A few questions about Samson...

Based on verse 13:5, which says that Samson's role is to "[B]begin[B] to deliver" it seems that he shouldn't be counted as sinful, rebellious, or lazy for not acting as the other Judges and uniting Israel in a formal war against the Philistines. Why is Samson usually considered a failure in this area, when the prophesy to Manoah suggests his ministry may have been more likely one that was demonstrative of God's power to Israel to defeat the Philistines, and inspiring/motivational, to begin that war against their oppressors?

Secondly, does verse 14:4 suggest that Samson was justified in his desire for a non-Jewish wife? Was God giving Samson this desire, or was God using Samson in spite of his sinful desire since He was "seeking an occasion against the Philistines?"

Finally, in eating honey out of the lion's carcass (14:8-9), this would have for sure made him unclean, but since the Nazirite vow specifies touching a human corpse, it seems as though he didn't break his Nazirite vow. Some commentators, George Bush for example, suggest that Samson broke his vow here, and also when walking through the vineyard (14:5, although there is no textual evidence at all). Why are these seen as breaking of the Nazirite vow, when Samson's strength was specifically linked to the keeping of his vow (16:17) and he only lost his strength at the shaving of his head?

__________________
Scott Scarborough
Re:vive Church
"Your real friend and Soul's servant."
Chino, CA

"How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked... but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night." -Psalm 1:1a,2

1) Samson was a sinner saved by grace (Heb.11:32), faithfully heroic and deeply flawed just like David. It could be I'm reading different commentators from you, but I don't see the heavy-handed criticism you are seeing in the "war department".

2) It was wrong for Samson to seek a foreign wife, though still part of God's plan.

3) Nazarites were supposed to be sanctified (clean) above and beyond the Israelite norm. Nu.6:6 really means he was not to touch anything dead, not merely human, and 6:7 says basically "not EVEN for mother or father!". The question is did he violate such a precept as this explicitly?:It is possible these were just the bones of the lion, and no more flesh, but I'm not sure that really made any difference. And maybe such an error did not ruin his vow. But even if it wasn't technically a violation, I do think it contributes to the picture we have of Samson that he was not careful to observe his purity.

14:9 deliberately notes that he did not tell his parents where the honey came from. I wonder why that was? Probably because they would tell him he had to go through a whole, big ritual purity thing again. ho hum.

So, I think God forgave him this failure, and so much more without removing his special presence from him. But when he gave up that last sliver of integrity, to which he had clung with almost superstitious fervor, God made that his occasion to depart, and give Samson room for chastisement and repentance.

But I think some commentators are looking for more issues to hang on Samson, as in the wine thing. I don't think that's explicit. There's enough sin there already, without adding speculation.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Thanx for the reply. Makes sense.

How about the "fresh jawbone" (15:15) that Samson fought with? The lion may have been all bone by the time he returned, but does this verse imply a breaking of the vow? The Spirit of the Lord was upon him at the time he grabbed it....

Without in any way seeking to defend anything like a "situational ethic", I do think that God would have considered that a situation of "need" or "necessity"--the kind of need that God says trumps the propriety for scrupulous ceremonial observance. Note the exception granted to David (see Mark 2:25-26; and 1Sam.21:1-6).

So, I don't think the condition of the jaw bone was important--except that it wasn't ancient and brittle! It was strong and "fresh" and a plain, uninspiring tool that God evidently gave to Samson in extremis. I think its pretty clear that God sanctified that jawbone.

That wasn't a violation, since John wore a camel hair robe and Solomon imported ivory which are both products of unclean animals, but weren't in contact with their dead flesh. The lion was killed, scavengers ate the flesh, the temperature desiccated the rest and the bees (Apis mellifera syriaca only swarms in spring and summer), which won't land on rotten meat built their nest in the dried remains. Sampson broke off combs, the edges of which don't break off, but little ridges of wax remain on the surface combs are attached to, so the honey never touched the lion's carcass.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Thanx guys, I appreciate your comments.