As he approached his home the maidens of the town came forth, according to the custom of the time, to greet the mighty man of valour with songs and dances. In this way, Miriam and the women of Israel had celebrated the destruction of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20); and later, David’s victories over the Philistines were acclaimed in the same fashion (1 Sam. 18:6).

But now, to his consternation and grief, Jephthah beheld amongst them his own daughter, and he who should have been enjoying the victor’s triumph rent his clothes: “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.”

However Jephthah’s vow be understood, that last phrase shows what a sterling character he was. “I cannot go back!” Come what may, his vow to God must be performed. Jephthah swore to his own hurt, and changed not. “He that doeth these things shall never be moved.” For this Jephthah’s name is inscribed in the Lord’s “roll of honour” in Hebrews 11 amongst those who glorified God by their faith.

More than one view possible

The question of the fate of Jephthah’s daughter as a result of the vow he made unto the Lord is probably the most discussed problem in the Book of Judges. Traditionally the vow of Jephthah has been taken as meaning exactly what it says. Nevertheless there are those who believe that Jephthah’s daughter was not slain and burnt on an altar, but that she was dedicated to life-long service of God in connection with the tabernacle. This latter conclusion has the weight of evidence behind it. It is those who believe that the maiden became a burnt offering who are faced with difficulties.

First, it is tolerably clear that Jephthah was expecting to have to give to God, in fulfilment of his vow, a person and not an animal; or to be more precise, both a person and a burnt offering. His words were: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me….shall surely be the Lord’s.” There is no point in stressing “whatsoever (as distinct from whomsoever) cometh forth”: the word “whatsoever” is a Hebrew masculine, for in such a sentence the masculine would cover all genders.

But what animal might come to meet Jephthah? The only animals that might be offered as a burnt offering were sheep, goats, bullocks, and (for the very poorest of the people) pigeons. Would Jephthah be expecting to be met by any of these? The only animal that might conceivably go out to meet him would be a favourite hound, and that would certainly not make an acceptable offering to the Lord.

What possible burnt offering?

In any case, Jephthah’s vow manifestly signified something of considerable value in his eyes — a real sacrifice, in the modern sense of the world.

Since, from the very nature of the vow, it must refer to someone over whom Jephthah had full control, the possibilities are limited to two: a favourite slave, or servant, or his only daughter.

Consequently, the conclusion becomes inevitable that Jephthah was vowing unto God someone for whom he would have real affection, someone whose loss he would mourn bitterly. His vow was a vow worth making. It honoured God by an offering that was by no means inconsiderable.

Once this vow is thus seen in its true perspective, all other details begin to fall into place.

Difficulties to be considered

It has already been seen that Jephthah was no uncouth desperado, but — like the outlaw David — a devout man well-schooled in the Scriptures. He would therefore be no stranger to such passages as the following: “Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:21).

“Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods” (Deut. 12:30,31).

“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch” (Deut. 18:10).

Then is it possible that such a man as Jephthah would even consider making a human sacrifice? Is it likely that having just returned from the slaughter of the Ammonites (whose god had been unable to deliver or prosper them), he would then proceed to imitate the rites of Molech, the god of Ammon, which were utterly forbidden to Israel?

Again, let it be supposed that Jephthah had sought to offer his daughter as a burnt-offering. This could be done only at the altar of the Lord, and through the ministration of a priest — and what priest would condone or assist such a flagrant breach of Levitical precept?

And, if the maiden were to die as a sacrifice, would it not be an intensely unnatural thing for her to spend the last two months of her life away from her father who loved her so much?

It needs to be recognized also that the vowing of persons to God was a perfectly normal matter in the life of Israel; the Law made provision for such acts of exceptional piety: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation” (Lev. 27:2). A commutation price, differing for males and females and according to the age of the person vowed unto the Lord, might be paid. In the case of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty, this payment was fifty shekels (for a working man, more than a year’s wages?).

Evidently then, the vow took the form of consecrating, in effect, the labour value of the person vowed. The practical result, in most instances, would be for the commutation price to be paid and the life of the individual concerned would proceed normally.

But, it has been claimed, the same scripture requires the actual sacrifice of such as Jephthah’s daughter: “Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold, or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; abut all shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 27:18,19).

To apply these words to the question under discussion is to confuse two very different things, namely (1) that which is vowed; and (2) the devoted thing (Hebrew “cherem”; e.g., Josh. 6:17,18 s.w.).

Whereas there was always optional redemption of a vow by means of a money payment, the cherem — nearly always associated with what was taken in war — normally meant utter destruction (something akin to whole burnt offering). Jephthah’s vow was the former of these. Lev. 27:18,19 describes the latter.

Fulfilment of a vow

There were instances, like Hannah’s vowing of her son unto the Lord “all the days of his life”, when advantage of the commutation arrangement was not taken. This is what Jephthah meant when he said: “I cannot go back.” His daughter was to be given to the Lord all the days of her life. So completely did Jephthah feel his indebtedness to the Lord that there was to be no suggestion of taking an easy way out. He would pay his vow in the fullest sense, by giving his daughter from that time forward for permanent service in the precincts of the tabernacle.

Tabernacle service by women

That such a thing was possible and was familiar in Israel is indicated fairly clearly in Scripture:

• The women who “assembled at the door of the tabernacle” (Exod. 38:8; 1 Sam. 2:22) apparently had duties in connection with the service of the tabernacle.
• Lamentations 1:4: “The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to her solemn feasts: all her gates are desolate: her priests sigh: her virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness.” The reference is to the temple service in the time of Jeremiah.
• Psalm 68:25: “The singers (the sanctuary choir, see v. 24) went before, the players on instruments (the sanctuary orchestra) followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.”
• Heman’s fourteen sons and three daughters who were “all under the hand of their father for song in the house of the Lord, with cymbals, psalteries and harps” (1 Chron. 25:5,6).
• 1 Chron. 15:20 and the title to Psalm 46 mentions “Alamoth”, in allusion to the maidens’ choir associated with the sanctuary.
• Other Scriptures indicating the same practice are Num. 31:30; Ezra 2:65; Luke 2:37; and 2 Sam. 13:18 (probably). See “Bible Studies”, 10.05.

“Lament”

Now it is easy to see why Jephthah’s daughter bewailed her virginity. Strange indeed if, when about to die as a sacrifice, she lamented only her virginity and not her impending doom. Also, “the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.” The word here translated “lament” definitely does not mean “lament”. Its only other OT occurrence excludes such a meaning: “There shall they rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord” (Jud. 5:11). The form of the Hebrew sentence suggests that these maidens came to “talk with” the daughter of Jephthah (as AV mg.). The same Hebrew root could mean (as in Hos. 8:9,10) that they brought her gifts.

What has been suggested so far seems to be negatives from the start by the phrase: “And I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

The Hebrew text of this phrase is ambiguous. It may mean what this AV rendering says. Or it may be read: “And I will offer to him (to the Lord) a burnt offering”. (Other examples of this grammatical construction are to be found in Zech. 7:5; Josh. 15:19; Neh. 9:28; Job 31:18; Isa. 22:20.)

This second alternative gives the idea that besides the dedication of a person Jephthah was also vowing a sacrifice.

That this is the correct reading is established by another grammatical detail — the AV reading: “offer it up for (or, as) a burnt offering” would require a prepositional prefix to represent “for”, and this is not there in the text.

Other passages combine to reinforce the interpretation offered here. If Samuel could be dedicated to the service of the sanctuary for life, why not Jephthah’s daughter? The Hebrew word for “offer a burnt offering” is used for going up to the sanctuary of the Lord and for personal dedication there (1 Sam. 1:7,21,22,24; 2:19).

To sum up: The weight of Biblical and linguistic evidence is definitely in favour of the idea that Jephthah vowed to God the life-long dedication of his daughter’s virgin service at the tabernacle, and also, in addition, a burnt-offering as the open token of the beginning of her dedicated life.

It has been suggested that in later days when the boy Samuel was brought to the Lord at the age of three (see 1 Sam. 1:24 RVm; 2 Chron. 31:16) he would be put under the care of this holy woman, now grown old in the service of the Lord.

Notes

The loss of his daughter was not the only trial Jephthah had to face at this time of victory. The men of Ephraim were known throughout Israel for their sense of self-importance. Taking undue pride in the precedence assigned to their tribe in Jacob’s prophetic blessing on Joseph’s younger son, they never lost an opportunity to assert what they deemed to be their primacy in Israel. Even with Joshua, himself a man of Ephraim, they had shown themselves cantankerous and greedy of territory (Josh. 17:14), so that it had called for much forbearance and tact on Joshua’s part in the handling of their selfish complaint. Gideon had had to face the same problem. Instead of applauding his heroism, stamina and skill in routing the Midianites, they childishly complained that they had been ignored in the rally and struggle for liberty.

Jephthah had to face the same unreasonable spirit. Angry at being left in the background when glorious victories were being won by such an upstart leader, the Ephraimites gathered in force and crossed Jordan into Gilead. Possibly, too, they felt it unwise to allow a man such as Jephthah to become too powerful, for then their own dominance of central Israel might be challenged.

But in Jephthah they had a man of different material from either Joshua or Gideon. These two were, both of them, men lacking self-confidence; whereas Jephthah feared no one save the God whom he worshipped. Besides this, he was terribly depressed by the loss of his only child, so he was not disposed to exercise overmuch patience with such unreasonable neighbours.

Even so, as with the Ammonites, he reasoned with them, pointing out bluntly that appeal had been made to them earlier, but in vain. This time spent in futile parley at least enabled Jephthah to rally his men once more. They, laden with spoils of war, had already dispersed to their own homes. Once again the battle was joined — a sorry spectacle, this, Israelite against Israelite! — and once again Jephthah’s valour and brains won the day.

A convenient password

When the men of Ephraim turned to flee, Jephthah with quick foresight detailed off squads of men to travel swiftly to the fords of Jordan. It was Ehud’s coup de grace over again (3 :28). Yet in his fairness Jephthah strictly forbad them to slay any except the men of Ephraim who should fall into their hands there (for the fords of Jordan were always busy with travellers other than Ephraimites).

Evidently there was some local trick of speech characteristic of the men of Ephraim which enabled a rough and ready discrimination to be made between them and others. The Englishman’s traditional inability to say “braw bricht moonlicht nicht” in guid Scots, and the Frenchman’s common failure with the English th are other examples of the same sort of linguistic peculiarity. Possibly too Jephthah’s men chose the word ‘Shibboleth’ not only because of its initial consonant but also because of the ambiguity in its meaning; for it can signify either ‘a flood of waters’ (to be crossed) or ‘an ear of corn’ (to be threshed).

How many men fell in this deplorable strife among brethren? It is difficult to take the AV’s forty-two thousand seriously. A possible reading is: “forty-two fighting men” (see “Bible Studies”, 10.15).

Thereafter Jephthah was left in peace. Indeed it is fairly likely that for the rest of his days he was accepted by most of the central tribes as the God-given Judge of Israel.

In this capacity he lived for only six short years. The Hebrew text has the nonsensical reading that “he was buried in the cities of Gilead”. But it requires, however, only the very smallest emendation to read (as LXX) ‘in his own city’, i.e., Mizpeh.

Can it be that Jephthah’s short tenure of office points to his being middle-aged when he became chief of Gilead? The fact that he had no other child after his daughter, and the sharp contrast with the enormous families of other judges of Israel, perhaps encourages this idea.

Jephthah and Christ

Jephthah stands out as a man of many admirable qualities. Not only was he patient with his enemies and unresentful of wrongs done to him. Not only was he a strong personality amongst men and brilliantly versatile in war. But also in an age of declension he was a man outstanding for his godliness! Although only half an Israelite, he was by his faith and zeal for the Lord the finest of them all in that day of very small things. Throughout a life of change and uncertainty — the life of an outlaw — he maintained his intimacy with the Word of God given through Moses. And through that Word he nurtured his sense of justice until the day when he was called to exercise it on behalf of the people of the Lord. Against all discouragements, he put God first in his life: “I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.” What more fitting words for his epitaph? Assuredly the name of Jephthah did not creep into Hebrews 11 through accident or oversight.

It is not difficult to trace a number of intriguing parallels between Jephthah and Christ.

• His birth not according to normal wedlock.
• Rejected by his brethren and his nation.
• He gathered to him a band of despised men.
• The bold challenge: Am I to be your head, or not?
• He was filled with the Spirit.
• His right was asserted as unchallengable.
• A great victory was won, to save his people from oppression.
• His vow was fulfilled at great personal cost.
• Even after victory, he was mocked and rejected.
• Judgment against his enemies.
• “By thy words thou shalt be justified.”

“Minor” judges

Jephthah was followed in the central tribes by three other “minor” judges about whom little is recorded.

Ibzan of Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh. 19:15), by contrast with Jephthah and his one daughter, had a remarkably well-organized family of thirty sons and thirty daughters all of whom were suitably married off. There is no word of deliverance or military exploits, so presumably these were not necessary during his seven years.

There is no possibility that he should be equated with Boaz, the husband of Ruth.

He was followed by Elon, also of Zebulun. Aijalon, his city (not to be confused with the Aijalon made famous by Joshua’s long day), was probably named after him.

Next came Abdon the son of Hillel. He belonged to Ephraim, the centre of his administration being only a few miles west of Shechem. Again there is mystifying mention of a vast family, but after a relatively short rule of eight years he died without obvious successor, and declension set in again.

Notes

The story of Samson seems to belong to the end of the period of Judges, but it is no easy matter to link up the relevant chronological details:

1. 13:1. Philistine domination for 40 years.
2. 15:20. Samson judged Israel for 20 years.
3. 1 Sam. 4:18. Eli judged Israel for 40 years.
4. 1 Sam. 7:2. A rather mysterious period of 20 years.

Out of these details some commentators deduce that Samson and Eli overlapped, but it is not easy to see just how the conclusion is reached.

It does seem fairly likely that Samuel was brought up as a Nazarite (more correctly: Nazirite) in imitation of Samson. The similarity in the circumstances of the births of these two children would doubtless suggest this.

The angel of the Lord

Manoah and his wife lived in Zorah, hard by the valley of Sorek, on the border of the territory of Dan and Judah and not many miles from Philistine territory (Josh. 15:19: 19:41; 1 Chron. 2:53). It was to the woman that the angel of the Lord first appeared. He presented his “credentials” by intimating his knowledge concerning her. “Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not.” The correct conclusion was immediately drawn that this unknown visitant was, at the very least, a “man of God”, i.e. a prophet.

There followed a plain declaration of the divine blessing of motherhood which was to be hers. God purposed that the son to be born should begin the work of saving his people from the grim consequences of their sins. In token of the reforming character of the movement which he was to lead, he should be a Nazarite from birth. Wherefore also his mother must, during her pregnancy, observe the same restrictions.

All this was duly reported to her husband. He, not at all doubting but being most anxious to observe all the necessary requirements with regard to the child, sought from God the favour of a further theophany. This was promptly granted, and in acknowledgement of it Manoah delayed the divine messenger whilst a sacrificial mean and offering were prepared. The suspicion was there in his mind already, though he couldn’t be sure, that this stranger was more than a prophet.

Godly reaction

Manoah asked yet another favour. Might he not know the name of this illustrious visitor so that the promised son might be named after him? “Why askest thou thus after my name” was the reply, “seeing it is wonderful?” (The same word is later a title of the Messiah; Isaiah 9:6). And, matching his words with his deeds, the angel not only accepted the oblation which Manoah brought but himself ascended out of their sight in the flame of the altar.

The reactions of man and wife were both singularly creditable to them. Manoah, out of a deep sense of human unworthiness, was convinced that such close contact with heavenly majesty must inevitably mean death for them both. His wife, with surer instinct, knew that this amazing theophany was a token of divine blessing and not reprobation: had there not been the repeated promise of a son, and had not their offering been promptly accepted in signal fashion by the Almighty?

The marked resemblance between this experience and Gideon’s would doubtless, on reflection, help greatly to strengthen the faith of Manoah and his wife in the heavenly promise.

Thus the promise was believed, and in due time fulfilled. The child was named — according to the originally expressed intention — after the angel who announced his birth. For the name Samson is almost certainly derived from the Hebrew word for “sun”, a fact much delighted in by certain critics who would explain Samson away as a solar myth preserved in Hebrew folklore.

The similarities between Samson and Hercules, the strong man of Greek legend, are naturally used to support this conclusion. These resemblances can hardly be accidental:

1. Both strangled a lion.
2. The spring quenching Samson’s thirst corresponds to the refreshing baths provided by Sicilian nymphs for Hercules.
3. Samson’s carrying away the gates of Gaza suggests the pillars of Hercules.
4. Each met his death through the machinations of a woman.

The obvious explanation is that Samson is the origin of the Hercules myth, rather than conversely. There is support for this in the fact that the story of Samson’s foxes and firebrands also finds a clear echo in a Roman legend.

Of course Samson’s name has reference to the angel whose name had never been divulged. He was named after the appearance of the angel: “his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible” (13:6).

“And the child grew, and the Lord blessed him.”

The Nazarite vow, scrupulously observed by Samson at this time, carried with it three prohibitions:

1. Abstention from the vine and from wine and strong drink in all its forms.
2. Avoidance of defilement through contact with a dead body.
3. There must be no cutting or shaving of the hair of the head (Numbers 6:1-8).

These restrictions, voluntarily assumed, make little sense until it is realised that the Nazarite vow was a special device by which the ordinary layman could approximate closely in certain essentials to the character of the high priestly office. When on duty in the sanctuary the High Priest was not to partake of wine (Lev. 10:11). Nor was he to allow himself to become defiled by the dead (Lev. 21:1,5). But, when ministering, he was to wear the crown (nezer) with its golden plate inscribed “Holy to the Lord”. In the case of the Nazarite (the word is obviously derived from the Hebrew word for ‘crown’), his crown was to be the natural growth of hair. “All the days of his separation he is to be holy unto the Lord” (Num. 6:8).

Thus a Nazarite vow meant special sanctity and also consecration as one who sought in some outstanding religious capacity to be the representative of his people. What a high ideal lay before Samson! What great achievements of eternal worth might have been his! But alas! He broke the law of his Nazarite vow both in the letter and in the spirit. Thus his repeated failure was all the more lamentable.

Notes

“And the Spirit of the Lord began to move Samson in Mahaneh-dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.” Here, as the narrative repeatedly insists (14:6,19 and 15:14), was the true source of Samson’s strength, and not in his long hair, as careless reading has often wrongly inferred. The further implication behind the words just quoted is that at first Samson operated locally, in the immediate vicinity of his own home. It was only later that he carried the offensive into the camp of the enemy.

Divergent interpretations

It is difficult to be sure which is the correct way to interpret the story of Samson’s first Philistine encounter. Certainly in later days he seems to have become a self-indulgent unsanctified character, obsessed with a craving for women; and it may be that this first highly-coloured episode at Timnath is to be interpreted on those lines.

But it is also possible to read it very differently, as a deliberately-contrived incident, guided by the Holy Spirit, to challenge Philistine domination in that area: Samson was now for the first time being pointed out to his fellows as the most recent “saviour” raised up by God. Such a view is not fully-established, but these hints are worth considering:

1. “It was of the Lord, that he (the Lord?) sought an occasion against the Philistines.” And so also in 15:1; 16:1,4?
2. Samson’s words: “Get her for me; for she is right in mine eyes” (this is the literal rendering). The phrase could mean something very different from satisfaction of his own inclination.
3. Samson must have known of the Law’s prohibition of Canaanite marriages (Deut. 7:3,4), and these Philistines reckoned as Canaanites (Josh. 13:3 context). The unheeded reminder from his parents argues either a high degree of wilfulness or a very strong secret purpose.
4. The riddle of lion and honey takes on special point when it is realised that ‘the mouth of the lion’ is a neat play on the name Philistine. And the word used for a “swarm” of bees in precisely that which is used scores of times for the congregation of Israel.
5. The fact that Samson went to his betrothal feast alone, unsupported by a crowd of Israelite friends and relations, seems to point to a similar conclusion (unless this was their way of expressing strong disapproval).

It would be with grief and bewilderment that Samson’s parents, acceding to his seeming wilfulness, went down to Philistine Timnath to make all the necessary arrangements for betrothal and dowry.

Samson and the lion

Samson went to Timnath also, but alone. Near his journey’s end he encountered a fully-grown young lion, such as would have been a terror to any armed man. But Samson met and slew it with his two hands: “he rent him as he would have rent a (boiled) kid.” Yet, of set purpose he kept the news of the exploit to himself.

The months went by. At the end of the harvest season, or maybe a full year later, Samson returned to Timnath to arrange for the formal betrothal feast to take place. On the way he remembered the lion that he had slain and looked to see what had become of it. There it still lay, but now dry and shrivelled by the sun and taken over as the busy home of a swarm of bees. One old commentator sees proof here that it was a land overflowing with honey, when bees found it necessary to set up house in the carcase of a lion.

Samson regaled himself with their honey and carried away more, so that his parents also might enjoy the unexpected feast. He was now beginning to see this extraordinary incident as a symbolic prophecy of the work he was to achieve. He, Samson, alone and unaided, was to grapple with the Philistine lion and slay it, so that his own people might enjoy the riches of Philistine prosperity. Out of the strong enemy was to come forth much sweetness for the people of Israel. The word “riddle” means also “parable” (as in Ezek. 17:2ff).

Samson’s riddle

The betrothal feast, which duly took place, was a strange affair, for here was a solitary friendless Israelite in the midst of a crowd of Philistine roisterers. Israelites disapproved of this unnatural engagement.

Since Samson brought no guests of his own, thirty young Philistines were hastily added to the party. It was the kind of situation that this boisterous self-confident Israelite revelled in. He twitted these last-minute guests with having brought no wedding gifts (a deliberate snub, doubtless), and with mock joviality scarcely masking his dislike, he jokingly propounded a solution to their embarrassment.

‘Answer my riddle,’ he cried, ‘and instead I’ll provide gifts for you. But if not, you shall each give me a linen garment and a change of raiment.’1

To this they agreed. What other could they do without loss of face? They they had their riddle: “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.”

It was a problem not impossible of solution, for what other “strong eater” could be referred to except a lion? And what “sweet meat” was known to the people of that land save honey? And had not the carcase of the lion, noisy with the busy-ness of bees, been lying there in a near-by vineyard these many weeks?

For three days the celebrations continued, Samson bringing off many a witticism at the expense of these numbskulls of Philistines. Very probably he half hoped that they would light on the answer to his riddle, so that he might have the pleasure of expounding triumphantly its parabolic meaning.

On the fourth day (according to both Septuagint and Syriac versions), they sought to turn the tables on this oddity of an Israelite with his seven long plaits of hair, by bringing pressure to bear on his fiancee: “Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and they father’s house with fire: have ye called us to impoverish us? Not so! (i.e. not if we can help it!).”

The maiden was not at all loth to comply with the request. Their threats were unnecessary, for her sympathies were actually more with them than with this strange husband she was to wed. So for the rest of the feast she privately coaxed and badgered Samson, after the persistent manner that women have, until at last in desperation he blurted out the explanation to her.

The Philistine guests, now confident of their triumph, waited until the last possible moment before gloatingly announcing their solution to the riddle. Upon this Samson, with what seemed ungovernable rage, vented his chagrin (if it was that!) against them. Suiting his words to the company, he lapsed into the coarse language of harlotry: “If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.” And he went forth from the presence of them all, his strength and anger harnessed by the Holy Spirit for the discomfiture of the Philistines.

A reign of terror broke out in Philistine Ashkelon as, day after day, citizens were found dead and stark naked. Before long thirty dead Philistines had paid off Samson’s bet for him. It must have been with a grim, sardonic satisfaction that he despatched those soiled, blood-stained garments to Timnath.

Frustration and revenge

The experience at his betrothal did nothing to cure or alter Samson’s intentions. Some time later he went down to Timnath again to claim his bride but only to find (though the news must surely have reached him indirectly before this!) that she was his no longer. Fearful of becoming a local laughing-stock at the conclusion of the ill-fated betrothal feast and perhaps passing it off as a great scheme to humiliate Israelite Samson, her father had gladly bestowed her on the young Philistine gallant who was to have acted the part of best-man for Samson. And now, even more fearful of the rage of this quixotic uncontrollable Israelite, he desperately sought to patch up the situation by offering his younger daughter. Astutely and accurately weighing up his man, he recommended her charms: “Is not her younger sister fairer than she?” But Samson was in no wise disposed to play second fiddle to a man he despised, and he went off meditating further vengeance: ‘This time shall I be quits with the Philistines when I do them a mischief,’ he declared openly.

None but a man of his unlimited exuberant physical energy would have chosen such a means of balancing the account. By luring a pack of wild dogs with the prospect of food (probably a dead Philistine or two?), he was able to capture (with friendly assistance?) a tremendous number of them, and to set them free again in Philistine crops and vineyards up and down the country with burning brands fastened to their tails.

Another debt paid off

The consternation and wrath created by all this havoc and destruction found immediate and savage expression in the burning of Samson’s wife in her own home. The very fate that she had sought to avoid by the betraying of the secret came back on her. Evidently she was suspected of playing a double game. Hearing about this, Samson, oddly enough, felt that there was yet another debt to discharge. So he went to Timnath and “smote them hip and thigh”. The familiar Biblical phrase so frequently used without understanding of its precise significance, should actually be ‘hip on thigh’. It is a wrestler’s term, and here means‘at close quarters, in hand to hand fighting’. Samson disdained the use of any weapons save his own thew and sinew.

After this he was no longer welcome amongst his own tribe. Philistine retribution which was powerless to harm Samson was doubtless savage against his brethren of the tribe of Dan. So, for some time he lived an outlaw life in a cave near Bethlehem. But the Philistines were not content to let the matter lie. Sooner or later this wild Israelite would burst forth again and do them further serious damage. Prudence indicated the need for prompt and drastic action against him. So they invaded the territory of Judah in force.

The weakness of the men of Judah in face of this trouble is a sorry commentary on the miserable decline of morale in the Israelites at this period. Instead of rallying round Samson, and gladly following his confident lead, they immediately were willing to barter his life for some easement from Philistine oppression. Reflection on this shameful fact will make more apparent the magnitude of the task confronting Samson. The people had no will for freedom. Yet without Samson could there have been a Samuel, and with Samuel a Saul, or a David?

The fight at Lehi

The Israelites then took action against him, probably trading on his marked unwillingness to bring any harm to people of his own nation.

“Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us?” It was a strange reproach to be brought by Israelites against an Israelite! Nevertheless Samson acquiesced in their scheme to curry favour with the Philistines. He specified only one condition — that they should be content to deliver him alive, rather than dead, to their overlords. His words here almost seem to suggest that he could not have resisted effectively, even had he chosen to do so. But when after being bound securely, he was handed over the Philistines, “the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him”. He burst like charred flax the new ropes with which he was bound, and then faced the host of the enemy with no weapon save a jawbone from the whitening skeleton of an ass which was lying there in the pass.

It was a long and bloody struggle that day as Samson, with his back to a rock, fought and slew all who came against him. At length, all that remained of the enemy withdrew, leaving a multitude of slain.

There is difficulty in this incident. For, even allowing for the extraordinary intensification of Samson’s physical powers imparted by the Spirit of the Lord, it is difficult to imagine how the battle took place. Is it possible that Samson’s valour and power rallied the craven cowards of Judah to join in the struggle with him? Certainly it is hard to conceive of them as standing inactive, whilst such an unequal contest was in progress.

At no other time except in the last moments of his life does Samson show to such advantage as in this encounter with the Philistines at Lehi. He had displayed the utmost unselfishness and consideration for the unworthy men of Judah, and now he acknowledged with unstinted thankfulness the power of the Lord by his hand.

Further, in his extremity of thirst at the end of a long fight through the heat of the day, he threw himself on the providence of his God. And his prayer met with immediate response. “God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi (not, as AV, in the jaw bone), and there came water thereout.” This added blessing Samson likewise acknowledged by the name which the spring bore from that day forward: ‘The well of him that cried (unto Jehovah)’.

This day’s exploit fully established Samson’s divine right to lead and guide his people. For twenty years he, under God, was their bulwark against Philistine domination. There was, doubtless, many another mighty deed wrought on Israel’s behalf, but until the last and greatest almost nothing further is recorded.

Another woman!

Emboldened by these exploits, and by others, doubtless, Samson on a later occasion ventured right into Gaza, the great stronghold of the enemy, simply that he might indulge himself with the seductive pleasures of a harlot there. It has been distressing to the faithful of many generations since that day to read of the way in which Samson’s zeal for the deliverance of his people was so vitiated by this weak streak in his character. To be sure, all men of God, whose lives and doings are recorded in Scripture, are revealed as men of weakness in some respect or another. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David — the giants of Old Testament faith — all had their periods of faithlessness. Moses came near to open blasphemy, Hezekiah indulged in the vainglory of politics, Noah shamed himself in drunkenness, and Lot in incest. The catalogue is almost endless. Only Joseph — wonderful type of Christ — has no blot against his name. Yet all these names are in the Book of Life. And so, too, is Samson (Hebrews 11:32), though not because of these sins of his, but in spite of them and by the grace of God. Those who wrestle despairingly against similar odds might take courage from the force of his example and so renew faith in their own ultimate victory.

Gates of Gaza

The Philistines were resolved that this latest opportunity must not be let slip. But by this time their respect for their formidable opponent was so great that they were glad of the excuse to postpone their daunting task until the light of dawn. They had little stomach for facing a raging Samson in the dark. But in any case, they argued, he would not bestir himself before morning; and even if he did, were not the city gates securely barred?

But Samson chose to take his departure at midnight, and city gates meant nothing to him. Instead of bursting them open, as he doubtless could have done, he blithely lifted them clean out of their sockets — gates, bars, posts, frame and all — and carried them to the top of the “mountain that is before Hebron”.

If this must be taken to mean the mountain adjacent to Hebron, the feat of transport was even more phenomenal than that of hoisting the gates from where they were fastened. But this can hardly be meant, for it would imply that Samson was carrying the gates of Gaza the whole of that night and all through the next day, and all to no purpose. ‘The mountain that looks toward Hebron’ might well have been the first hill on the Hebron road, no more than two miles away. Deuteronomy 32:49 has a parallel to this. There Mount Nebo is described as being “over against Jericho” (same phrase in Hebrew as Judges 16:3), although Jericho is approximately twenty miles away.

This episode of the gates of Gaza is perhaps the best illustration of all of the grotesque, boisterous humour which characterized so many of Samson’s doings. This particular feat has something of the flavour of a school-boy’s practical joke.

But there was also a deep religious seriousness behind it. Had not the Promise been made to Abraham: “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies”? So in a very literal fashion Samson demonstrated to these Philistines that it was useless for them to seek domination over Israel, for had not God told the father of his nation that they — Israel — were to have all that Land and to rule all the peoples they found there? In token of which the gates of this Philistine enemy were carried out on the Hebron road where they could, so to speak, look to the place of the tomb of Abraham to whom this great gate promise was made. Even the “gates of hell” could not prevail against the Saviour raised up by God.

Samson did this extraordinary feat, and nearly everything else, with a freakish, irrepressible sense of fun. It shouts from every part of the narrative. His teasing of his Philistine guests, his eccentric device with the foxes and firebrands, his long drawn-out leg-pulling of Delilah (one can almost hear his schoolboy guffaw echoing round that house in Sorek!) — all of these incidents are of one piece. Even the grim way in which he paid his bet, and the dramatic situation envisaged when he let the men of Judah bind him — these too show something of the same mentality. There was no lack of personality about this Samson.

Notes

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

By and by came Samson’s last and most disastrous love-affair. It seems likely that Delilah was not a Philistine (as is often assumed) but one of his own people. She is not specified as of Philistine race, whereas the others are. Her home was in the valley of Sorek, hard by Samson’s own home. And when the lords of the Philistines sought her cooperation, the narrative says they “came up unto her”, as though implying that she did not live in their territory, but in the hill-country. Other details in the story will be seen to support this conclusion.

Delilah does a deal

The Philistines had now come to recognize clearly that if they were to have any success at all against Samson, it must be achieved by taking advantage of his weakness for women. Delilah, whose name means either ‘she who brings low’ or ‘night vulture’, was probably a common harlot. She had no scruples whatever about agreeing to betray Samson. Was she not in the trade for what she could make out of it? And a quarter of a million pounds (by modern inflation) was not to be sneezed at as payment for a night’s work. It seems likely that the strange figure of 1,100 pieces of silver which each Philistine lord offered Delilah was due to monetary exchange differences between the two peoples.

So, on three separate occasions, Samson found himself once more the butt of incessant cajolery, teasing and petulance. Strange that he was so slow to learn the lesson from his earlier experience at Timnath. Thus there developed between the two of them a half-joking, light-hearted game with a queer, rather grim, undertone to it. Samson would mislead Delilah with his plausible explanations and then suffer himself to be bound, the while enjoying her pouting and assumed childlike ingenuousness. She in turn was acting the part in deadly earnest with all the arts and wiles at her command, for the prize was no triviality.

Her commission was: “Entice him, and see wherein his great strength lieth”; whence it may be inferred that Samson was no brawny mass of muscle; he had none of the extraordinary physique of Goliath, or surely it would not have been necessary for these Philistines to probe for the secret of his strength. Samson, then, should be pictures as a man of normal physique and appearance rather than as a great muscular giant.

At the third attempt Delilah came near to learning the truth when Samson, still with tongue in cheek, had her weaving the seven long plaits of his hair into the warp and woof of the piece of cloth in her loom. But again she found herself thwarted. The very force with which Samson roused himself to go against the Philistines dismantled the primitive contraption as he rushed out dragging the material and half the machine after him.

So it continued each time he visited her, the light-hearted game degenerating into vexation and ill-temper as she “pressed him daily with her words”.

The secret divulged

At last, goaded beyond control, Samson blurted out his secret, and immediately Delilah knew that at last she had the the truth. Had she been a daughter of the Philistines, this Nazarite vow of Samson’s would have been meaningless to her. But being a Jewess, she saw at once the connection between his vow and his unique gift from God. Doubtless she marvelled at her own lack of perception in not earlier connecting the two together.

By this time the Philistine lords had washed their hands of Delilah, having satisfied themselves that she was in league with Samson to fool them in a manner after his own heart. Probably it was only her connection with Samson which saved her from nasty treatment. But now she sent hastily unto them to renew the contract, and they — impressed by the urgency of her message — complied. They “brought the money in their hand.”

That night “she made him sleep upon her knees”. It was a ticklish operation and full of risk. So, most probably, she doped him, for cutting his hair in normal sleep would be the biggest of risks. “She made him sleep.” As he slept, she beckoned for the one who was to help her, and together they hastily and unevenly lopped off his plaits, all the time anxious and fearful lest he should awake. It is unlikely that he was shaved in the modern sense of the word, especially since the word employed to describe the process is used also of the shearing of sheep.

Then came the cry, as on former occasions: “The Philistines be upon thee, Samson.” Whereupon Samson bestirred himself, saying self-confidently (and egotistically?): “I will go out (I will get off scot free?) as at other times before, and shake myself” from this strange drowsiness. But now his strength was gone, not because his strength was in his hair but because the life-long covenant with the God of his fathers which he had so many times abused and disgraced was now utterly broken. “The Lord was departed from him”, and he was become “as one man” (16:7 mg; what a contrast with 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14).

There, in the place where he had wasted God-given time and strength and responsibilities, he now writhed in futile, feeble impotence in the grip of incredulous Philistines whilst Delilah, a bag of shekels in one hand, “afflicted” him with scorn and insults in inexpressible relief that her make-believe game of love was at last brought to a successful conclusion. It is evident that she really hated him intensely.

Shame and helpless captivity

The Philistines were taking no chances. At any moment there might come to Samson one of those incredible accessions of superhuman strength which had made his name to be feared from Ekron to Gaza. So, there and then, as he lay bound in the very place of his sensuality and self-indulgence, they ruthlessly and savagely gouged out his eyes — those eyes that had been his downfall from the beginning (for almost the first thing that is written concerning him is that “he saw a woman”). And, tortured as he was by the searing pain of this cruel and vengeful deed, and tortured yet more by bitter self-reproaches, Samson was brought to Gaza and led in triumph through the crowd of spiteful jeering Philistines.

It is possible that Peter makes reference to this enticement and capture of Samson: “They allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness….While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world….they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” (2 Pet. 2:18-20). If the allusion is to Samson these phrases take on a good deal more force; compare also 2 Timothy 2:4,5.

Once the initial humiliations were over — and how vile they would be can be left to the imagination — Samson settled down to the weary wretchedness of the prison-house where, hour after hour, blanketed by the misery of ‘total eclipse’ and the treadmill boredom of grinding, grinding, grinding, he pondered a thousand times the paths his feet had trod. He realised with renewed humiliation how ignobly he had let egotism and animal appetite lure him from his high and holy calling as a saviour of his people.

New birth

He would realise, too — and with thankfulness — that in giving him his life, even as a blinded prisoner, God was graciously giving him an undeserved opportunity to start afresh. For had he died summarily in Sorek by a thrust from a Philistine spear, he had died a reprobate. Even so, there seemed but little that he could do in token of his belated spiritual renewal. He could only renew in his penitence the Nazarite vow which he had so signally disgraced. So “the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven”, and with it grew his restored fellowship with the God whose Name he had besmirched among the heathen. God gave him also once again the strength he might have used in earlier days to better purpose.

But why were the Philistines such fools as to allow him his hair again? One can only assume that Delilah had explained to them the spiritual significance of his unshorn locks, and thus they reasoned: ‘His God cast him off, and will now have no more use for him.’ They little knew the graciousness of the God of Israel!

And meantime, in his penitence, Samson renewed his Nazarite vow. Did he get word through to his fellow-Israelites that the appropriate sacrifices (Numbers 6) be offered on his behalf?

Before long there came round the great religious festival of Dagon, the god of the Philistines. Opinion is divided as to the character of Dagon worship. On the basis of a doubtful derivation from the Hebrew word for ‘fish’ and the finding a half-man, half-fish deity in Syria, it has been conjectured that Dagon was ‘of fishy form and mind’, perhaps indirectly reminiscent of Philistine origins in Crete across the sea.

However, it is now pretty firmly established that Dagon was a god of harvest (the Hebrew word for corn is dagan). Hence, when the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant in the time of Samuel they were punished with a plague of rats in time of harvest, and, as corollary, the ravages of bubonic plague (1 Sam. 5:9-12; 6:4). Temples dedicated to Dagon have been found at Mari (18th Century) — far away from Philistia, at Ugarit in Syria (14th Century), and at Bethshan (11th Century). And it may well be that Sam-son’s grinding of corn — woman’s work — was a device for consecrating his labour to Dagon, their god of harvest.

At this festival, naturally enough, Samson was brought out so that all might gloat over his discomfiture. Had he not been the chosen representative of Jehovah, the God of Israel? And was not this humiliation of Samson the humiliation of Jehovah also and the exaltation of Dagon who had brought the redoubtable enemy into their power? So they rejoiced in a shout and hymn of praise: “Our God hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, which slew many of us.” In the original the words rhyme.

They little realized that this gloating against the God of Israel decided their fate, and that of Dagon, for no man can indulge in that sort of vainglory and get away with it. Four hundred years later Sennacherib, mighty monarch of Assyria, was to find that out (Isa. 37:12-20; “Isaiah”, HAW, p. 47ff).

Climax!

Samson was brought to the temple, the roof of which was packed with spectators. The Hebrew text says three thousand. This would imply a structure twenty times as big as the average ecclesial hall. The Sinaitic LXX says seven hundred (a hundred for each lock of Samson’s hair!). There in the open space before it, for the entertainment and jubilation of these uncircumcised, he danced an Israelite war-dance (s.w. 2 Sam. 2:14). There is no hint in the text that he performed feats of strength to glorify their capture of him.

Then, the show over, they led Samson into the temple itself that there he might be inspected at closer quarters by the nobility: “And they set him between the pillars”, the twin pillars (their Jachin and Boaz) in the middle of the building which bore the main load of the roof and fulfilled the function of the keystone of an arch. Macalister’s excavations at Gezer, not many miles away, revealed that there was some such plan about the heathen temple there. Other digs at Gaza and Tel-en-Nasbeh have shown chiefs’ houses built to a similar pattern.

Samson had evidently been in that temple in the days of his sight, and there he had noted the structural weakness. Now, at last, here was an opportunity to work for the deliverance of his people the like of which would never come his way again. In his day he had wasted many an opportunity of using his great strength to a good end. The lesson had now been learned. He would not waste this one. But, now, if there was to be achievement, it must not be for vainglory but by strength from God and to the glory of God.

So he prayed as he had never prayed before. The Septuagint Version says he wept. It was a double prayer. First, for himself as a miserable sinner, unfit to stand there as the representative of the God of Israel, unfit to be aught but a castaway from His presence: “O Lord God, remember me!” Remember me! — as David was remembered. “Remember, O Lord, thy tender mercies and thy lovingkindnesses; for they have been ever of old. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O Lord” (Psa. 25:6,7). Remember me! — as the thief on the cross was remembered: “Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

And as these two were both justified by their faith, so also in this hour was Samson; so that his name also is inscribed in the Lamb’s Book of Life: “And what shall I more say (of those who pleased God by their faith)? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens” (Hebrews 11:32-34). To his first prayer Samson added another which was not so much for himself as it might seem: “Strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be avenged of the Philistines for one of my two eyes” (RVmg).

It has to be remembered that from the point of view of the Philistines, Samson’s cause was the cause of the God of Israel; humiliation of Samson was the humiliation of Jehovah. So it follows that the obvious way, maybe the only way, in which the Lord would be vindicated before that unholy crew, was through the vindication of His servant. And yet — as Samson’s prayer makes plain — the finest thing that could happen now could not wipe out entirely the ignominy of the past. So he could not regard this final stroke for which he sought divine help as, at best, more than vengeance for one of his two eyes.

That Samson’s assessment of the situation was a correct one is shown by the signal response to his prayer. “And he bowed himself with all his might.” The situation is such as to set the imagination racing. There in the gaudy obscene temple of Dagon, crowded with hundreds of the stalwart swash-buckling nobility of the Philistines accoutred in all their finery, this long-haired unimpressive Israelite with the featureless face of the blind braced himself between the two central pillars, with shoulders against one and his feet against the other (for the Hebrew word means ‘he stretched himself’).

The Israelite captive boy whose duty it was to be eyes to Samson realised now what his revered fellow-countryman sought to achieve, and darting nimbly through the throng, he was out to the open sky and safety before any could hinder him. To him, surely — under God — is owed the record of the Nazarite’s prayer of faith. Samson’s effort caught the attention of some who at first laughed uproariously at what he attempted, and spat on him with contempt. But Samson strained again, the muscles bulging stiff and hard in every part of his body. One of the pillars shifted slightly. A woman screamed and pointed in terror. Two young braves swore vigorously and threw themselves frantically on the naked straining Israelite, but in vain; as he made his final effort they might just as well have tried to bend a block of granite.

Another muttered prayer escaped from Samson’s lips: “Let me die with the Philistines.” The pillars shifted again, and yet again. Then, with a resounding crash, that overloaded roof came thundering down bringing with it more pillars, masses of masonry and a dense crowd of Philistines whose holiday was now ended. Screams of fright and yells of pain rent the air, but from most there was just — silence. And a great cloud of dust ascended up to heaven. Samson’s God had avenged him of one of his two eyes.

News of this last and greatest exploit was carried by Samson’s faithful, fleet-footed friend to the villages of Dan, and, mustering in a body, they marched fearlessly into Gaza. Unmolested by the Philistines (busy looking for fragments of Dagon), they disinterred his body from the mighty heap of rubble and carried it reverently back for interment in the tomb of his parents who had lived only long enough to be bitterly disappointed in the hopes they centred in their child of promise. Yet, one day, they will have rejoicing in him.

Learning from Samson

The two main lessons from the life of Samson are simple and clear:

1. The consecrated life must be a consecrated life. Facing simultaneously in opposite directions is impossible, although many still attempt it. There can be no serving God and Mammon. Wherefore, “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”
2. “There is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared.” There is no life so foul that it cannot be made sweet by the grace of God. Let there be only a humble facing of the fact that “in me(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing”, and with it a prayer that God will do with one’s life what no amount of single-handed effort can ever achieve. These lessons must be learned. Must!

Notes

There can be little doubt that God intended Samson to provide for the people of his time a foreshadowing of the greatness and goodness of the promised Messiah, the One who should crush the power of sin, who should possess the gate of his enemies, who should be a Prophet like unto Moses, who should minister holiness as a Priest and rule in the midst of his brethren. And indeed, if all that was weak and disreputable about Samson be discarded, the resemblances to Christ are striking enough, and would doubtless have been more so, if only he had fulfilled his early promise and the devout hopes reposed in him by his parents.

It is an interesting and worthwhile exercise to attempt to set out the similarities between this saviour who failed and the Saviour who overcame. Here are some of the more obvious details:

From this list it can be seen that in spite of the way in which Samson ruined the Messianic image in himself, there are still remarkable correspondences between the two. But for Samson’s deplorable weaknesses, what other similarities might there not have been!!

As it is, it becomes easier in many respects to trace a resemblance to God’s other “firstborn”, the people of Israel. Here again, especially this time in the sections that concern Samson’s failures, the agreement is striking:

1. Samson was a child of promise. “Israel is my son, my firstborn.”
2. Both Samson and Israel were named from an angelic appearance (Judges 13:17; Genesis 32:28).
3. Samson was a Nazarite — “Holy to the Lord”. At Sinai God said: “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).
4. Both were marvellously blessed with the Holy Spirit.
5. Samson lapsed repeatedly into entanglements with women. Israel continually went a-whoring after the idols as well as the women of other nations.
6. Samson was repeatedly bound and yet broke loose. This was also Israel’s experience throughout the period of the Judges and for a long time after. The similarity is specially apt for these Last Days.
7. Samson’s bondage in captivity corresponds to Israel’s long dispersion and affliction by the Gentiles, and also to the final oppression soon to come.
8. Samson’s blindness prefigures the spiritual blindness of Israel (Isaiah 43:8,10).
9. Samson was mocked and derided. Israel: “a proverb, and a by-word, among all nations” (Deuteronomy 28:37).
10. Does blind Samson’s display before the Philistines correspond to the irrepressible vigour of the new state of Israel, always the centre of world politics?
11. At the last Samson renewed his vow of holiness and appealed to God for help. Here doubtless is prefigured the long-awaited repentance of Israel.
12. As Samson and his enemies died together, so also the State of Israel will be destroyed in the final holocaust when judgment comes to the nations.
13. But Samson will rise from the dead, justified by his faith. So, too, Israel will rise nationally from a valley of dry bones.

The story of Samson is the proper end of the Book of Judges. With that the reader is brought almost, if not quite, to the time of Samuel. There are, actually, three appendices to the book:

• the story of Micah and the Danite apostasy;
• the frank account of the great crime of the Gibeathites and its consequences;
• in sharp contrast with these, the charming idyll of Ruth the Moabitess.

The indications are that all these three appendices belong to the early days of the judges, but in none is there any mention of a “judge”. From that point of view they are not part of the original purpose and plan of the book at all.

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This expression, which comes four times altogether (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), implies that the Judges narrative was compiled during the reign of one of the kings. It might be read, also, as indicating a state of anarchy in Israel, when the national organization had gone to pieces. But this was far from being the case, for there are various allusions to a system of ordered government; e.g. 18:2,8; 20:1,2,12,13,18; 21:10,16.

It is often overlooked that identical words are applied to Israel in the wilderness: “(When ye are come into the Land) ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:8). When those words were spoken Israel did not lack cohesion or orderly government, but there are indications enough that at that time men served God or disregarded His law as they chose. It is in this sense that the words must be read concerning the period of the judges.

The main point of the narrative in Judges 17,18 appears to be the discrediting of the false sanctuary established by the Danites in their new home in the north. That unauthorised oracle was equipped with stolen cursed silver, instead of gold to show forth the glory of the divine. There was no priest of the line of Aaron. And the tabernacle was sited outside the territory assigned to the twelve tribes. Later, in the time of Jeroboam I, these facts would take on special significance (1 Kgs. 12:28,29).

Improvising a sanctuary of the Lord

There was a woman in mount Ephraim who had lost eleven hundred shekels — more than sixty thousand pounds (1989 inflation). The rabbis, seizing on the coincidence of this sum of money with that paid to Delilah (16:5), supposed that the woman was none other than Delilah herself. This is hardly likely, for wasn’t that amiable lady paid her eleven hundred shekels five times over? In any case, the allusion to Mahaneh-Dan (18:12) implies that this strange episode takes place before the time of Samson (13:25). But there seems to be little ground for Josephus’ assertion that here the history harks back to the generation following Joshua.

Confident that her money had been stolen, this woman in the tribe of Ephraim uttered a dreadful curse which was to come upon the head of the thief. Perhaps it was by design that the imprecation was spoken in the hearing of her son Micah, for he, scared at the consequences which might now ensue, promptly confessed his crime and restored the money. Whereupon his mother cancelled out the curse with an equally glib blessing and in token of her gratitude at its restoration she then dedicated the money to the service of Jehovah.

This Corban was made effective by the expenditure of a portion of it — two hundred shekels — for the manufacture of “a graven image and a molten image”. These were duly installed in a private “house of God”, and this strange home-made religion was made into a going concern by the ordination of one of Micah’s sons as priest.

Jonathan the Levite

By and by there came along a vagrant Levite from Bethlehem-Judah. His name Jonathan is not given at first mention. It may well be that there is a corruption of the text here, for the words “he sojourned there” (17:7) are literally “Gershom”, who is later mentioned as the Levite’s father (18:30). The same verse makes Gershom to be the son of Manasseh. But Gershom was certainly the son of Moses (Exod. 2:22). The explanation of this discordance, fully accepted by all scholars, is not without interest. In an effort to safeguard the reputation of their revered Moses, the scribes wrote into the manuscripts an additional letter nun above the line, thus: M ^N SH.

In this way it was intimated to the synagogue reader that he was to substitute the name Manasseh for the name Mosheh. That alteration persists in every Hebrew Bible right up to the present day.

This Levite came from Bethlehem, of which city nothing is written concerning Levites. Why then should he be described as hailing from Bethlehem? The question is more easily asked than answered. Possibly, so it has been speculated, he was connected by marriage with a Bethlehem family. It is a curious fact that the next episode (Jud. 19) also concerns a Levite with connections at Bethlehem.

Jonathan the Levite was wandering the countryside, apparently ‘looking for a job’. He seems to have had no means of subsistence. If indeed this were so, it is a sorry commentary on the speed with which the people of God forgot their responsibility to provide by tithes and offerings for those who were set apart as teachers and ministers of God’s Law. On the other hand, it may well be that Jonathan was a restless, worthless character, unworthy of the name of Levite. This seems to be nearer the truth, for there was no lack of hospitality for another Levite in Bethlehem (19:4-9). So Jonathan may even have been expelled from Bethlehem.

Micah leaped at the opportunity to have a full-fledged Levite as priest at his own private chapel and made the man a tempting offer of employment which was gladly accepted. It was an arrangement that satisfied both of them. “The Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons….Then said Micah, Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.” It seems to have been overlooked, whether ignorantly or wilfully, that the Levite was not qualified to act as priest and that Micah, himself a layman, was unqualified to consecrate Jonathan in that capacity. The explanation is probably ignorance, for there is something strikingly ingenuous, bordering almost on the superstitious, in Micah’s conviction that God was now on his side for sure, because of the priest he had. Before very long he would have occasion to think differently.

Perversions of true religion

It is appropriate to consider here one of the main problems of this incident, namely, the nature of the worship which Micah instituted in his own home. Several times over, there are mentioned four articles of devotion: a graven image, a molten image, an ephod and teraphim (17:4,5; 18:14,17,20).

These accoutrements of Micah’s home-made religion present a strange mixture of the true and the false, the hallmark of apostasy from time immemorial.

It is not unlikely that the graven image and the molten image are the same, one in apposition to the other. The golden calf made by Aaron is described in both ways (Exod. 32:4).

The ephod was, of course, a normal priestly garment. There is some evidence that the high-priest’s ephod was a kind of corselet — linen stiffened by gold wire — made vivid with the divine colours.

Archaeologists have established, by comparison with similar features in contemporary religion, that the teraphim were small objects like children’s dolls. It would appear that in some way they were associated with right of inheritance to the family property; hence the great fuss made by Laban and his sons over Rebekah’s theft of her father’s teraphim (Gen. 31:19ff).

There is little difficulty in harmonizing Micah’s home-made system of approach to God with his evident belief in Jehovah as the covenant God of Israel. The fault lay in the blithe assumption that God would be well-pleased with a self-consecrated priest ministering in a sanctuary which the man himself had fashioned and located in a site convenient for himself, rather than in a place which the Lord his God had chosen. The service and worship in Micah’s private tabernacle might be — doubtless was — both sincere and devout, and in many of its features correct, but in certain big essentials, there was gross departure from the Law given through Moses. “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Lev. 10:3). “It shall be that the man whom the Lord doth choose, he shall be holy” (Num. 16:7).

Notes

There is another approach to the Song of Deborah that is not to be lightly discarded. Since “all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness”, one is bound to ask where such profit is to be sought in this ancient record.

True, there is the evidence of the Providence of God over His Chosen People, and there is the example of faith, in Barak and those who so manfully supported him. But what of the chapter as a whole?

New Testament resemblances

A hint meets the reverent student in the words: “Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive.” Is it just accident that identical words are quoted in Ephesians 4:18 and Psalm 68:18 with direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ? His captivity was his New Israel in bondage to sin until he came and led it forth to liberty, and a glorious inheritance, even as Moses did Israel.

Again, is it just accident that Deborah’s song concludes with words which anticipate very remarkably the expression Jesus himself used to describe the final emancipation of the righteous from sin?: “Let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might” (5:31). With these words compare: “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:43).

Since the beginning and end of this Son have close associations with the New Covenant, it is hardly likely that the rest of it is devoid of similar significance.

Spiritual application

So, it would seem that the wild spiritual poetry of this Son may be read also as a searching prophecy of the varying degrees of response to Christ’s appeal and of the different types of individuals who today, according as their various characters, help or hinder the divine work in their midst.

Consider first the important lessons underlined in the first two verses: “Then sang Deborah and Barak….on that day..” When success in the Lord’s work accrues, there must be no time lost in thanking Him. And it is He, and not His instruments, who are to be thanked: “Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel.”

The helpers

Next, consider those through whom victory was won.

Ephraim had serious problems to cope with at home: “Out of Ephraim came down they whose root is in Amalek.” It needed faith to consign to the care of God the otherwise crippling anxiety for the well-being of those left behind near aggressive Amalekite neighbours. How easily might these Ephraimites have fobbed off the pressing appeal with the unanswerable argument: “Wait until we have coped satisfactorily with our own problems, and then our help will be given without stint.”

How often does such a limited, parochial, faithless attitude betray the spiritual immaturity both of ecclesias and of individuals in these days in the work of preaching. “We have more than we can cope with in our own area” is the querulous cry; “why then should we go far afield to help others?”

Those who today maintain that a man’s duty is in his own ecclesia and his own locality only, might take note of the example of Ephraim who had the best reason of all for staying at home; his root was in Amalek. There is no room for parochialism in the Truth; the world is Christ’s parish.

The bulk of support for the leaders came from the tribes of Zebulun, Naphtali, and Issachar; these felt, more than any others, the oppression of the godless. Consequently in these tribes support was nearly a hundred per cent.

The parallel today is the solitary brother or sister and the ecclesia remote from its fellows. These lack the easy comforts of a fulness of fraternal intercourse and the sense of solidity which mere numbers can give. These too have to face the wearing problems of worldliness in a more acute form, and for them the distinction between black and white, between light and darkness, is much more acute.

For these very reasons it is in such that unquenchable zeal and earnestness in preaching is most readily found. These may take courage from the words: “Up, for this is the day….is not the Lord gone out before thee?”

The alternative (if indeed it is an alternative) is acquiescence in Canaanite domination, mockery and oppression. That way lies easy seduction from faith in the covenants of promise. That way lies absorption into the unspiritual masses against whom divine wrath is foretold.

Manasseh supplied leaders in the struggle: “Out of Machir came down governors (lawgivers).” By this is emphasised the need for men of godliness and sound principle who can equip with divine wisdom based on faithful instruction the rank and file going forth in the hosts of the Lord. Paul wrote to Timothy: “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness as a good soldier of Christ” (2 Tim. 2:2,3).

Note should be taken of the special characteristic of Issachar: “As was Issachar, so was Barak; into the valley they rushed forth at his feet” (RV). This was the secret of their successful action — they kept close to their divinely-appointed leader, and never swerved from loyalty to him.

This also is the secret of successful evangelization in this day of increasing indifference to and contempt for the Word of God. He who goes forth with the message of salvation must be one who is habitually at the feet of Jesus Christ his Lord.

Then there was Benjamin, “little Benjamin”, least expected of all! For Benjamin was a much depleted tribe at this time (the episode of Judges 20 almost certainly belongs to the generation immediately after Joshua). And further, Benjamin was comparatively remote from the centre of conflict and might well feel that it was none of his business.

As in the wars of the Lord then, so also in the work of preaching today, every little helps; and oftentimes it is the little that help the most. What would be the psychological effect on the mustering army near Megiddo when over the brow of the hill came marching the dauntless little squad from Benjamin? Would there be a loud groan go up to heaven at the smallness of this detachment? Or, rather, since help from Benjamin was hardly expected at all, would there not be an almighty cheer of friendly welcome and a perceptible lifting of the spirits of them all, as good-natured jokes were passed and warm greetings exchanged?

Today in the uphill work of preaching the same principle still operates. Every little does help, and that, too, out of all proportion to its magnitude. But alas! It is the man with the one talent who usually prefers to hide it away wrapped in a sweat-rag, thus putting both out of use.

In the campaign against the Canaanites, the battle of Jezreel was only the first blow: “The hand of the children of Israel prevailed more and more against Jabin, king of Canaan” (4:24RV).

A great deal of encouragement to continue the struggle to the bitter end would unquestionably come from Jael’s destruction of Sisera. The mightiest blow of all had ben struck by one who, though not of Israel, was as true a child of Abraham as any of them. What a surge of emotion and thankfulness — and also of astonishment — would pass through the army of Barak as the news spread. “Blessed shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be!”

Let those who have but lately been brought to Christ from among “the stranger” (as we say) take notice of the exceptional opportunity that is theirs in strengthening the hands of their new brethren and sisters. If they will but give themselves to the work of the Lord with the fierce resolve which animated Jael in her struggle against evil, their enthusiasm will have a mighty tonic effect on all who wage the same warfare against the-world-and-the-flesh, which is the devil. IN all the experiences of Christian discipleship there is nothing finer than the warming reassurance to be derived from the knowledge of a new convert throwing himself heart and soul into the work of the Truth. “Gold, silver, precious stones!”

The faint-hearted

But whilst there was much zeal and high resolve amidst the tribes of Israel, discouragements also abounded.

First, and greatest: “By the divisions of Reuben there were great resolves of heart. Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds?….By the divisions of Reuben were great searchings of heart.” Reuben was the firstborn. From him a lead could surely be expected. But no! “Unstable as water, he did not excel.” From the first Reuben had shown himself too much in love with flocks and herds. Too little he had appreciated his responsibility as an integral part of the people of God. And now there is hesitation as, too carefully, he weights the pros and cons.

“By the divisions of Reuben” — the word possibly signifies “water courses” (as in the RV), but it may equally well mean “dissensions”. Here is the picture of a tribe out of harmony with itself, an ecclesia of divided counsels. And in either case, the net result is the same — nothing, save the discouragement of others who struggle against the “iron chariots” of the enemy.

Weighty, doubtless, were the arguments advanced at Reuben’s council of war (business meeting) against doing anything.

“It’s no good; somebody else tried the same thing five years ago and failed hopelessly.”

“Besides, we have to think of the danger to our own folk from the Moabites whilst we are away.”

“After all, haven’t we responsibilities nearer home than this? What about helping Gad against the Ammonites?”

“Judah’s stronger than we are, and they are doing nothing.” So it went on and one; and Reuben’s irresolution is written for ever in the Word of Truth.

The arguments were doubtless all of them sound, but every one of them would have been invalidated by faith as a grain of mustard seed. And for lack of this, the lesson of Reuben’s vacillation has today still to be learned in many another tribe of Israel.

“Gilead abode beyond Jordan.” The reference might be either to Gad or to eastern Manasseh. In either case there was little of excuse. The Gadites had a great reputation in war; they were “men of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were like the faces of lions, and who were as swift as the roes upon the mountains” (1 Chron. 12:8). They should have been in the very forefront of the battle. And eastern Manasseh must have lost all feeling of true fellowship with their own kith and kin if they could thus allow them to face peril unaided.

The inspired comment is damning in its brevity: “Gilead abode beyond Jordan” — as if implying: “To be sure! What else could be expected from people as self-centred as they?”

“And Dan, why did he remain in ships?” The migration northwards to isolation and idolatry had not yet taken place. The rhetorical question is powerful here. Why did he not help? Because of six cubits and a span of Philistine muscle and armour? The reproach suggests a different reason: Dan remained in ships. He had the port of Joppa, and with it the key to commercial prosperity. Dan remained in ships because they filled his money-bags. So Dan forged fetters for himself and robbed his brethren of aid that was their due in a struggle for freedom. Little wonder that ere long Dan should lead his brethren in the worst idolatry of all. He was already worshipping one false god.

How much greater is the tragedy today when a faithful ecclesia still striving to maintain the cause of God has to do so in face of the discouragements of many who have succumbed to the worship of materialism, the god of this world and especially of this age.

The reproach against Asher seems to have been easy readiness to be daunted by difficulties: “Asher sat still at the haven of the sea, and abode by his creeks.” The main territory of Jabin’s dominion cut Asher off from his brethren, and Asher was content to have it so — a good enough excuse for doing nothing. Yet what might not Asher have achieved in the common cause, with such brilliant opportunities for hit-and-run raiding, interference with trade caravans and other indirect methods of warfare? But instead Asher “sat still”. Perhaps too Asher was living on his past. He had achieved the partial conquest of this remote territory in earlier days, and felt that therefore nothing more in the way of effort should be required of him.

Whichever way his problem be viewed, Asher stands out as an example to be avoided in the work of the Lord. And the lesson has still to be learned. “There is a lion in the way” becomes, many a time over, the counsel of false prudence and camouflaged laziness. And in the ecclesias of Christ today the number of retired veterans who talk of former days with happy self-satisfaction instead of wistful regret or forward-looking resolution is depressingly large.

Nor is Heber the Kenite dead — the man who has known the surpassing favour of God in being brought into covenant and fellowship with the people of God, but who treats such privilege oh so lightly. Instead — as though in self-justification for his own inertia — he proceeds to work actively and nefariously for the enemy, a secret traitor in the cause. One Heber the Kenite can do much to weaken the hands of the men of war. But those who tend to be unjustly discouraged by knowledge of such handicaps must remember that the work in the Lord’s, and “the Lord is gone out before thee”, so ultimate failure is impossible for the man of faith.

Last of all comes the repeated unmitigated curse of God on Meroz: “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord.” These were people on the spot where the activity for the Lord was at its height. To them came the ripest of all opportunities and they coolly let it pass by.

Perhaps they said: “The battle may yet turn in favour of the Canaanites, and then we can expect savage retaliation if we take action against Sisera. On the other hand if we let well alone, it may be remembered for our good.” Or perhaps they said: “Sisera is well armed and a desperate man. It would be folly to attempt anything against him.” Or, maybe, “If it is the Lord’s will that Sisera should be slain, he will be slain; so there is no need for us to raise a hand against him.”

Today the same thing is not unknown — the mentality that will not preach the Truth for fear of giving offence to some worldling, the mentality that will happily talk sport or politics from the corner seat when the turn of conversation shouts for salvation as the topic, the mentality that will make the foreknowledge of the Almighty a devastating excuse for inertia. “If it is the will of God that this or that man be called, he will be.”

Such, because “they came not to the help of the Lord” (!), are cursed — cursed right out of existence, for they are dead even whilst they live and will assuredly never see the day when “the sun goeth forth in his might”.

Current discouragements notwithstanding, there is much to hearten the Lord’s faithful remnant in their war of attrition against the powers of darkness, “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” Whatever the words meant when Paul wrote them, they mean a lot more now.

“Up; for this is the day….has not the Lord gone out before thee?”

Notes

Chapter 5

Once again the children of Israel had treated lightly the covenant of their God, going off into idolatry. Once again retribution came on them, but of a different character from the previous occasion when all the northern tribes had groaned under the iron tyranny of Sisera.

Ravaged by Midianites

This time they were sorely tried by seasonal incursions of Bedouin tribes from the Arabian desert. These swarmed into the country in their thousands at harvest time. “They came in as locusts for multitude” (Jud. 6:5RV), and the effect was about the same. These Midianites had long memories. It had never been forgotten among them how drastic was the treatment they had received at the hands of Israel in former times (Num. 31:8-11).

Now, wherever they went, they left devastation and impoverishment, for, whereas locusts eat only that which is green and growing, these “left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass”.

Thus Israel was brought very low and brought also to the acknowledgement of their apostasy, although — as will be seen by and by — that repentance was kindled in the hearts of only a small minority in the first instance; and this in spite of the lesson of their hardship being driven home to them by a prophet of the Lord, probably at the time of Passover. The prophet was probably Phinehas the high priest, or his son. They were given a blunt reminder of God’s past deliverances and how they owed to Him a faithfulness such as they had not shown (6:8-10).

The Angel of the Lord

It was about this time that the angel of the Lord appeared unrecognised to a young man of the tribe of Manasseh some miles south of the plain of Jezreel, which was invariably a chief target of Midianite forays.

Gideon, the son of Joash the Abiezrite, belonged to the senior family of the Gileadites (Josh. 17:1,2; 1 Chron. 7:17,18), whose inheritance was on the east side of Jordan. But evidently the inroads of the Bedouin had driven them to seek safer homes with the other branch of the tribe of Manasseh, possibly in the Manassite enclave in Issachar (Josh. 17:11).

Gideon was attempting the frustrating and well-nigh impossible task of threshing corn in a wine-press. He had brought out a few bushels of wheat from the cave where it had been stowed away from the depredations of the enemy, and even as he worked, he feared lest he should be surprised by them in the very act.

Threshing called for a high level rock platform, exposed to all the breezes of heaven. What bigger contrast could there be with the place Gideon had chosen — a small, restricted hollow dug in the side of a wadi. How irksome such a task must have been! But at all costs the precious grain must be preserved.

Fearful Gideon

“The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.” In place of the usual “Shalom”, the angel used what was a familiar greeting of the lord of the harvest (Ruth 2:4; Psa. 129:7,8; 2 Thes. 3:16). It sounded ironically in Gideon’s ears. So, too, did the description of himself as “a mighty man of valour”, for if ever there was a man who lacked confidence in himself it was Gideon (6:11,15,27,39; 7:10). Before very long he was to learn that such are the men through whom God prefers to work, and through whom God can work best. He was to learn, too, that the harvest greeting was a prophecy of Heaven’s bounty soon to come upon them again.

But at the moment Gideon felt discouraged, and said so: “Oh my lord, if Jehovah be with us (mark here the change of pronoun showing how completely Gideon put first the well-being of the people, and thought little of his own prosperity), if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us? And where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?” Here, surely, he was referring to the prophetic message lately communicated.

The reply to this was first a steadfast and penetrating gaze from the angel, and then: “Go in this thy might (the might thus imparted; cp. Luke 22:43,61) and save Israel from the hand of Midian; have not I sent thee?” These imperatives should surely have told Gideon the identity of the stranger, but this young man was too much obsessed with his own inadequacy: “Oh my lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? Behold my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”

The words were not true. This was an eloquent, because unstudied, expression of the character of the one who spoke. So, further assurance was now given him: “Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man” (v. 16), that is, by one decisive stroke.

There is here an echo of the angel’s words (the same angel? Exod. 3:12,20) to Moses at the burning bush. The earlier allusion to deliverance from Egypt suggests that Gideon’s mind had been running on this very matter. He recognised the angel’s allusion in a flash and, quickly comparing his own circumstances now with those of Moses then, he asked for a sign. Had not signs been given to reluctant Moses? Then why not to himself? His suspicions were growing that this unknown visitant was no mortal man.

A dedicated Gideon

The sign that he sought was the acceptance of a sacrifice, such as he now felt to be necessary, for — without direct rebuke — the apostasy of his people was being brought home to him. With as little delay as possible he produced a young goat as a peace-offering. Perhaps he had also in mind that a kind of the goats was the prescribed sin-offering of a ruler of the people (Lev. 4:22,23).

He brought, in addition, a meal-offering of exceptional quantity — an ephah of flour (more than half a hundred weight!) baked into cakes, and this, at a time when kid and meal alike could hardly be spared.

Thus in these offerings he expressed, without a word spoken, his consciousness of the need for expiation of sin, his earnest seeking for fellowship with God, and his desire (symbolized by the meal-offering) to dedicate the work of his life to God.

So perhaps he was not altogether surprised when commanded to place both offerings on a nearby rock and to drench them in the broth of the sacrifice. A touch of the angel’s rod, and all was consumed in a roar on divine fire. It was an anticipation of Elijah’s experience on Mount Carmel. Sin-offering, peace-offering, meal-offering — all were become an instantaneous burnt-offering, a sweet savour unto the Lord, symbolizing that, from now on, Gideon was to be wholly and entirely given to the holy work of his God and to the deliverance of the people of his God.

Thus Gideon had the sign he craved. With it his inkling became a certainty, and he shrank away aghast that he in his sins had talked face to face with an archangel from the very presence of Omnipotence. He had neither covered his eyes nor removed the sandals from his feet. Then how could he expect to live?

These surging doubts were quickly silenced by a firm angelic assurance, and his mind was quickly diverted to the work that lay before him — immediate drastic action against the canker of idolatry. Baal’s altar must remain no longer, and the foul phallic symbol of all the beastly practices associated with that cult must be utterly destroyed. Chickens-hearted Gideon, thou might man of valour, see thou to it!

And the angel departed.

Reformation

But how to begin? How was he to set himself against the vested interests of so many and against the public opinion of all the town? Yet the angel’s instructions brooked no delay. A stewardship was committed unto him. So all the rest of that day, fearing to act openly, Gideon brooded on the problem. Then, when night fell, he went to work in great trepidation, yet goaded on by his sense of duty and by the memory of the angel’s commandment and of the fire of the Lord consuming his offering.

Secretly gathering ten of the family servants he went forth and directly the demolition of the pagan altar and of the Asherah beside it, doing no small part of the work himself, both out of enthusiasm for the job and also to quell the misgivings of his helpers.

Thus did Gideon justify his name: “he who cuts down” (s.w. Deut. 7:5; 12:3). A few days more, and it was to be fulfilled in other ways also.

Gideon’s father, Joash, being the leading man in the town, was ex officio priest of Baal also. Not that he had any real enthusiasm for Baal-worship, but he lacked the energy or strength of character to set himself against the tide of public opinion. The altar just cut down was hard by his house, and tethered there were two bullocks destined to be sacrifices to Baal. These Gideon now took and offered to the Lord, this time not on his own behalf but on behalf of the people — the young bullock for a sin-offering (see Lev. 4:13,14), and the other bullock for a burnt-offering (Num. 15:24). His reformation of his people had begun, and the process had already brought him not only the office of reformer but also that of priest!

Reformation resisted

Not a few people in the town must have been aware that something was going on, but presumably they assumed that these were extra-zealous devotions at the sanctuary of Baal.

Next morning, when they learned differently, there was uproar. Joash, informed by Gideon of the angelic commission, now knew that he must help this new movement, though he was not the sort to throw himself enthusiastically into any cause. A public enquiry quickly fixed the blame for the desecration of Baal’s holy place on Gideon. “Bring forth thy son that he may die,” demanded the men who “stood against him”. But Joash, quick witted and sardonic, was equal to the occasion: “Will ye plead for Baal? Will ye save him?….if he be a god, let him plead for himself.” Once again there are resemblances to Elijah on Mount Carmel. And the logic is unanswerable: Does almighty Baal need mortal helpers? Cannot he deal with those who blaspheme his name? “Let be until morning” (RVm), and see what Baal will do.” Then he made a sudden ominous appeal to the lapsed law given by Moses: “If there arise among you a prophet….saying, Let us go after other gods….that prophet shall be put to death” (Deut. 13:1-5). So he declared: “He that will plead for Baal, let him be put to death.”

The threatening situation passed. It became known and accepted that the Spirit of the Lord had clothed itself with Gideon (RVm). From now on, under his new sardonic nickname Jerubbaal (“Let Baal plead for himself”), Gideon was recognised as judge of Manasseh and the neighbouring tribes.

Notes

It is useful at this point to pause and note the shape of the main part of Jude’s epistle.

Vv. 17-19 recapitulate the development of the longer main section, vv. 5-16:

In the section now under review there is also an impressive ABAB structure:

But Jude’s warning directs his readers to “the words spoken before by the apostles”. The close coincidence of vv. 17,18 with the familiar passage in 2 Peter 3:2,3 is not to be missed, and calls for explanation. The fact that Jude refers to an apostolic warning makes it near certain that he is referring to 2 Peter, and that he is in fact quoting from that epistle almost verbatim (but it is interesting to note how he slips in is own favourite objurgation: “ungodly”).

The way in which reference is made to the apostles has been made the ground for a confident conclusion that Jude himself was not an apostle. But this is very unsure. If a political spokesman were to announce: ‘The Government has decided….’, would that necessarily, or at all, imply that the speaker was not a member of the Cabinet?

Actually the same precarious argument can be used against 2 Peter: “The commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles” (3:2, R.V.). Certain modernists would be happy enough to infer here that therefore 2 Peter was not written by an apostle but by a clumsy forger who forgot himself for the moment. But those who believe that 2 Peter was written by Peter will appreciate the force of the argument.

In any case, Jude’s continuation: “how that they told you….” is fairly strong as an indication that Jude was himself an apostle, for otherwise would he not have written: “how that they told us….”?

But if Jude was referring to 2 Peter 3, why “the words (rhemata, spoken words) spoken before by the apostles”? Why not “words written” in 2 Peter?

It may be that Jude knew Peter to be in the habit of using an amanuensis. It is probable (1 Pet. 5:12) that Silvanus was the apostle’s secretary for the first epistle. In that case “spoken” would not be altogether inappropriate.

Another possibility is that these to whom Jude wrote had had Peter personally among them, speaking the very warnings which he later repeated in his letter.

Yet another interesting enquiry is why Jude should say “apostles”. If he were referring to Peter explicitly, would not a singular noun be more appropriate here?

But Peter was not the only one to have published warnings of this nature.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly (i.e. through Paul or one of his colleagues) that in the latter times (Jude: the last time; Peter: the last days) some shall depart from the faith….” (1 Tim. 4:1 — the first seven verses here merit careful comparison with Jude).

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come….” (2 Tim. 3:1, and again the first seven verses should be compared with Jude).

“After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).

So evidently Jude was aware of the plain warnings spoken by both Peter and Paul.

Peter had said that making fun of belief in the Second Coming would be one of the signs of the last days. In effect, Jude now says the same; but then he startles his readers by adding: “These be they….”. In other words, Peter was right and his prophecy is being fulfilled at this present time. Then is the reader to conclude that “the last days” have come and gone, or that they have lasted through 1900 years from Jude to the present day?

Neither of these conclusions will hold water. There is not much point in warning people that they live in “the last time” if that time stretches out for two millenia! And the attempt by some to limit the words to ‘the last days of Judah’s commonwealth’ is woefully inadequate for at least two plain reasons:

1. The Lord did not come in A.D. 70. There is no Scripture that says he did. But there are Scriptures that say that he didn’t, e.g. “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool” (Psa. 110:1).
2. 2 Peter 3 links “the last days” quite unmistakably with the personal return of the Lord and the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy about “new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” (v. 13). The only explanation of this problem that has solid Biblical backing and that has not been exposed as delusive is the idea of divine deferment, as expounded in the Appendix to “Revelation”, by H.A.W.

Jude puts his finger on a vital spot when he declares that men who scoff at the idea of the Second Coming do so that they might “walk after their own ungodly lusts”. What fools these mortals be! Today, as in Jude’s time, they think that by abolishing belief in the Second Coming they are also abolishing the Second Coming!

Jude has two more quickfire censures of these enemies of the Truth:

1. They “separate themselves” (A.V.). There is a Greek word horizo which normally means “mark off, determine”, just as the horizon marks off the limits of visibility. With prefix dia- forming diorizo, it describes the “separate place” in Ezekiel’s temple (41:12) and the Holy of Holies (Exod. 26:33). It also applies to Israel as a separate people (Lev. 20:26). With another prefix apo- it is used (in a bad sense) for withdrawing fellowship. But in this place, Jude uses the word with both prefixes: apodiorizo — it is the only occurrence in the New Testament or LXX. Clearly it is meant to be specially emphatic. But the form of the verb does not imply “themselves” (as in the A.V.), but rather the idea that “they cut off others”. Actually, taken either way, the word implies an act of separation by those who deem themselves superior in some way or another. Jude would assuredly find the counterpart to these people alive today. In differing degrees there are plenty calling themselves the Lord’s people who revel in this practice.
2. They are “sensual (psuchikos), not having the Spirit”. These two phrases clearly go together, for they are antitheses. Psuche, soul, is not infrequently used in the New Testament to describe the natural man and his unworthy inclinations: “The fruits that thy soul lusted after” (Rev. 18:14), “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years” (Luke 12:19). And in some places there is careful antithesis between what pertains to the natural man and what characterizes the new man in Christ. “The natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:14). The Word of God “divides asunder between soul and Spirit” (Heb. 4:12). Here, then, declares Jude, are men who are in the ecclesia but are not truly in Christ. It is a searing thing to have to say. And of course he would have to say the same thing today — about those who “make separations”!