Samson: The Original IED

He was fine, content to hide alone in Etam, but no, he couldn’t be left alone.  Have you ever prodded a problem, which, in retrospect, probably should have just been left alone? I’m pretty sure the Philistines thought they understood the problem they faced.  It seemed clear that some rogue Hebrew had gone off rails, and killed a bunch of people in Timnah.  They probably saw it as a potential “uprising”.  They had iron, technologically advanced weaponry.  It was time to reassert.  But, that was a very bad idea.

Then the Philistines went up and camped in Judah, and spread out in Lehi.  The men of Judah said, “Why have you come up against us?” And they said, “We have come up to bind Samson in order to do to him as he did to us.”  Then 3,000 men of Judah went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam and said to Samson, “Do you not know that the Philistines are rulers over us? What then is this that you have done to us?” And he said to them, “As they did to me, so I have done to them.”  They said to him, “We have come down to bind you so that we may give you into the hands of the Philistines.” And Samson said to them, “Swear to me that you will not kill me.”  So they said to him, “No, but we will bind you fast and give you into their hands; yet surely we will not kill you.” Then they bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock. (Judges 15:9-13 NASB)

The Philistines came to “Jawbone”, a hill in the territory of the Tribe of Judah.  The spread out into raiding parties, and the people asked them why they’d come.  The intent was to show that no one pushes around the Philistines.  They had come for the rebel, Samson.  They intended to inflict retribution upon him, which is, ironically, what he had done.  And then he stopped.  The people of Israel agree to bring him to the Philistines.  Of course, they didn’t know what would happen either.

When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands.  He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, so he reached out and took it and killed a thousand men with it. (Judges 15:14-15 NASB)

Once more, the Spirit of Yahweh comes upon Samson, and he become the weapon of God. Notice that he doesn’t break his bonds, but they turn to ash and fall from him.  God, the One inspiring the slaughter, frees His weapon to do His work.  I’m sure the 3,000 men of Judah scatter, the shout of the Philistines dies in their throats, and a vulture lands in a nearby tree with a cry.  All eyes on Samson, the impossible divine weapon is about to be unleashed.

He grabs one of the least lethal objects, a jawbone (Lehi is named for them), but a “fresh” one.  He doesn’t pick up a stick, which might have broken.  He avoids the old bones, which were probably very brittle.  He picks up a jawbone of a donkey, maybe still with a little meat on it.  It’s a sturdy choice, an improvised weapon in the hands of a man about to explode.  The cry begins again, the Philistines rush, and the death begins.

At what point did the Philistines realize their mistake and try to retreat?  When did the retreat become a rout?  No one pursues fleeing Philistines, and only those remaining on the hill die at the hands of the inspired object of wrath.  Heaps of bodies, all that’s left are mounds of the dead and dying.  Samson stands alone.  Once more having become the terror of Yahweh, inspired bringer of death, he stands alone, the last one alive.

The point isn’t the fight.  It’s not described, only stated.  It happened.  Samson killed 1,000 men with the fresh jawbone.  It’s not even it’s own sentence, it’s a phrase within one.  The point lies elsewhere.  It lies in the man standing among the dead, once again.  The focus of this chapter is the man who has killed a third time.  The point of the author is this man upon whom comes the Spirit of Yahweh, but to destroy, to take life.  He is a tool, a weapon, in the hand of Yahweh to begin to deliver His people from the Philistines.  It is a terrible thing to be Samson, a burden for which he never asked.

I’m not even sure Samson had a choice to disobey.  Did he?  Could he have opted not to engage?  Maybe he could have hid somewhere less accessible.  But he didn’t, and he doesn’t turn from the task at hand.  Whether his choice or not, he engaged the problem before him with the power of the Maker of the universe flowing through him.

What about us?  What if we were to be used by our Master as such an object of wrath?  It seems so foreign to us, our cultures so different.  Yet there still exist cultures in our world in which this wouldn’t be inappropriate.  Warlords still torture the land and people of Africa.  There are other places, nearly lawless ones, where a divine weapon may make sense.  The current nation of Israel stands surrounded by a sea of hostile nations.  Perhaps they have need of another divine weapon.  But would we accept this from our Master?  The question is really, can we accept this as part of the character of our Savior?

Well, that’s my troubling view through my knothole this morning.  What do you see of our Master through yours?

Advertisement

Samson’s Choices

Samson has had some very violent experiences when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him.  It seems that Yahweh’s purpose is to begin to break the hold of the Philistines from on His people.  But Samson isn’t necessarily a willing participant.  Samson, when left to his own choices, seems to first choose a prank, before choosing killing people.

Samson then said to them, “This time I shall be blameless in regard to the Philistines when I do them harm.”  Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned the foxes tail to tail and put one torch in the middle between two tails.  When he had set fire to the torches, he released the foxes into the standing grain of the Philistines, thus burning up both the shocks and the standing grain, along with the vineyards and groves.  Then the Philistines said, “Who did this?” And they said, “Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because he took his wife and gave her to his companion.” So the Philistines came up and burned her and her father with fire. (Judges 15:3-6 NASB)

It’s possible that Samson’s prank went further than he intended, yet, with 300 foxes, it’s hard to imagine a different outcome.  That he was able to catch 300 foxes is impressive, and the results are what we might expect; the entire harvest, plus the groves and vines.  Essentially, Samson impoverished Timnah.

The response of the Philistines is interesting.  They don’t preserve their own, but seem to take Samson’s side.  It’s the Philistine family punished, not Samson for going overboard.  And yet, Samson views this as punishment on him, they’ve killed his…almost wife.  It wasn’t like he was likely to gain her back, not after she was given to another.  He still takes this punishment very personally.

Samson said to them, “Since you act like this, I will surely take revenge on you, but after that I will quit.”  He struck them ruthlessly with a great slaughter; and he went down and lived in the cleft of the rock of Etam. (Judges 15:7-8 NASB)

This is a difficult passage to translate, and, therefore, understand.  Partly because of an idiom, and partly because of the grammar.  But Samson’s self-exile to a cave seems to help choose among options.

The grammar has to do with “if” statements and what he means by “after I will stop”.  The idiom is that Samson struck them “leg on thigh a great stroke”.  The idiom is typically translated interpreting the idiom to mean “ruthlessly” or something like that.

The grammatical interpretations show less interpretation, and more literal choices.  The “if” statements are translated as “since”, which is normal for Semitic language useage.  But, what did Samson mean, “…and after I will stop”?  Some translations render it, “…I won’t stop until…” but the most literal translation option is to put it at the end.  I think it reveals something of the reluctance of Samson to kill.  I don’t think he wants to kill, but between the Spirit of Yahweh and the Philistine behavior, he feels compelled to kill.

Samson’s choices are destruction of property first, and then vengeance only after his ex-wife is killed.  After his vengeance, he self-exiles to a cave.  This is the action of one showing remorse for his actions, not someone proud to be killing the “lords and oppressors of his people”.  But it seems it is not the plan of Yahweh that Samson hide.  The human weapon of Yahweh isn’t finished yet.

One of the lessons I learn when I think through Samson this way, is that my Master may have plans for me very different than I imagine for myself.  And these plans may even run contrary to my personality and desires.  I’m not wild about that idea, but what if my Master chooses that option for me?  To what extent will I limit my obedience?  Will I only do what I consider beneficial for myself, or to be more in line with my character and desires?  Will I only obey when it works for me?

I’m not sure to what extent Samson had a choice in some of his actions.  In both the foxes and the revenge, he seems to work without divine inspiration.  But that’s coming in this chapter.  So, what if the weapon of Yahweh is Samson’s character?  If so, Samson doesn’t seem to like that part of himself.  He’s proud of his cleverness, but not his ability to take lives.  I don’t think that, if killing is part of his character, it’s the part he wants to be known for.  But, thousands of years later, it’s often the only thing we remember about him, that and his weakness for women.

So, what design could my Master have for me that might run contrary to how I want to see myself?  What will I do when I see Him use me for things I’d rather not do?  What will He do with me that will change how others see me, and how will I view that?  I suspect we will see that Samson isn’t particularly happy with how Yahweh uses him.

That’s my view through the knothole today.  What do you see of our Master through yours?

 

The Riddler Judge

Characters in Scripture continually surprise me.  They bring out my prejudices revealing areas of pride in my heart. For some reason, I am constantly surprised at the sophistication of Bronze Age II people, including the Israelis.  What’s wrong with me?  How often does that need to happen before I simply accept that it doesn’t take a smart phone to make one brilliant?

Samson throws a party, because that was the custom of the time when one gets married.  He wasn’t from there, so thirty “friends” were found for him with whom to “party”.  So, Samson decides to have some fun and offers to challenge them with a riddle…

Then Samson said to them, “Let me now propound a riddle to you; if you will indeed tell it to me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty linen wraps and thirty changes of clothes.  But if you are unable to tell me, then you shall give me thirty linen wraps and thirty changes of clothes.” And they said to him, “Propound your riddle, that we may hear it.”  So he said to them, “Out of the eater came something to eat, And out of the strong came something sweet.” But they could not tell the riddle in three days. (Judges 14:12-14 NASB)

Look at verse 14 in several translations.  This riddle which Samson “propounds” is a poetic oddity.  Normally Hebrew poetry doesn’t render into English well at all.  English poetry prefers rhyme (words end the same), and Hebrew prefers “euphony” (words begin the same).  This riddle begins the same in Hebrew, and rhymes in English.  Only the King James Version misses the rhyme because of an “eth” that just has to be in there.  That doesn’t happen.

And consider that the references also work well in both languages, “eater” with “something to eat” (actually “food”), and “strong” and “sweet”.  These same references are clear in Hebrew.  Normally, such ideas or references take a lot more words in English than they do in Hebrew poetic lines.  This riddle is a poetic anomaly, in that it works both in Hebrew and English.  It doesn’t work so well in Greek.  Ironic, that.

Anyway, if he wins, Samson gets 30 sets of clothes.  If they win, Samson buys 30 sets of clothes.  He’s definitely the bigger winner and the bigger loser in this wager.  They risk and stand to gain much less.  Sounds like a good deal, and they take him up on it.  As the readers/audience, we know to what the riddle refers.  But, since nobody seems to work in, or around, the vineyards of Timnah, nobody else does.

Now we run into the second set of weird literary pieces.  It seems our author/editor isn’t a mathematician.  How many days was that feast?

Then it came about on the fourth day that they said to Samson’s wife, “Entice your husband, so that he will tell us the riddle, or we will burn you and your father’s house with fire. Have you invited us to impoverish us? Is this not so?”  Samson’s wife wept before him and said, “You only hate me, and you do not love me; you have propounded a riddle to the sons of my people, and have not told it to me.” And he said to her, “Behold, I have not told it to my father or mother; so should I tell you?”  However she wept before him seven days while their feast lasted. And on the seventh day he told her because she pressed him so hard. She then told the riddle to the sons of her people. (Judges 14:15-17 NASB)

So, the 30 “buddies” can’t tell him he riddle in 3 days, so, on the fourth, they go extort Samson’s “wife”.  Think through what they say to her, “Have you invited us to impoverish us? Is that not so?”  Wouldn’t it make more sense that Samson offered to impoverish himself?  They’re only out a set of clothes apiece, he’s on the hook for 30.  But such they claim, and threaten to kill her and her family.

In order to follow up on the previous entry, notice the wife doesn’t look at Samson and figure he can protect her and her family.  Another reason I think he doesn’t look like a superhero.  Instead she employs the female default weapon…tears.  And, let me just ask this, since all guys are thinking it, but I’m going to verbalize it, “Why do women claim men aren’t emotional, and yet know they can sway us with tears?”  If we weren’t emotional, that wouldn’t work.  So, women, stop trying to have it both ways.  You don’t come out well in the bargain.

Now, they can’t answer Samson in 3 days.  They go to the wife on the fourth.  And, she pesters Samson with tears for how many days?  Seven?  In the Hebrew (which is not the oldest text) they go to her on the seventh day.  How, exactly, does that work?  How can she weep before Samson seven days, regardless of which day the 30 “buddies” went to her?  Unless she was already weeping before him when they went to her, maybe that’s why they went to her.  But, no, that doesn’t really make sense.  We’re left with the literary conundrum, probably caused by the writer having too many fragmentary versions of the story from which to choose.

Eventually Samson gives into the tears, and she, then, promptly betrays him to her people.  I laugh at the next passage, even though it’s actually tragic, it’s just so crazy:

So the men of the city said to him on the seventh day before the sun went down, “What is sweeter than honey? And what is stronger than a lion?” And he said to them, “If you had not plowed with my heifer, You would not have found out my riddle.”  Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father’s house.  But Samson’s wife was given to his companion who had been his friend. (Judges 14:18-20 NASB)

The thirty “friends” win the wager telling Samson the answer to the riddle.  Does Samson actually refer to his new wife as a “heifer”?  So, does this guy simply not get women in general?  That could not endear her to him.  But, again, we see the Spirit of Yahweh cause him to succeed, and he goes down to another city, a major Philistine city, and murder 30 men for their clothes.  Was there blood still on them when he delivers them?  The deception and greed of the 30 “friends” was actually more costly for them.

Samson, in anger, returns to his father’s house instead of to his wife, and she’s given to another.  She’s given to someone referred to as one of his companions, who had been his friend.  Perhaps not all 30 were selfish jerks?  But being Samson’s friend, or wife, does not make one safe in this story.

Did you notice that God used this circumstance to incite Samson to kill Philistines?  Samson seems inclined to join them, at least to an extent.  But, their refusal to accept him is used by God to incite Samson to kill 30; something God considers “a good start”.  It’s kind of ruthless of God, is it not?  But consider that friendship with the ruling pagans would be enmity toward God.  Yet God thwarts the extension of friendship, closing off that avenue for Samson, and directs him to damage them instead.  The superhero has a divine purpose, one he may fight against, but one which he cannot escape.

What divine purpose do you have?  I’m no superhero, but I believe I have a divine purpose, and I believe you do as well.  I pray that I won’t miss mine, but, is that even an option?  Won’t my Master drive me away from missing it?  Do I truly have so much power that I can escape the divine will of my Master?  He’s given me a choice, but does He also give up His power over His purposes and designs?  Samson would have been a much less tragic character had he gone along with the purpose of his Master.  So, I guess my (our) choice is whether to be a tragic or triumphant hero.  Let’s fight the right enemy.

What’s your view through the fence this morning?

Life Saving Repentance

 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any.  And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’  And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.'”  (Luke 13:5-9 NASB)

And so we have a warning from Jesus, to repent or perish.  In a sense it’s like saying life is short, but in another sense it’s like warning someone from a cliff.  The way it’s worded is as a warning that if things continue then the result will be destruction.  This isn’t an usual proclamation for Jesus, He began His teaching with “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near,” and gave that same message to His disciples on both “sending out” events.  Repentance is arguably the core of Jesus’ message.  But what does it mean?

Most of the time I’ve heard repentance described as “turning around and going the other way.”  Yet even this is overly simplistic.  Turn from what to what?  The word for “return” which is where we get this simple definition isn’t even the normal word for “repent”.  The normal word is “after thought” referring to a “change of mind afterwards”.  The mind or pattern of thinking about something changes.  Which is great, but still, from what to what?  And in verses 1-5, Jesus really doesn’t say from what to what.  But I believe He does give us a glimpse of what He wants in this parable.

The fig tree has a problem: It doesn’t produce figs as it should.  The conditions are good, the tree is the right sort, it’s in the right place, it’s just not making figs.  The owner says to cut it down and the gardener says to give it a year of even better treatment.  The question left hanging in the air, leaving us in suspense is, “will the tree produce figs, or will it perish?”.  So what is the change or turning from and to in this case?  Doing what we’re designed to do?  Being what we’re designed to be?

There is much in our culture that fights against design.  But our culture isn’t made up of the “people of God” either.  So it shouldn’t surprise us.  But when the “people of God” struggle against the design of their Creator, then there is a problem.  Jesus is speaking to Jews of the first century.  They considered themselves the “People of God”, and rightly so.  Scripture has declared the same thing in both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.  Yet, their Messiah shows up, and they rejected Him.  While this was wonderful news for Gentiles like me, it broke Jesus’ heart.  His people were not being what they were designed to be.

Flash forward a few thousand years, and ask the question, are followers of Jesus today being what they were designed to be?  It would be overly simplistic to answer for every church and every believer.  On the other hand, trends in the American culture seem to indicate an anemic influence of biblical values.  And the news seems to have no problem finding examples of those who claim to follow Jesus being better examples of moral evil rather than moral good.  It seems indistinct and difficult to change the course of all believers across the country, so how about me…and you?

Are we being what we’re designed to be?  Are we doing what we’re designed to do?  Are we fig trees bearing figs?  Or are we trying to produce peaches?  Are we trying to be evergreens?  Are we trying to be gazelles?  Are we unhappy with who or what God has designed us to be and are we trying to be “self-made” whatever?  Our culture tells us that we can be whatever we want, “anyone can be anything”.  Disney produced a movie to that effect this year, “Zootopia”.  I love that movie.  It’s about overcoming the confining cultural barriers and being whatever you want.  To an extent, I believe that myself.  But only to the extent that my culture seems very invested in me not being a devoted follower of Jesus.

So what will I do?  Will I resist my Savior’s design and purpose for me?  Will I fight my culture’s design and purpose for me?  Will I relent to my Master, or will I relent to my culture?  Will I choose a path laid out by my King, or the path everyone else is following?  Will I conform?  And if so, to whom or what?  There are plenty of competing philosophical positions out there to choose from, and it would be very “American” of me to decide on a “cafeteria plan” approach to them.  Why not be a reincarnated believer in the natural order established by aliens?  Literal “bear hug”, who’s with me? <cricket, cricket>

As we pursue an understanding of Scripture, and through the lens of Scripture, of God Himself, a very different “philosophy” comes into focus.  What we discover is a philosophy deviant from our culture, and everyone else’s too.  It’s not European, nor Asian, nor African, nor Native American, nor Polynesian. It’s not even some admixture of such cultures, even though that is a common claim.  It’s divine, and it’s different; and if I’m going to change at all, it will be from a human culture to what God describes in Scripture.  So, from my view through this particular “knothole”, repentance is “counter culture”; and therefore cool.

So what do you learn from this parable?