the snares set for him by the reproaches and tears of the traitoress. As soon as he determined either to tell the truth, or not to tell it, he must break with the traitorous tempter, and part from her; and if he does not do this, it is precisely his ordinary, noble impulse toward truth, which even in jest and in the face of treason he cannot deny, that drives him on to destruction.
Expositors find the answer of Samson very difficult to be understood, but needlessly. Delilah had in her apartment a weaver’s loom, at which she worked. It was doubtless of the upright, primitive form. It is probable that the technical terms connected with the weaver’s art in Egypt were also prevalent on the Phœnician coast. Weaving women have also been found depicted on Egyptian monuments. The word îַñֶּëֶú signifies the web on the loom. Hesychius (cf. Schleusner, Thes. iii. 529) has a form ìÝóáêíïí , which is explained to mean “weaver’s-beam.” It is then added: “Some make it mean ἀíôßïí , others ìåóÜêôùí .” The latter word is manifestly îַñֶּëֶú , and the same as ìåóÜíôùí , which only the LXX. know, and is certainly not Greek, although ἀíôßïí occurs elsewhere. The Targum represents it by îַùְׁúֵּéúָà , which is evidently derived from the same technical expression. Delilah is to work the hair of Samson, who places himself near the loom, into her web as woof. This could only be done from above. Herodotus (ii. 35) informs us, that the Egyptians, unlike other nations, inserted the woof, not from below upward, but from above downward. Samson’s locks were long enough to form a close and perfect web; for it is added that she also struck in the éָúֵã , the batten, in order to show that it was a regular piece of weaving. éָúֵã is what Homer calls the êåñêßò , staff, equivalent to our “batten.” The Greek êåñêßò , also, means a pin, nail, just as the Hebrew éָúֵã does elsewhere. During the weaving, Samson had fallen asleep. Had he been unable to extricate his hair, he would at least have been unfree in his movements. But at the cry “Philistines!” he awakes. He gives one wrench, and the web tears, the batten shoots out, and the seven locks are free. They are called îִçְìָôåֹú , a word found only here. It comes from çָìַó , not, however, from that which means “to change,” but from the equivalent of ðëÝêù , with which, consonant changes being taken into account, it is identical ( ôìê = ôìç = çìó = ðëÝêù ). The ðëüêáìïé , locks, are seven, in accordance with the sacred number of perfection and consecration. Delilah finds herself deceived for the third time. The Philistines become impatient and dubious. No mention is made this third time of a spy, awaiting the issue of the trial. Even the second time, it is not stated, as at the first attempt, that the Philistines brought her the cords. The woman sees herself defrauded of her large gains, and turned into a laughing-stock besides. She therefore brings everything to bear to overcome the hero. She employs all her arts to torment him. He does not love her—has no heart for her—has deceived her: such is the gamut on which her tears and prayers are pitched. In point of fact, the three-fold reproach is a threefold injustice. The three answers he has given, looked at carefully, form as it were an enigma, in which the truth lies concealed: in the first, the “seven;” in the second, the “consecration;” in the third, the “locks.” He is really too great to lie; and therefore he falls a victim. Had he only lied thoroughly, lied once more, he had been free. The Philistines would not have returned; Delilah would have ceased. But Samson’s history is a finished tragedy. He falls by reason of his greatness, which hinders him from avoiding the thrust of the serpent whom he has once suffered to approach his heel.
Samson’s pliableness has met with sufficiently frivolous apprehension. “Strong Samson,” says Rousseau (Emile, ed. 1782, iii. p. 200), “was not so strong as Delilah.” This is erroneous. It was because he was so strong and Delilah so weak, that he fell. He stumbled over an opponent who was too little to contend with. Rousseau compares him with Hercules in his relations to Omphale. This also is incorrect. That myth is nothing but a representation of the sun, who as hero descends into the lap of repose. It has no dramatico-historical interest. Omphale makes no demand of anything with which the prosperity and freedom of a nation are connected. Nor is it more correct to look for analogies among the tasks which, in tradition and poetry, are imposed on lover-heroes by their mistresses. Those are mere trials of strength, without moral character. The historian of the Incas says, panegyrically, of Huayna Capac, one of the last monarchs of Peru (died 1525), that “he was never known to refuse a woman, of whatever age or degree she might be, any favor that she asked of him” (Prescott, Peru, i. 339, note). Samson had certainly refused Delilah, had he not been so great in his strength, so unique in his manifestation, so elevated above his time, so true even in evasion, so earnest in sport. The weakness of Pericles for Aspasia, even if not without influence on affairs of state, was not dramatic—for they mutually valued each other; but Samson’s love is tragic, because the play in which in his greatness he indulges, causes his feet to slide on account of it.
Jdg_16:15-16. And his soul was vexed unto death. If Samson remained, he must succumb. The national hero of Israel who cannot separate himself from a Philistine woman, must fall. In vain has he sought three times to put her off with a jest. The avarice and knavery of such women are not to be escaped from by witty turns. She knows that at last he cannot hide the truth from her. Precisely his greatness and fearlessness enable her to compass his destruction. He remains; and she does not cease her efforts, until at last he is wearied of her ceaseless teazing ( åַúְּàַìֲöäåּ ). She bored him to death ( åַúִּ÷ְöַø åַôִùׂåֹ ) with tears and reproaches. He wished to have rest—and to remain; nothing was left, therefore, but to grant her wish. Such is the philosophy of many husbands who yield to women ambitious of rule. To be sure, they are their wives, before God and men, and the danger is not always so great as here. Samson, although he remains, finds himself so plagued, that in order to quiet Delilah, everything else is indifferent to him. He determines to tell her the true reason of his great strength. But will she not wish to test the truth of what he tells her? and will he not thereby lose his strength? He considers it not. But this strength which he puts in jeopardy, it is not his own possession? He does not reflect. It was given him for the freedom of his people against the Philistines. But he will tell her the truth, come what may, in order to have peace. Delilah had doubtless promised him not to abuse his secret. He believes her promise, if only he can silence her. He was wearied to death, so that his courage, the freshness of his mind, and his passion for victory were benumbed—and all that, when one step out of her house would have set him free! Abstinence unfolded his strength: Delilah in the Wine-Valley (Nachal Sorek) put it to sleep. When he killed lions, he was full of happiness and relish for life: now, he is wearied unto death. In Timnah, his wife betrays him, and affords him an opportunity for a glorious victory: now, he betrays himself, and falls.
Jdg_16:17. If I be shaven, then my strength will go from me. Expositors, from the earliest ages down, have here made mention of the Greek myth of king Nisus of Megara, and have even regarded it as a disfigurement of what is stated here. But on closer inspection of the sources whence we derive our knowledge of the Greek myth, the greater part of the analogy which it seems to offer with our narrative falls away, and the idea from which it springs is seen to be very different. It is nowhere stated that Nisus would lose his dominion if his hair were shaved off; but only that on his gray head there grew a single purple hair, with which his fortune was connected (Apollod. xv. Judges 2 : ðïñöõñÝáí ἐí ìåóῃ ôῇ êåöáëῇ ôñß÷á ; cf. Ovid, Metam. viii. Judges 8 : “Splendidus (crinis) ostro inter honoratos medio de vertice canos.”) It is true that his daughter betrayed him; but that was not his fault. Not he, but his daughter, was blinded by sensual love for the enemy. The principal idea, the weakness of Samson himself, is wholly unrepresented. Why only the purple hair contained this fiducia magni regni, we are not informed. But it must probably be explained by the assumption of some connection with the purple light of the Sun, and the vast knowledge which that deity was supposed to possess—thus making it a pledge of wisdom rather than strength; for Nisus was no Hercules. This view is corroborated by the different turn given to the idea in popular traditions. For just as Christianity portrayed the devil as one who arrogates the power and appearance of the light, and presents himself as an angel of light, so popular conceptions have represented him with a cock’s feather, as the symbol of light, and from a kindred point of view, have invented the charm of “golden devil’s-hairs” to attain to universal knowledge (cf. my Eddischen Studien, p. 86). In all this there is no resemblance to the life-like, historical picture here drawn of Samson. Still, it cannot be denied that the Biblical narrative has apparently furnished the basis of many superstitious distortions, however coarse most of them may be. Among these the case of Apollonius of Tyana, whom Domitian caused to be shaved, is not to be reckoned, however; for that was probably only designed to inflict dishonor. But it is not delusive to find one of them in the opinion that magicians and witches were insensible to torture, until the hair had been shaven from the whole body—an opinion which led to many detestable proceedings, but was also speedily condemned by many (cf. Martin Delrio, Disquis. Magicœ, lib. v. § 9, pp. 764 f., ed. Cöln. 1679; Paulini (1709), Philosoph. Luststunden, ii. 169; Schedius, De Diis Germanis (1728), p. 388).
Jdg_16:18. And Delilah, saw that he had told her all his heart. Old Jewish expositors say that she knew this because “words of truth are readily recognizable,” and because she felt sure that he would not “take the name of God in vain.” She followed up her discovery with proceedings sufficiently satanical. She at once sent to the Philistine chiefs to request them to visit her once more. This time he had undoubtedly opened his heart to her. She did not, however, intoxicate him, and proceed to her work, before they came. They must first bring the money with them. As for them, they soon made their appearance, and, concealed from Samson, awaited her call.
Jdg_16:19. And his strength went from him. As soon as the seven locks of his head had fallen, he ceased to possess the superhuman strength which had hitherto resided in him. But in the beginning of his history, in the annunciation of his birth and character to his parents, it is not intimated that by reason of the hair which no razor was to touch, he should possess such strength. Nor is it anywhere mentioned that Samson, the child, was already in possession of this giant strength, as soon as his hair had grown long. On the contrary, it is said, “And Jehovah blessed him.” Had it been his long hair that made him so strong, there would have been no necessity for the Spirit of Jehovah to “come upon him,” when he was about to perform some great deed for which the occasion presented itself. What sort of strength his long locks, as such, could give him, is clearly seen when nothing but God’s intervening help saves him from perishing through thirst. The growth of the unshaven hair on the head of a Nazarite, was only a token of his consecration, not the consecration itself. Similarly, the seven locks of Samson were only the sign of his strength, not the strength itself. The strength of Samson depended, not on the external locks, but on the consecration of which they were the symbol. Hence, he needed God’s help and Spirit, and received his strength not because of his long hair, but because of his vocation. For God’s nearness is granted not to all whose hair is long, but only to those devoted to his service. But just as in Israel he ceased to be a Nazarite who shaved his hair, so Samson’s consecration departed from him when he removed its sign. When he failed to withstand Delilah, he surrendered not so much his hair, as his divine consecration. He denies his election to be a “Nazir of God,” when he gives his hair to profanation. His consecration was broken, for he voluntarily allowed it to be profaned by the hands of the Philistine woman; his courage was broken, for he had done what he would not do; his joyousness was broken, when he yielded with half his heart, wearied, and in conflict with himself; his conscience was broken, and would not be drowned in the intoxication of Sorek-grapes; his manhood is broken, for he is no longer a whole man who, in a waking dream, betrays the sanctuary and glory of his life to the enemy: in a word, his strength is broken; and of all this, his fallen locks are not the cause, but the sign. The departure of his strength is not an externally caused, but an inwardly grounded moral result. Virgil says (Æneid, iv. 705) that the real life flame (calor) of the deceased Dido ceased to exist only with the severing of the hair from her head. This idea, raised into the sphere of moral truth, applies to Samson. His long hair was no amulet, conditioning the enjoyment of the Spirit of God—for without it the Spirit rested on Gideon and Jephthah, filling them with heroic virtue; but when, with a restless heart, he consciously threw himself and his people, for wine and love, into the power of the harlot, he became a broken hero. Since he himself says, and fully believes, that his strength is in his hair, and nevertheless gives himself up, it is evident that a breach has opened between his passions and his reason; and this breach made him a broken man. This moral rupture distinguishes Samson’s fall from similar histories. The legend concerning Sheikh Shehabeddin, in the “Forty Viziers” (ed. Behrnauer, p. 25) is in many respects shaped after the catastrophe of Samson; but the arts by which he escapes from the Sultan who persecutes him, are those of magic. When a woman finally persuades him to betray his secret, it turns out that it consists only in certain external washings. All moral interest is wanting, both in the attack and in the defense. The Siegfried legend in the Nibelungen is more beautiful. The wounded part of the hero is also entirely external; but its betrayal is wrought by love, not by malice. Chriemhild, from love to her husband, becomes the discloser of his weakness, which a man betrays. In Slavic (cf. Wenzig, p. 190) and North German legends (cf. Müllenhoff, p. 406) magicians and strong persons do not carry their hearts about with them, but keep them wonderfully concealed. It is only by women’s arts that opponents ascertain where it is. The primitive, moral ideas contained in these legends, are disfigured under the wrappings of childish distortions.
Jdg_16:20. And she said, The Philistines are upon thee! In previous trials, cords and weaver’s loom had shown Delilah and her confederates the unimpaired condition of Samson’s strength. This time, rendered confident by Delilah’s word, the Philistine chiefs are themselves present. Samson rises, reeling, from sleep, sees the thick crowd, and, thinking that everything is as formerly, says: “I will go out to battle as at other times!” He suits the action to the word—but—
He wist not that Jehovah was departed from him. Appropriately does the narrator substitute “Jehovah” here for “strength,” thus confirming what has been remarked above. The Spirit of strength, consecration to God, integrity of soul, the fullness of enthusiasm, the joyousness of the unbroken heart, were no longer his. This is already apparent from the fact that he did not know that God had left him. Whoever has God, knows it; whomsoever He has left, knows it not. When he was near his end, he could pray; but now, in his state of semi-intoxication and intellectual obscuration, he can neither fight as formerly, nor call on God, and so—he falls.
It is not a beautiful comparison which is sometimes instituted between Delilah and Judas the traitor. For Samson was in fault, and Delilah was a Philistine. The woman is more excusable than the disciple who rose against his pure Master. But Samson is the type of all such children of men as know God, praise his grace, pray to Him, derive strength and love from Him, and yet fall. Sin is the ever present Delilah, who caused David, the Singer, to fall, and brought him to tearful repentance. Samson himself, rather than Delilah, was for a moment the traitor, who delivered the honor of his Lord to the insults of the enemy. Let no one think that he can safely enter danger. Pride goes before a fall. Self-confidence comes to a bad end; only confidence in God conducts through temptation. It is very proper to pray: Lord, lead me not into temptation; but very far from proper to enter into it of one’s own free-will.
The lust of the eyes is not guiltless. It is the gate to the most carnal desires. Sin always tortures, even as Delilah tortured Samson. It is never wearied in its efforts to induce virtue to betray itself. Flee, if thou canst not withstand! To flee from sin is heroism. Had Samson but run away from Delilah, as a coward runs, he had surely smitten the Philistines. Every lapse into sin must be repented of. None of us have aught wherein to glory, but all stand in need of repentance. When Saul recognized his sin in having persecuted Jesus, he became blind. But soon he saw, like Samson, no one but his Saviour.
“Make me blind,
So I but see thee, Saviour kind.”
Starke: Even great and holy persons may fall into gross sins, if they do not watch over themselves.—The same: To uncover our whole heart to God is our duty, but we are not bound to do it to our fellow-men.—The same: In the members with which men sin against God, they are also usually punished by God.—Gerlach: Samson thinks to hold as his own, and to use as he pleases, that which was only lent to him, and of the borrowed nature of which his Nazaritic distinction continually reminded him. It is thus that he prepares his deep fall for himself.—[Wordsworth: Samson replied to Delilah’s temptations by three lies; Christ replied to the devil’s temptation by three sayings from the Scripture of truth.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_16:7.— éְúָøִéí ìַçִéí : literally, “moist cords or strings.” Keil: “ éֶúֶø means string, e. g., of a bow, Psa_11:2, and in Arabic and Syriac both bow-string and guitar-string. Now since the éְúָøִéí are here distinguished from the òֲáֹúִéí , ropes (Jdg_16:11). the former must be understood of animal tendons or gut-strings.” It is certainly in favor of this view that the éְúָøִéí are to be “moist,” as also that it makes a strong and climactic distinction between åְúָøִéí and òֲáֹúִéí . Compare the rendering of the LXX.: íåõñáῖò ῦãñáῖò .—Tr.]
[Jdg_16:9.— åְäָàִøֵá éùֵׁá ìָäּ áָּçֶãֶø : “and the lurker sat for her in the apartment.” In itself considered, àֹøֵá might be collective, as rendered by the E. V. (cf. Jdg_20:33); but, although other Philistines may have been near at hand, it would be difficult to conceal the presence in the room itself of more than one, and hence it would hardly be attempted, ìָäּ is dat. commodi. The rendering, “with her,” adopted also by Cassel (and De Wette), is not indeed impossible, but gives to ìְ a meaning which it rarely has, and which is here less suitable.—Tr.]
Jdg_16:18.—The reading ìִé of the keri is evidently the correct one, notwithstanding Keil’s remarks in favor of ìָäּ . Keil would make the clause a remark inserted by the narrator: “for he had showed her ( ìָäּ ) all his heart.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_16:19.— åַúְּâַìַּç : “and she shaved.” The piel is not causative here; compare the pual in Jdg_16:17. The E. V. seems to accept the interpretation of the Vulgate and Alex. Sept., which translate ìָàִéùׁ by “barber.” “The man” ( ìְäָàִéùׁ = ìָàִéּùׁ ) is probably the Philistine who was on duty at the time as “lurker;” and Delilah calls on him, in order to have somebody near to defend her should Samson wake during the shearing process. Cf. Keil.—Tr.]
[Jdg_16:20.— àִðָּòֵø : Dr. Cassel translates, will mich ermannen, “put on and assert my manhood.” He supposes Samson to see the Philistines, and to express his determination to give them battle as heretofore (see below). But not to say that ðִðְòַø will not bear this sense, it seems clear that the “other times” refer to the previous attempts of Delilah to master his secret.—Tr.]
Cf. Bamidbar Rabba, § 9, p. 194 b.
ñֶøֶï , ñְøָðִéí : probably etymologically connected with the Greek è ́ ñáíí - ïò . The Targum translates èåּøְðֵé .
The Targum speaks of 1,100 silver silin ( ñִìְòִéï , from ñֶìָò ). On the relation of the sela to the shekel, cf. my “Jüdische Geschichte,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklopadie, p. 30.
[Compare Jos., Ant. v. 8, 11—Tr.]
[Dr. Cassel assumes all through the present discussion that Delilah was a Philistine woman. He is probably correct, cf. Smith’s Bible Dict., art. “Delilah.” Wordsworth, however, who regards her as “a light, venal woman of Samson’s own tribe,” makes a suggestion worthy of consideration on the other side. “Hence,” he says (namely, she being an Israelitess), “she professed love for Samson, when she said, ‘The Philistines’ (mine enemies as well as thine) ‘are upon thee, Samson.’ He was the more easily caught in the snare because he could not imagine that a woman of Israel would betray him.”—Tr.]
Mediæval superstition reproduces this also. Cloths are required for alchemistic purposes which have been finished by “undefiled persons.”
àָìַõ occurs only here; cf. ἅëãïò , ἀëãýíù . Similar is àåּìְöָï , hunger.
In the Middle Ages it was believed that she had stupified him by means of opium. This view transmitted itself even into the “Chronicon Engelhusii,” in Leibnitz, Script. Rev. Brunsvic. Illustr. Inserv. ii. Judges 989: “Samson opio potatus,” etc.
Cf. Hyginus, Fab. Judges 198: purpureum crinem. Virgil, Ciris, 16:121: Candida cæsaries.… et roseus medio fulgebat vertice crinis. The “golden hairs” of Schwarz (Urspr. der Mythol. p. 144) are therefore to be corrected as also Bertheau’s “protecting hair.”
Such is also the Roman Catholic representation found in Bergier, Dict. Theologique, p. Judges 635: “La conservation de ***ves cheveux était la condition de ce privilège comme la marque de son nazaréat, mais nullement la cause de sa force surnaturelle.”
Cf. Bamidbar Rabba, § 14. p. 214 d.