Identity Crisis: Assessing Samson’s Birth and Career

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Chair and Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Samson is one of the most intriguing characters in the Bible. Was he a hero of the faith who defeated Israel’s Philistine oppressors or a tragic failure who died in the rubble of a pagan god’s temple? Perhaps the truth lies in the middle. In addition to this fundamental question the story presents numerous other interpretive challenges related to Samson’s identity. This article discusses three of these. Who was Samson’s father and when was Samson conceived? What was Samson’s understanding of his role in life? What was the nature of Samson’s Nazirite calling?

Who Was Samson’s Father and When Was Samson Conceived?

Judges 13 tells how Yahweh’s angel appeared to Manoah’s barren wife and announced she would bear a son (vv. 3, 5). The angel instructed her to follow a strict diet fit for a Nazirite (cf. Num. 6:3-4), for her son would be consecrated to God as a Nazirite from birth. The angel also made it clear that the child’s primary task would be military—he would “begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines” (Judg. 13:5).

The precise timing and nature of Samson’s conception are unclear. The rendering “you will conceive” (vv. 5, 7) assumes that Samson’s mother would conceive sometime after her encounter with the angel, presumably after having marital relations with Manoah. In this view the predicate adjective הָרָה in verse 5 is understood as future (equivalent to וַהָרִית in v. 3).[1] The syntactical structure of verses 3-5 may favor this interpretation. Elsewhere when הִנֵּה נָא (v. 3) is collocated with וַעֱתָּה (v. 4), הִנֵּה נָא introduces the logical basis for an argument, while וַעֱתָּה introduces the logical consequence (see Gen. 27:2-3; 2 Kings 5:15). Manoah’s wife’s impending conception and pregnancy (Judg. 13:3) required her to observe a strict diet (v. 4). Verse 5 then begins with כִּי, which is most naturally understood as an explanation for the instructions in verse 4 (see the following uses of the collocation וַעֱתָּה + imperative[s] + כִּי: Gen. 20:7; Num. 22:6; 1 Sam. 9:13; 20:31; 25:17; 2 Sam. 3:18; 7:29; 13:13; 19:7). If so, then Judges 13:5a is essentially equivalent to verse 3 in that it repeats for the sake of emphasis the basis for the instructions in verse 4. Thus it appears that וַהָרִית(v. 3) and הָרָה הִנָּךְ(v. 5) have the same temporal force.

However, this is not the only grammatical option for the adjective in verse 5; it is possible to translate “you are pregnant.”[2] Several factors seem to favor this. First, elsewhere the predicate adjective הָרָה indicates a past condition (from the storyteller’s perspective) when used in a narrative framework (1 Sam. 4:19), but it has a present force in quotations within a narrative framework (see Gen. 16:11; 38:24-25; 2 Sam. 11:5; Isa. 7:14 [though this last verse is debated]).[3] Second, elsewhere when suffixed הִנֵּה is followed by a predicate adjective, the adjective indicates a present condition (Gen. 16:11; Song of Sol. 1:15-16; 4:1).[4] Third, unlike other accounts where barren women become pregnant, there is no reference in the context to Manoah’s wife conceiving (contrast Gen. 21:2; 25:21; 30:23; 1 Sam. 1:20), only to her giving birth to the child (see Judg. 13:24). Consequently it is possible that Manoah’s wife became pregnant as the angel spoke with her. This could have occurred by a supernatural act apart from intimate contact with Manoah, although this need not be the case since conception does not occur immediately after intercourse (she could have had relations with Manoah shortly before this).[5]

Brettler contends that the messenger impregnated her.[6] In her report to Manoah (v. 6) she stated, “A man of God came to me.” Brettler points out that the idiom בּוֹא אֶל can have sexual connotations (see 15:1; 16:1) and may be translated, “The man of God slept with me.”[7] While this expression is by no means a technical phrase for sexual contact, its appearance in a context where conception is a major theme is striking. Usage would also seem to support Brettler’s view. Elsewhere when a woman used the idiom “come to me,” it has a sexual connotation. (See Genesis 38:16; 39:14, 17. Joshua 2:4 is ambiguous; the verb there is plural, not singular, but then again a prostitute is speaking.) Brettler draws attention to the text’s emphasis on the human qualities of the messenger and observes that angelic parentage would account well for Samson’s superhuman abilities. He draws a parallel to Genesis 6, where the sons of God cohabit with human women, and suggests that postbiblical sources (Josephus and Pseudo-Philo) hint at this interpretation of Samson’s birth.

However, a closer look at the immediate context militates against this proposal. In verse 8 Manoah prayed that the Lord would allow the man of God “to come again to us” (literal translation). Surely the idiom “come to” does not have a sexual connotation here! Of course one could argue that Manoah, who showed a propensity for confusion elsewhere in the chapter, did not understand the full implication of his wife’s statement in verse 6. However, verse 9 notes that the angel of God, in response to Manoah’s request, “came again to” her. The action is viewed as repeating the earlier incident (note עוֹד). Why would he need to have relations with her again if she was already pregnant (cf. v. 5)?[8] In verse 10 she simply reported to Manoah that the man “appeared” (נִרַאָה) to her. This suggests that בּוֹא אֶל, “come to” (v. 9), merely refers to his appearing to her and has no sexual connotation. If so, then one can safely assume that בּוֹא אֶל in her initial report to Manoah (v. 6) refers to the man’s appearing to her (cf. ךֶויֵּרָא in v. 3) and nothing more.

Nevertheless there may be a subtle dimension to the language that ironically plays off the use of the expression for sexual contact. While the messenger did not actually impregnate Manoah’s wife, he did make a prophetic pronouncement that guaranteed she would conceive. He did not “come to” her in a literal sexual sense, but his visit did precede and precipitate her conceiving. The use of this idiom, coupled with the omission of any reference to Manoah’s involvement in his wife’s pregnancy, highlights the miraculous nature of Samson’s conception and birth.

To summarize, the text may suggest that Samson’s conception occurred while the angel spoke to his mother and it suppresses any reference to Manoah’s impregnating her, but it does not support the idea that the angel was the father. Yet the language used to describe the angel’s visit plays off the idiomatic expression “come to,” understood in a sexual sense, to emphasize that God is the one who enabled Samson’s mother to conceive.

What Was Samson’s Understanding of His Role in Life?

When Manoah’s wife reported her experience to her husband, she focused on the angel’s dietary instructions. She omitted the prohibition about cutting the child’s hair (perhaps this was assumed on the basis of his identification as a Nazirite; cf. v. 7b),[9] and, more importantly, she failed to say anything about his future military role.[10] The latter omission is of great significance. Samson’s mother failed to communicate what was most important—her son’s divinely appointed destiny.[11] Her response to the angel’s message foreshadows Israel’s failure to recognize Samson as their God-given deliverer and Samson’s own confusion about his role in life.[12]

Manoah asked the Lord to send the messenger again, so that the messenger might teach them how to raise the boy (v. 8). God once more sent His angel to Manoah’s wife. She retrieved her husband, who asked the angel how the boy should be raised and he inquired concerning his son’s future “work” (v. 12), a question that would have been unnecessary if his wife had reported all the angel had said. The angel informed him that his wife must give careful attention to everything he had told her (v. 13).[13] In the Hebrew text “all” is placed in first position in the sentence for emphasis. The angel then outlined the regulations, but he mentioned only those that Manoah’s wife had reported to her husband before (cf. v. 14 with vv. 4 and 7).[14] The angel did not mention the items omitted by Manoah’s wife in her report—the prohibition pertaining to the boy’s hair and the identification of his life’s work (cf v. 5).[15] This seems odd, since Manoah specifically asked about the child’s “work.” Apparently the angel expected Manoah’s wife to inform her husband about these things, but there is no evidence she ever did. In the story to follow, Samson never gives any indication he understood himself to be Israel’s deliverer. The angel’s reticence fits the story, however. Initially he revealed God’s intention to deliver His people, despite their failure to ask for deliverance. But once Manoah’s wife, who had not asked to be delivered from her barren condition, overlooked this element, it is as if God purposely veiled His intention.[16] He was content to work behind the scenes, delivering a people who did not seek deliverance through a deliverer who failed to see himself as such.

Knowing that Samson’s destiny was to deliver Israel, one would expect the divine Spirit (13:25) to move him to initiate some type of military encounter with the Philistines. But instead, Samson intended to marry a Philistine woman. His parents voiced their objection by reminding him that intermarriage with the uncircumcised Philistines was inappropriate. Their concern seems valid and their logic convincing, but then the narrator stated that Samson’s desire for the girl was “of the Lord [who] was seeking an occasion [to confront] the Philistines” (14:4).[17] Yahweh disapproved of intermarriage with foreigners (3:5), but on this occasion He had a higher purpose that entailed circumventing the norm. As the following story reveals, Samson’s emotional involvement with a Philistine girl set the stage for strife between Samson and the Philistines. This strife in turn had the potential to be the catalyst for a war of liberation, which was Yahweh’s goal all along (see 13:5).

When Samson’s wedding went sour because of the Philistines’ devious behavior, humiliated Samson was finally at a point where Yahweh could use him to ignite a war with the Philistines (14:4). The divine Spirit rushed on him, just as He had earlier when the lion attacked (v. 6), and Samson killed thirty men of Ashkelon, took their clothes, and used them to pay off his debt to the Timnite groomsmen (v. 19). Samson’s act, prompted by the Spirit of the Lord, is problematic for many modern readers. However, like Ehud’s assassination of Eglon, it should not be viewed in isolation or judged by modern standards. Ehud’s deed initiated a war of liberation against the oppressive Moabites. Likewise, Samson’s deed must be viewed as an act of war against the oppressive Philistines. From the very beginning of the story Yahweh intended to deliver Israel from the Philistines through Samson (13:5). Yahweh nudged Samson in the direction of the Philistines in order to ignite a conflict (14:4), and having laid the foundation for strife, Yahweh’s Spirit empowered Samson to inaugurate the war.[18] This does not mean that Samson understood his actions in this light. This is where Ehud and Samson contrast. Ehud was very much aware that he was leading a war of liberation. As noted above, Samson was unaware of his role as God’s deliverer; he was simply expressing his indignation at being cheated. But his very human, selfish response to Philistine trickery became a weapon of war in Yahweh’s hand.

The events of chapter 15 culminate with Samson defeating an entire Philistine army. Samson acknowledged God’s role in the victory, but his main concern was his physical need and his fear of falling into the hands of the Philistines, whom he referred to with the derogatory word “uncircumcised.” Samson affirmed, “You have given into the hand of your servant this great victory” (v. 18, author’s translation). These words may suggest a nascent understanding of his role as Israel’s deliverer, but one should not read too much into the statement. The self-designation “your servant” may simply reflect his awareness of his Nazirite status, and the term תּשׁוּעָה most likely refers to Samson’s personal victory over and deliverance from the Philistines in the battle (compare the first-person verb forms in v. 16 and note his initial situation as their captive in vv. 12-13). It need not carry the connotation of “national deliverance.”[19]

Samson’s tragic career ends in a Philistine temple. Blinded Samson, the former riddler (14:14) and taunting victor (15:16), was now completely dependent on God, just as he was after the battle at Jawbone Hill when he thought he was dying of thirst (v. 18). For the second time in the story he cried out to God. However, this time there was no cute turn of phrase (14:14), poetic bravado (15:16), or brusque sarcasm (v. 18). He addressed God more appropriately, even using the covenantal name Yahweh. Before this he addressed God as “you” (15:18) and referred to Him as Elohim (16:17). He begged to be remembered and strengthened so that he might exact vengeance on the Philistines for taking his eyesight from him (v. 28). For the second time in the book God answered his prayer, allowing him to push the pillars over and bring the temple crashing down. Ironically in his death he won his greatest victory, for the narrator notes that he killed many more Philistines on this one occasion than he had throughout his life. Despite this great victory, the story is clouded by a tragic element. Even at the end of his life, Samson still did not understand his role as Israel’s deliverer. His concern was merely personal vengeance, which motivated him so strongly that he was willing to surrender his own life to achieve it.[20]

To summarize, Samson did not understand himself to be Israel’s deliverer. Though the angel revealed his role to his mother, she did not include this information in her report to Manoah, and the text gives no evidence that Samson viewed himself in this light. His conflicts with the Philistines were motivated by personal vengeance, not by any larger vision. In this respect he mirrors Israel, which did not ask to be delivered from Philistine oppression and accepted the reality of Philistine rule. Yet God accomplished His purpose (the beginning of Israel’s deliverance from the Philis-tines), despite Samson’s shortcomings and Israel’s apathy.

What Was the Nature of Samson’s Nazirite Calling?

Three Options

The exact nature of Samson’s Nazirite status is debated. According to Numbers 6:1-21 Nazirite vows were voluntary and temporary. Nazirites were to abstain from wine and fermented drinks, and were not allowed to eat grapes or raisins. During the time of their vow of separation, they were prohibited from cutting their hair and from going near a corpse. If someone died suddenly in their presence, they had to shave their hair, present an offering to the Lord, and renew their vow. Following successful completion of the period of separation, an elaborate ritual was prescribed to terminate the vow.[21]

In Samson’s case he was set apart to the Lord as a Nazirite from birth. The only regulation specifically mentioned by the angel pertained to Samson’s hair; it was not to be cut. Since the angel prohibited his mother from drinking wine and fermented drinks, one may reasonably assume that the regulation pertaining to such beverages also applied to him, but this is not actually stated.[22]

Nothing is mentioned about contact with a corpse, though later incidents in the story may take on fuller significance if seen against the background of this regulation (see 14:9; 15:15). The rule pertaining to someone who dies suddenly is problematic in Samson’s case. If it was applicable to Samson, then he violated his Nazirite status when he killed the Philistines (14:19; 15:15). If the regulation also applied to animals, then Samson’s killing a lion (14:6) also violated it. But his exploits against the Philistines (and the lion) were Spirit-empowered. Furthermore how could Samson possibly begin to deliver Israel without killing the enemy? Though apparently Samson did not see himself in the role of Israel’s deliverer, this was God’s plan for him (13:5). Why would God make Samson a Nazirite and then cast him in a role that inherently necessitated the violation of his Nazirite status? Perhaps one way to harmonize Samson’s military exploits with the Nazirite rule would be to argue that Samson should have cut his hair and renewed his Nazirite status after each conflict with the Philistines. However, there is no indication in the angel’s instructions or in the ensuing narrative that this was expected.

Perhaps the rule pertaining to contact with a corpse did not apply in cases where individuals were life-long Nazirites. Milgrom, after noting that both Samson and Samuel came in contact with corpses (on the latter, see 15:33), states, “That they were not bound by such a prohibition can be inferred from the instruction of the angel to Samson’s mother. She is enjoined to eschew forbidden food (Judg. 13:14), but nothing is said about contracting impurity from the dead, which, according to the priestly code, would have automatically defiled her embryo (cf. Num. 19:22). Here we must assume that the life-long Nazirite was subject to the same law as the priest, for whom corpse contamination only suspended his priesthood for a prescribed period of impurity (seven days, as for a layman, inferred from Lev. 22:4) but did not cancel it.”[23]

To summarize, three options are possible for interpreting the nature of Samson’s Nazirite status. First, Samson’s situation should be interpreted in light of Numbers 6:1-21 in its entirety. All the rules listed there would apply in his case. Second, only the Nazirite regulations specifically referred to in the angel’s instructions were applicable in Samson’s case, namely, those pertaining to cutting one’s hair and to drinking the fruit of the vine. The rule pertaining to contact with a corpse did not apply because of the special circumstances of Samson’s Nazirite calling. Third, Samson’s Nazirite status differed from the situation described in Numbers 6. In Samson’s case the only rule pertained to the cutting of his hair.[24]

Samson and Wine

At several points one’s view on this issue impacts how one reads the story. If Samson was bound by the regulation pertaining to drinking wine (see Judg. 13:4 as well as Num. 6:3-4), then his approaching a vineyard (Judg. 14:5) creates an ominous mood because threats to his Nazirite status are lurking in his environment.[25]

Following the custom of bridegrooms, Samson held a seven-day wedding banquet, where wine and beer would have abounded (14:10-18). If Samson was bound by the rule pertaining to drinking wine, then once again the mood is ominous, for he was in an environment where his Nazirite status could be easily compromised.[26]

Samson and the Lion’s Corpse

On his way to Timnah to marry the Philistine girl, Samson turned aside to look at the lion he had killed (14:8). He found that honeybees had built a hive in the lion’s carcass, so he scooped some of the honey up in his hands and ate it.[27] He even took some of it back home and gave it to his parents, though he did not tell them where it came from. If Samson was bound by the Nazirite regulation pertaining to contact with a corpse, then his actions reveal that he was willing to give his physical appetites priority over his Nazirite status. According to Numbers 6:6 a Nazirite was not to “go near a dead body.” The Hebrew phrase “dead body” (נֶפֶשׁ מֵת) occurs only in this passage.[28] Verse 7 makes it clear that human corpses are primarily in view, but the language seems flexible enough to include animals as well (נֶפֶשׁ can refer to animals, and an antonymic expression, נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, “living creature,” encompasses animals as well as humans; see Gen. 1:20, 24, 30; 2:7, 19; 9:12, 15-16; Ezek. 47:9). If the law applied to animals as well as humans, then he violated a Nazirite rule by touching honey that was in contact with the lion’s carcass.[29] Even if he technically did not break the rule, the story creates an ominous mood for it shows Samson violating the spirit of the law and coming precariously close to compromising his Nazirite status. Either way, this incident foreshadows the Delilah affair, where Samson decided physical gratification was more important than anything else, even his Nazirite status.[30]

The Shaving of Samson’s Hair

If all the Nazirite rules applied. In all three views the shaving of Samson’s hair violated his Nazirite status. If, in accord with the first view, one understands Samson as bound by all the regulations listed in Numbers 6, then the shaving of his hair may have been the last in a series of violations of the Nazirite rules. He had touched the honey from the lion’s carcass, attended a wedding banquet, touched the jawbone of a dead donkey, and killed a lion and several Philistines. If one assumes that the Nazirite regulation about corpses applied to animals as well as humans, that Samson drank wine at the wedding, and that his battle exploits placed him in the situation envisioned in Numbers 6:9, then he had violated all but one of the Nazirite rules prior to his encounter with Delilah. When his hair was shaved, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.[31]

However, this view requires some assumptions that are not necessarily supported by the text. It is possible that none of the actions before the Delilah incident violated the Nazirite code, at least technically speaking. The law about corpses may not have applied to animals, the text never says that he actually drank the prohibited beverages, and the situation described in Numbers 6:9 may not have applied to one whom God had commissioned to fight battles. So it is possible that Samson had not violated any of the Nazirite rules prior to the incident with Delilah. In this case the incident involving the animal corpse and Samson’s appearance at the wedding may contribute to the story by creating an ominous mood in which threats to Samson’s Nazirite status lurked in his environment.

Of course one could take an intermediate position. Perhaps Samson violated the rule about contact with a corpse when he ate the honey, but he did not violate any of the other rules before the incident with Delilah. But if the incident with Delilah was not the first time his Nazirite status had been compromised, then why did God take away his strength when his hair was shaved off? Perhaps God was patient with him and willing to overlook the initial violation of his Nazirite ritual. It is possible that Samson was not even aware of this regulation, since the angel did not mention it. But when Samson told Delilah the secret of his strength, he went too far. His long hair was the distinguishing feature that marked him out as a special servant of God. In fact the only Nazirite rule the angel drew to his mother’s attention was the regulation about his hair remaining unshaven. When he told Delilah the secret of his success, he did more than violate a rule; he rejected his role as God’s servant. For the second time in the story, in a far more telling way, he gave priority to his own gratification, rather than his divine calling. God was compelled to respond decisively.[32]

If only two rules applied. According to the second view, Samson was bound only by the rules pertaining to drinking wine and shaving his hair. If one assumes that he broke one of the rules by drinking at the wedding, then the shaving of his hair broke the second rule, violated his Nazirite status, and brought God’s discipline. However, as already noted, the text does not actually say he drank wine. This would explain why he was not disciplined until his hair was shaved, for only at that point was his Nazirite status compromised.

If only one rule applied. A final view, as noted earlier, is that the only regulation applicable in Samson’s case pertained to his hair. If so, it becomes understandable why God withdrew Samson’s strength when his hair was shaved. As Samson confessed to Delilah, his long hair was a unique visible reminder of his special relationship to God. His identity and destiny were inextricably linked to his long hair. Yet to keep Delilah he was willing to become as weak as all other men. This was a blatant rejection of his Nazirite status. God did not tolerate this attitude, and so He withdrew His energizing strength from Samson, at least temporarily.

But if one takes this view, then what is the point of the earlier incidents in the story (approaching the vineyard, coming in contact with the lion’s corpse, attending the wedding festival, killing Philistines) that echo the Nazirite regulations of Numbers 6? Perhaps the earlier incidents contribute to the overall incongruity and irony of the story. This is a story about a deliverer who never discovered his purpose in life and who began the deliverance of a people who never asked to be delivered. As such the story takes place within a framework of incongruity and irony.

The story is filled with incongruities, including the following eight. First, the Israelites did not ask for deliverance, but God decided to deliver them anyway. Second, God decided to supernaturally enable a barren woman to conceive, even though she did not ask for a child. Third, when told her son’s purpose in life, the mother failed to share the information with her husband Manoah. Fourth, when Manoah, who understandably was confused about his son’s role, asked for clarification, the angel did not give him a straightforward answer but simply said that his wife should remember everything she was told. Fifth, Manoah’s wife gave birth to Samson, though the text makes no reference to her husband having relations with her before or after the angel’s visit. Sixth, when the Lord’s Spirit began to move Samson, he went to Timnah and picked out a Philistine wife, seemingly in violation of the Lord’s standard regarding intermarriage with foreigners. Seventh, when Samson’s parents understandably objected to his becoming romantically involved with a Philistine girl, the narrator stated that the Lord was behind this strange development. Eighth, when Samson ignited a potential war with the Philistines, his own countrymen arrested him and handed him over to the enemy.

Within this framework the incidents that echo the Nazirite regulations fit well. Samson was a Nazirite, but not the usual type. He paraded through the story seemingly or nearly violating Nazirite regulations right and left. However, he had not really done so, because only one rule applied in his case. This is incongruous, but for that reason it is exactly what one expects in this story, which might be subtitled, “What’s Wrong with This Picture?”

Conclusion

This article has addressed three questions that arise from the enigmatic characterization of Samson: Who was Samson’s father and when was Samson conceived? What was Samson’s understanding of his role in life? What was the nature of Samson’s Nazirite calling?

With regard to Samson’s parentage, the text may suggest that Samson’s conception occurred while the angel spoke to his mother, but a close reading militates against the view that the angel actually impregnated her. However, the narrator does exploit the idiomatic expression “come to” to emphasize that God was the one who enabled Samson’s mother to conceive.

With regard to Samson’s role in life, the text gives no evidence that he understood himself to be Israel’s deliverer. Though the angel revealed his role to his mother, she did not include this information in her report to Manoah. Samson’s conflicts with the Philistines were motivated by personal vengeance, not by any larger vision of being his nation’s savior. He mirrors Israel, which did not ask to be delivered from Philistine oppression and which accepted the reality of Philistine rule. Yet God accomplished His purpose (the beginning of Israel’s deliverance from the Philistines), despite Samson’s shortcomings and Israel’s apathy.

As for the question of Samson’s Nazirite status, it is uncertain if the regulations pertaining to the drinking of wine and contact with a corpse applied in Samson’s case. One should not assume that these rules, associated with voluntary and temporary Nazirite status in Numbers 6, were applicable. Even if they were, it is unclear if Samson actually violated them. Depending on which rules applied and how one interprets Samson’s actions, the cutting of Samson’s hair may have been the culmination of a series of violations or the only violation of his status. While the details of the story do seem to echo the regulations given in Numbers 6, it is possible that these echoes simply contribute to the literary irony and incongruity of the story.

Notes

1. On the use of the weqatal form (וַהָרִית, v. 3) to express a future development after a nominal sentence indicating a present fact, see Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 534 (par. 32.2.4); A. E. Cowley, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar,2nd Eng. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 334 (par. 112x); and Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. T. Muraoka (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000), 2:396-97 (par. 119c).
2. In this case the כִּי at the beginning of verse 5 is emphatic (“surely, indeed”), and verse 5 makes an advance on the previous argument by pointing out that she is now pregnant, in fulfillment of the statement in verse 3. See Robert G. Boling, Judges, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 220.
3. The form that follows in verses 5 and 7 (וַיֹלֱדְתְּ) is difficult (cf. Gen. 16:11). The vocalization appears to be a mixture of an active participle (cf. Isa. 7:14) and a second feminine singular perfect (cf. Judg. 13:3). See Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew,1:269 (par. 89j), and 1:73 (par. 16g). However, Cowley and Gesenius understand the form as a participle without the helping vowel before the taw ending (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar,223 [par. 80d], and 276 [par. 94f–95]).
4. The same is true when suffixed הִנֵּה is followed by a predicate nominative (cf. Gen. 44:16; 2 Sam. 5:1; Jer. 44:2), with the exception of 2 Chronicles 20:24, where a narrator is the speaker.
5. Several commentators argue that she was pregnant when the angel spoke to her in verse 5. See Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 402; Boling, Judges, 220; George F. Moore, Judges, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1895), 317; and Lillian R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 111-14.
6. See Marc Zvi Brettler, The Book of Judges (London: Routledge, 2002), 44-49; Adele Reinhartz, “Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative (New York: Oxford, 1998), 98-101; and Othniel Margalith, “More Samson Legends,” Vetus Testamentum36 (1986): 400-401.
7. Brettler, The Book of Judges, 45. See also Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 114; and Margalith, “More Samson Legends,” 400.
8. Elsewhere the collocation of a masculine singular form of בּוֹא with אֶל, followed by אִשָּׁה, has a sexual connotation (cf. Gen. 38:8-9; Judg. 15:1; 1 Chron. 7:23; Prov. 6:29; Ezek. 23:44), but in five cases אִשָּׁה is suffixed or modified by a genitive and clearly refers to a man’s wife. In the other example (Ezek. 23:44) it is followed by the appositional זוֹנָה and refers to a prostitute. When הָאִשָּׁה (with an article prefixed) is the object of the preposition, as in Judges 13:9, there is no sexual connotation, though in both of the other instances the verb is masculine plural, not singular (1 Sam. 28:8; 2 Sam. 17:20).
9. See Boling, Judges, 221.
10. See Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part One (New York: Seabury, 1980), 183; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 101; and for a helpful chart see Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001),151.
11. The text does not state why she failed to do this. Perhaps she was so excited about having a baby that she overlooked God’s purpose in giving her one. David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell suggest other possibilities: “Does she fear to put the idea of a child destined for warfare in her husband’s head? Does she hope to thwart the divine purpose? Or does she wish to see divine purpose work out its own way, unencumbered by her husband’s control? Of course, more simply, she may be simply blocking her fear, as she trembles for the future of her unborn child” (Narrative in the Hebrew Bible [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], 68). George W. Savran doubts that she deliberately withheld information. “Given her guileless character and the subsequent unimportance of Samson’s parents in the rest of the cycle, it is improbable that Manoah was deliberately deceived by his wife” (Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988], 83-84).
12. In verse 7 there are additional, seemingly minor variations between the angel’s message and Manaoh’s wife’s report. The angel had instructed, “Be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing,” but she omitted the command “Be careful” (הִשָּׁמְרִי, cf. v 4), and she used the feminine form of “unclean” (טֻמְאָה), rather than the masculine form. These variations may seem insignificant, but her lack of care in relating the angel’s words caused Manoah to be confused and resulted in Samson not fully understanding the purpose of his calling. Jichan Kim suggests that the gender variation with the term “unclean” may simply be “an effort to avoid a danger of monotony” (The Structure of the Samson Cycle [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993], 190). However, when viewed in light of her other more significant alterations of the angel’s message, this slight change reinforces the narrator’s portrayal of her as one who fails to give attention to detail.
13. The niphal of שָׁמַר, when collocated with the preposition מִ˜, has the force of “pay attention to, beware of.” See Genesis 31:29; Exodus 23:21; Deuteronomy 23:9; 1 Samuel 21:4; 2 Kings 6:9; and Jeremiah 9:4. The statement in Judges 13:13b refers to more than just adherence to the commands given before; it means she should pay attention to all that the angel said previously, including his comments about the boy’s work. In verse 14, where the qal of שָׁמַר is collocated with כֹּל as its object, obedience to prior commands is specifically in view, but verse 13b is broader in its scope than this.
14. The phrase מִשְׁפַּט־הַנַּעַר, literally, “the rule(s) of/for the boy,” refers in verse 12 to the regulation(s) that the boy was to follow to fulfill his Nazirite status. Similarly in 1 Samuel 10:25 the phrase מִשְׁפַּט הַמְּלֻכָה, literally, “the rule(s) of kingship,” refers to the regulations the king was to follow, which are outlined in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. Block understands מִשְׁפַּט־הַנַּעַר in Judges 13:12 as a reference to the oracle in verses 3-5 (Judges, Ruth,408), but verse 14 suggests that the rules alluded to in the oracle are in view. See C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (New York: KTAV, 1970), 347; and Kim, The Structure of the Samson Cycle, 201-2. Block argues that מִשְׁפַּט הַמֶּלֶךְ, “the practice of the king,” refers to an oracle in 1 Samuel 8:9, 11, but it seems more likely that the policies of the typical king, outlined in 1 Samuel 8:10-17, are in view.
15. In fact he even omits any reference to Samson’s Nazirite status (cf. Judg. 13:5, 7). See J. Cheryl Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13,” Journal of Biblical Literature99 (1980): 52.
16. It is odd that Manoah’s wife, though barren, is not depicted as seeking relief from her condition. Her passive role in the account contrasts with other barren women who sought a child from the Lord, sometimes exhibiting desperation in their pleas and efforts (see Gen. 25:21; 30:6, 24; 1 Sam. 1:9-20). The narrator in Judges 13 does not indicate that the angel’s visitation was in response to the prayer of Manoah’s wife. She was seemingly resigned to her condition, much like Israel was resigned to being enslaved by the Philistines. They did not ask the Lord for relief, but He decided to deliver them anyway. Kim aptly suggests that the narrator may have “used her barrenness as an analogue for Israel’s current situation” (The Structure of the Samson Cycle, 181). He adds, “The woman’s barrenness not only provides a fitting background for a miraculous birth but also reflects analogically the pathetic plight of the Israelites who by their apostasy have foreclosed the future” (ibid.).
17. On the narrator’s use of temporary gapping here see Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press, 1987), 238. The inclusion of the phrase “from the Lord” suggests that Yahweh was the driving force behind Samson’s behavior. Two texts in particular provide especially relevant parallels. In Genesis 24:50 Laban and Bethuel agreed that the arrival of Abraham’s servant was “from the Lord” (i.e., of the Lord’s doing). In 1 Kings 2:15 Adonijah acknowledged that Solomon’s right to rule came “from the Lord” (i.e., by divine decision). See also 2 Chronicles 22:7, where the phrase “from God” refers to how God manipulated the timing of events so as to bring about the downfall of Ahaziah. This does not mean that Yahweh overrode Samson’s personality or natural inclinations, but it does suggest Samson would not have pursued the Philistine girl apart from a divine nudge.
18. Downplaying the divine Spirit’s role in this event, K. Lawson Younger Jr. accuses Samson of “murder and larceny” (Judges and Ruth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002], 304). Dennis T. Olson contends that the Lord’s Spirit “impels Samson to act powerfully but with unthinking impulse, violence, and faithlessness” (“The Book of Judges,” in The Interpreter’s Bible [Nashville: Abingdon, 1998], 2:767-68; cf. 850-51). In Samson’s experience the Spirit is “no longer a positive force” (ibid., 768). On the contrary, “the divine Spirit becomes ineffectual and ultimately dangerous and destructive in the extreme” (ibid). According to Olson, the Spirit prompted Samson to kill the lion (14:6) and in so doing to break “the nazirite prohibition of touching a corpse or eating anything unclean” (ibid., 850-51). He also empowered Samson to kill the Ashkelonites and to steal their clothing, thus violating two commandments of the Decalogue (Deut. 5:17, 19). However, it is not certain if the rule pertaining to touching corpses applies in Samson’s case. Even if it did, it is not certain that the rule pertained to animal corpses. Furthermore, given Samson’s calling to be a warrior, it is doubtful that Numbers 6:9 applies in his case. As for Samson’s alleged violations of the commandments prohibiting murder and theft, these rules would not apply to acts of war, especially “holy war.”
19. For other examples of the collocation of תְּשׁוּעָהand the verb נָתֱ˜ see 2 Kings 5:1; Psalm 144:10; and Isaiah 46:13. For the collocation נָתֱ˜ בְּךֶיד־עֶבֶד see Genesis 32:17 and 2 Chronicles 34:16; in both texts the phrase means to “commit to the care of.”
20. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 467-68, as well as Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983), 12-13. H. G. L. Peels downplays Samson’s desire for personal vengeance and attempts to interpret his actions in light of his role as Israel’s deliverer (The Vengeance of God [Leiden: Brill, 1995], 100-102). However, he seems to overlook the grim reality of Samson’s ignorance of his role. There is no evidence in the text that Samson viewed himself as saving Israel. In 15:18 he spoke of his victory as personal and in 16:28 he sought personal vengeance.
21. For a helpful summary of the regulations pertaining to Nazirites see Victor H. Matthews, Judges and Ruth, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 134-36.
22. Kim states, “We should be careful not to regard the first two Nazirite prohibitions as pertaining only to the woman. These restrictions also pertain to the boy. The reason for her diet is not simply that she will bear a son but that the boy to be born will become a Nazirite from the womb” (The Structure of the Samson Cycle, 185). Kim argues that the causal clause in 13:7 (“for the boy will be a Nazirite to God”) clearly indicates that the child’s Nazirite status is why his mother was to abstain from drinking wine. One can detect the same logic in verses 4-5.
23. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 357. Timothy R. Ashley is not certain that Samuel was actually a life-long Nazirite (The Book of Numbers, New International Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 139-40).
24. Since the angel did not mention the regulation about touching a corpse, Tony W. Cartledge argues that this prohibition did not apply in Samson’s case. He also points out that the angel, while prohibiting Samson’s mother from drinking wine, said nothing about this regulation being applicable to Samson himself. Since Samson got in trouble only when his hair was cut, Cartledge concludes that contact with a corpse and abstention from wine were not part of Samson’s Nazirite obligations and that the temporary Nazirite status envisioned in Numbers 6 differs from Samson’s permanent condition (Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992], 19-20). See also Othniel Margalith, “Samson’s Riddle and Samson’s Magic Locks,” Vetus Testamentum36 (1986): 230-32; and Martin Emmrich, “The Symbolism of the Lion and the Bees: Another Ironic Twist in the Samson Cycle,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society44 (2001): 71-72.
25. Tammi J. Schneider argues that Samson violated his Nazirite status by approaching the vineyard and suggests this is why he did not tell his parents about the incident (Judges, Berit Olam [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000], 205). James L. Crenshaw wonders if the lion attack was a warning to Samson that he had ventured too close to the vineyard. Lions appear in two accounts in 1 Kings as instruments of divine punishment against disobedient servants of God (1 Kings 13:24-28; 20:35-36). Crenshaw backs off from this conclusion, however, because Samson, unlike the prophets in 1 Kings, was able to kill the lion (Samson: A Secret Betrayed, A Vow Ignored [Atlanta: John Knox, 1978], 84). Perhaps Crenshaw’s interpretive caution is unwarranted. In Judges 16:1-3 Samson succeeded in Gaza despite his wrongdoing; yet his carelessness foreshadowed and led to his eventual failure. The same could be true in Judges 14, except that here the Spirit of the Lord empowered him, while 16:1-3 omits any reference to the Spirit. Perhaps more importantly, the fact remains that Samson did not drink the fruit of the vine and therefore did not violate a Nazirite rule. It is more likely that the reference to the vineyard simply contributes to the literary effect and mood of the story.
26. Schneider, Judges, 206; and J. Alberto Soggin, Judges, Old Testament Library, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 241. The text never describes him as drinking fermented beverages here, so it cannot be assumed, as Olson does (“Judges,” 850), that he violated his Nazirite status. For an opinion countering Olson’s see Milgrom, Numbers, 356; and Robert H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, Vetus Testamentum Supplement (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 225. Baruch Levine’s characterization of Samson as “a carousing adventurer, reveling in wine, women, and song” is not entirely accurate—women and song, yes, but the text does not say that he drank intoxicating beverages (Numbers 1-20, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 230).
27. Verse 8 specifically mentions that he saw a swarm of bees in the lion’s carcass. Since bees are depicted elsewhere as dangerous and harmful (see Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), it is possible that they were a warning to Samson that he should stay away from the honey (Kim, The Structure of the Samson Cycle, 243). If this episode does indeed foreshadow Samson’s encounter with Delilah (symbolized by the honey), then the bees, like the lion (vv. 5-6), foreshadow Samson’s Philistine enemies (ibid., 243-44).
28. A similar expression, נַפְשֹׁת מֵת, appears in Leviticus 21:11.
29. See Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 129-30; and Soggin, Judges, 240.
30. See Kim, The Structure of the Samson Cycle, 312-13.
31. Olson argues that Samson broke “all three nazirite vows by eating unclean food, drinking alcohol, and cutting his hair” (“Judges,” 842).
32. See the insightful discussion in Barry G. Webb, The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 169-70.