Showing posts with label Law of Moses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law of Moses. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2018 0 comments

The Law as a type of things to come (Christ)



Here is Abinadi talking to Noah’s wicked priests about the Law of Moses.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;
30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.
31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come. (Mosiah 13:29-31)

I think what Abinadi says here is that the gift of the Law of Moses itself was a type of Christ.

A law given to Israel
A Messiah given to Israel and all who would believe
A law of performances and ordinances
Christ’s example consists of all the things we must do. We have to become like Him.
Which they were to observe strictly from day to day
Israel observed Christ keeping the law from day to day during His life, and we are to observe Christ’s higher law just as strictly from day to day.
We can also read the gospels and observe what He did.
To keep them in remembrance of their God and their duty toward him
Christ instituted the sacrament to remind us of His sacrifice and our duty, and we are to remember Him always.

Just because we don’t live the Law of Moses doesn’t mean the higher law Christ gave isn’t as much a type of Christ as the Law of Moses. The higher law can also be thought of as a type of Christ too. 1) It was given, 2) it is a law of ordinances, though not so many, 3) it is strict, especially if you see the Beattitudes as part of it, 4) it keeps us remembering Christ and God and our duty.

-->
Friday, July 14, 2017 0 comments

Receive Christ to Keep the Law


18 Then said the Pharisees unto him, Why will ye not receive us with our baptism, seeing we keep the whole law?
19 But Jesus said unto them, Ye keep not the law. If ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I am he who gave the law.
20 I receive not you with your baptism, because it profiteth you nothing
21 For when that which is new is come, the old is ready to be put away. (JST Matt. 9:18-21)

The first fascinating thing that I notice here is that the Phariess thought they kept the whole law, but Jesus said they didn’t. You have to admire his straightforward truthfulness on the matter. Also it is kind of scary to think someone could be as deluded as the Pharisees were and be so off the mark. We wouldn’t want to be so off ourselves.

Jesus tells them they didn’t keep the law because they hadn’t received Him. This doesn’t make sense if we only think of the law as a series of performances or commandments. But if we remember that the Law of Moses was meant to point to the Messiah who would save from sin all who believed on Him, then it becomes obvious that to keep the commandments while not believing in Christ would profit nothing because one would still remain in one’s sins.

So the Jews had made the mistake of assuming they could do just as well keeping the performances and ordinances of the law even if they didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah—the one who gave the law and would fulfill it to make repentance possible.  But they were wrong. To reject the one who made the ordinances would mean their ordinances would be worthless.

I think it is possible to fall into the same error today even in the church, to assume we’re alright if we’re keeping the commandments even if we don’t believe in Christ. We might relegate the doctrine of Christ’s atonement to a lesser place and put the commandments and ordinances in a primary place of importance. We might assume we’re doing alright if we’ve been baptized, had our endowments, gotten sealed in the temple, and so on. But none of those profit us if we don’t have faith in Christ.

To look at it in terms of mathematical formulas, it isn’t:

Commandments + Ordinances = Salvation

Where’s Christ? 

A better formula might be:

Faith in Christ * (Commandments + Ordinances) = Salvation

since it represents that if Faith is 0, then nothing else matters.

But then here’s where I can’t leave well enough alone. I’m not sure I’m happy with that one either, since it doesn’t capture how necessary Commandments and Ordinances are.  What if Commandments and Ordinances are both 0? You get zero again.  Or what about if we have only one of those but not the other?

Maybe we have to have a formula like this:

Faith in Christ * Commandments * Ordinances = Salvation

Showing that if any of the factors are missing, you get 0.

What do you think?
Monday, June 15, 2015 0 comments

The Strict Law as a Type


30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.
31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come. (Mosiah 13:30-31)

Abinadi asserts that the daily performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses were all types meant to prophesy of the future, and I suspect of Christ.  (I wonder if anyone has studied how those things typified Christ?)

In a way, the daily performances (separate from their symbolism) were a type of Christ and anticipated how He would be perfectly faithful. If the people made mistakes as they lived the Law, it was to remind them of their need for a Savior and lead them to repentance.

We could also say that the Law of Moses daily performances were a kind of all-encompassing sacrament, and just as the sacrament today instructs us to always remember Christ and keep His commandments, everything in the Law of Moses was supposed to remind the people of Christ.  I suppose the Lord wanted the people to imagine a day when they would keep the commandments constantly on their own and always remember Christ and His sacrifice.

Today, let’s think about every duty we do in terms of how it might remind us of Christ and His sacrifice.
Thursday, October 16, 2014 4 comments

KJV versus JST: Law, Hope, and Priesthood Oaths in Hebrews 7

King James Version (KJV)
Joseph Smith Translation (JST)
19 For the law made nothing perfect,
but the bringing in of a better hope did;
by the which we draw nigh unto God.
19  For the law was administered without an oath and made nothing perfect,
but was only the bringing in of a better hope;
by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
20  Inasmuch as this high priest was not without an oath,
by so much was Jesus made the surety of a better testament.
21 (For those priests were made without an oath;
but this with an oath by him that said unto him,
The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
(Hebrews 7:19-21)

21  (For those priests were made without an oath;
but this with an oath by him that said unto him,
The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek;)
(JST Hebrews 7:19-21)



We learn a number of things from the subtle changes Joseph Smith added here.  (Notice that it isn’t just the blue sections that were added, but the order of words was changed and some words were removed. 

The KJV makes it seem like the law—the Law of Moses—was completely useless—that it didn’t make anything perfect and it had nothing to do with giving hope.

However, the JST tells us that even though the law didn’t make people perfect, it brought in a better hope.  This makes us ponder what that hope might be and how the law would do that.  I can think of several ways.  1) The rules in the law suggest that someone would come who could be obedient to them all.  2) The type of rules in the law teach principles of repentance, purity, atonement, and charity for us to think about.  3) The way the rules and ordinances were administered by the priests were types of Christ and His redeeming mission.  So when their obedience was mixed with faith in Christ, the people would gain hope of their salvation and thereby draw nearer to God.

The KJV makes it seem like the better hope could make men perfect.  The JST removes the word that creates this implication.  Hope alone does not perfection bring, but helps with maintaining faith and encourages us to keep getting closer to God.  (How could we keep fighting our natural man if we didn’t have hope that Christ makes it possible to escape that and become more like God?)

The KJV makes it seem that Jesus was a priest made with an oath, but the other priests were not.  The JST clarifies that high priests were made with an oath, so they were a type of Christ, while other priests were not made with oaths, though they could administer the law.

The JST also adds that the high priest’s oath was meant to increase men’s certainty of Christ who would bring a better covenant than the Law of Moses.  The oath was to be a guarantee that Christ would come.

Because of the JST, we get a better perspective of the spiritual purpose of the Law of Moses, that it was good for something and not just busywork until Christ came.  We also have clarified for us where priesthood oaths were administered and how they distinguished the high priest from the other priests and the teaching purpose of that difference.  We also learn that it was (of course) meant to teach about Christ and strengthen faith in His coming redemption.



It might sometimes seem to you like I am too interested in subtle changes and turns of phrases, distinctions that seem not worth noticing, but when I compare the JST with the KJV, I can’t help but see it as evidence of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling.  These verses may well be the revelatory seeds of the oath and covenant of the priesthood.  How could he have known what was supposed to be there unless it had been given by God?   

How many false traditions might Joseph Smith have corrected to help us know how to come to Christ and we aren’t paying attention?  How much of our life might be eased if we only knew that he had been given answers our questions so many years ago?
Friday, July 18, 2014 0 comments

Jonathan as a type of Christ in 1 Samuel 14

-->
I’ve written before about Jonathan’s bravery in 1 Samuel 14 in my post “The Intrepid Jonathan” back in 2009, however there is a strange story that happens after his exploits result in a victory for Israel.  In this strange story, Saul, Jonathan, and the Israelite army find themselves in an impossible and surreal situation and the best way we can find meaning in it is to see it as a type and shadow of Christ.  It’s not a perfect type, but it is good enough for us to recognize it once we come to the surreal part.

At the same time that Jonathan is doing his thing and wreaking mayhem among the Philistines, King Saul had sworn an oath that everyone should fast. 

And the men of Israel were distressed that day: for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So none of the people tasted any food. (1 Samuel 14:24)

Saul just says “Cursed be the man,” but you have to understand this means he will execute whoever breaks the oath. 

Jonathan’s success against the Philistines drew everyone into the battle and they had to try to mop things up while suffering from hunger.  Jonathan didn’t know everyone was fasting.  He probably wondered why everyone was so non-energetic.

25 And all they of the land came to a wood; and there was honey upon the ground.
26 And when the people were come into the wood, behold, the honey dropped; but no man put his hand to his mouth: for the people feared the oath.
27 But Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath: wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes were enlightened.
28 Then answered one of the people, and said, Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food this day. And the people were faint. (1 Sam 14:25-28)

The thing about oaths is that you can be sure you will find yourself in situations where they will be tested.  And in this story things are no different.  The very battlefield tests the people whether they will keep their oath.  Honey is dropping from the trees and they are all so tired and hungry.

Jonathan, not having heard the oath, naturally eats some honey.  And it is just enough that he has a sugar rush and gets some vigor back.  Then the people tell him about the oath his father made.  (I have to wonder why they didn’t tell him about it before he ate it..)

How does Jonathan react to hearing about the oath his father made and is holding his people to?

29 Then said Jonathan, My father hath troubled the land: see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey.
30 How much more, if haply the people had eaten freely to day of the spoil of their enemies which they found? for had there not been now a much greater slaughter among the Philistines? (1 Sam 14:29-30)

Jonathan is pretty out-spoken and rather than supporting his father, he comes right out and says the oath was hurting Israel more than helping them and points out how much better the battle could have gone if Israel was in its full strength.

Well, we don’t know what the people thought about this, but the battle continues..

31 And they smote the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon: and the people were very faint.
32 And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood.  (1 Sam 14:31-32)

The next capture the people made, they go crazy taking spoil and killing the animals for food.  (Were they persuaded by Jonathan’s little speech previous?  Hard to know, but it could be..) However, they are so hungry they don’t take the time to properly bleed the animals they kill for food like they are supposed to do according to the Law of Moses.  So King Saul chastises them for it.

33 ¶Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord, in that they eat with the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed: roll a great stone unto me this day.
34 And Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them, Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there. (1 Samuel 14:33-34)

Whatever happened to concern for the oath about fasting?  That’s long gone.  Now King Saul is concerned they are eating the animal blood along with the animals.  He tries to slow it down by making a centralized place in their camp for the animals to be bled so that he can be sure they are not breaking the Law of Moses.

Now I want you to ask yourself a question about what you've read so far—who is more guilty, Jonathan or the people?  Keep this question in mind.

35 And Saul built an altar unto the Lord: the same was the first altar that he built unto the Lord.
36 ¶And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do whatsoever seemeth good unto thee. Then said the priest, Let us draw near hither unto God.
37 And Saul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into the hand of Israel? But he answered him not that day.
38 And Saul said, Draw ye near hither, all the chief of the people: and know and see wherein this sin hath been this day. (1 Samuel 14:35-38)

Saul wants to start another expedition against the Philistines on a night attack, and the people were for it, but the priest was determined to ask God.  It’s a good idea to ask God before starting a project, right?

But what do you do when you don’t get an answer?

Saul didn’t get an answer, and thereby he concluded that there had been some kind of sin in the camp of Israel that prevented revelation from coming.

What do you think all the people are thinking at this point?  Maybe something like, “Yeah, I sinned…”

Listen to what Saul says next.. 

39 For, as the Lord liveth, which saveth Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die. But there was not a man among all the people that answered him.

King Saul makes another oath that the person in the army who sinned is going to die, even if it was Jonathan his own son.

What do you think all the people are thinking at this point?  Maybe something like, “Oh shoot, we all did something wrong…the king would kill me if he knew I was part of it..”

But no one says anything because they know everyone is guilty. By Saul’s oath everyone would die.  No one wants to be the first one to step forward and admit guilt.

Saul has to use a method of drawing lots to determine where the guilt lies. 

40 Then said he unto all Israel, Be ye on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side. And the people said unto Saul, Do what seemeth good unto thee.

The people just seem shell-shocked.  They don’t try to stand in the way, but they aren’t going to step forward and hurry their doom along.  They are suddenly passive.  They seem to accept death is inevitable.

41 Therefore Saul said unto the Lord God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped.

Now, remember, the people were guilty.  But somehow the lot didn’t fall on them.  They escaped.  This must have caused them to wonder, “What is going on here?”

King Saul keeps going.

42 And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken.
43 Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die.
44 And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. (1 Samuel 14:42-44)

The lot falls on Jonathan.  And Jonathan admits that he tasted some honey and he seems to accept that he is going to have to die.  Saul agrees.  When Saul says, “God do so and more also” it is yet another oath meaning, “God do to me what should happen to you and worse if I don’t kill you.”  (Saul seems to really like making oaths, huh?)

Isn’t this a surreal situation?  It’s totally messed up, and it happened because Saul’s tendency to make oaths got him deeper and deeper into it until he is faced with the prospect of executing his son in order to maintain his credibility as a king.

Now think about the levels of guilt in this story.  Jonathan acknowledged that he ate some honey when he wasn’t supposed to.  But he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to until afterward, so technically he wasn’t guilty at all.  But the rest of the army was more guilty because they not only broke King Saul’s command about fasting, but they also ate animal blood and thereby broke the Law of Moses.  They were all worthy of death.

So here’s where we can start to see a type of Christ.  Jonathan’s guilt was far less then the people’s, and yet he was chosen (by God) as the scapegoat for the whole army.  Christ was sinless and all the rest of us are guilty and worthy of death, yet Christ allowed himself to be punished in order that we might escape.

“But,” you might say, “the people probably wouldn’t have eaten at all if it hadn’t been for Jonathan’s little harangue about the way Saul was troubling the land.”  Yes, this is not a perfect type of Christ because Christ did not cause everyone (or anyone) to sin or teach them that Heavenly Father’s commands are troublesome in any way.

However, Jonathan wasn’t responsible for the people’s decision to eat blood, and he was made a scapegoat for those sins to show how Christ would take on Himself the sins of all the world.  

Jonathan is in an weird place—he’s saved the people in battle and is going to be killed so they can escape their disobedience.  And he seems willing to do it.  Seeing it as a type of Christ helps us find higher meaning in this story. 

So how is the dilemma solved?  The people step in and save Jonathan.

45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not. (1 Samuel 14:45)

Phew! 

Obviously that rescue was not part of the type of Christ, but it got both Saul and Jonathan out of their sticky situation.  It is as if the people say, "Enough with these stupid oaths already!"

On a side note, I think King Saul learned from this experience not to make so many strong oaths with the death penalty attached. (He still makes a few and breaks them, but there's not so many after this point.) Unfortunately, it may have also made him afraid of going against the voice of the people, which got him in further trouble later when he was charged with destroying the Amalekites and the people wanted to save the best of the animals to sacrifice. This incident may have led to him caving to their demands then too.

I used to think this story was really weird, but I appreciate it more now because of being able to see how Jonathan prefigured Christ.  It helps remind me that I am one of that army of Israel who has been disobedient and yet I can escape the penalty for my sins because of Christ's suffering in my place.  

I’m loving reading the Old Testament this year.  I’m finding types of Christ where I never saw them before.  How about you?




Wednesday, July 2, 2014 0 comments

Re-examining Samson’s First Philistine Romance


Before Samson ever met Delilah, near the beginning of his story, we are told about his romance with another Philistine woman who remains nameless.

1 And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.
2 And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.
3 Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.  (Judges 14:1-3)

This relationship automatically strikes us as bad news because of the commandment to not intermarry with the Canaanites, so we usually think of the Philistines as the beautiful-enticing-forbidden-evil type.  We think of Samson as someone who is just foolishly captivated with one look at this woman.

However, I suspect that it may not have been that simple.

Consider that the Israelites had forsaken the Lord and served Baal, and at this stage the Israelite girls may not have been much different from the Philistines.  When Israel is corrupted like everyone else, the commandment to marry inside the covenant seems either near impossible or near meaningless.

There is also at least one sign that Samson’s interest in this Philistine woman was not based on her looks because when he loses her, her father offers Samson her younger sister who is “fairer than she.” (Judges 15:2)  If Samson had only been interested in beauty he would have gone for the younger sister in the first place, so he must have seen something in this particular woman that he liked more than physical beauty.

Also, when it says he saw her, we don’t know how long he watched.  Did he glance once and fall in love?  Or did he observe her and what she did? 

How does this change our notion of the choice Samson has?  It is easy to say “marry in the covenant” when there are lots of possible choices who are good, but the choice becomes much harder if you find a good person outside the covenant community and the choices inside have corrupted themselves.

I’m not excusing Samson; it is important to marry in the covenant, but I think we underestimate the difficulties he was up against.

If we change our assumptions about this Philistine girl and assume she was better than most, the rest of the story with her becomes kind of a tragedy because Samson marries her, but then loses her.  The writer of Judges makes meaning out of it this way: “it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.” (Judges 14:4).

It seems that Samson’s relationship with this girl was meant to highlight the problems with Philistine society in such a way that Israel would eventually become determined to fight their way out from under Philistine dominion.  Samson was to be a judge in Israel, so the judge has to see where the injustice is.

Let’s look at how this happens.

First there’s a bit of traveling back and forth to Timnath and on one trip, Samson meets a lion that attacks and he tears it to pieces.  On the second trip, Samson goes by the lion carcass and notices that a hive of bees has taken up residence inside it and made some honey.  It’s very odd; something you wouldn’t expect would ever happen, but the detail becomes important later.

Next there is some feasting as part of the marriage.

10 ¶So his father went down unto the woman: and Samson made there a feast; for so used the young men to do.
11 And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him. (Judges 14:10-11)

It is kind of the people to bring 30 companions to Samson to help him celebrate his marriage properly, but it puts Samson in a tricky situation.  Here he is, one Israelite among 30 Philistines at a party.  Is this a spiritually safe place?  The potential for negative peer pressure is huge.  The potential for all kinds of raunchy things to happen is huge.  What does Samson do?

He proposes a riddle to them that has to do with the strange thing—bees making honey inside a lion carcass--he saw on the way to Timnath.  I almost have to wonder if this was an attempt to distract and dominate the focus and conversation of these 30 companions so as to prevent them from pulling out the wine and so forth.

12 ¶And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments:
13 But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.
14 And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle. (Judges 14:12-14)

To make it really exciting, Samson proposes a bet to go with the riddle.  If you notice, the terms of the bet are really unequal.  If the Philistines lose, each one of them only needs to provide one change of clothing, but if Samson loses, then he has to provide them with 30 changes all by himself.  This bet has the potential to either bankrupt Samson or enrich him.  The terms are also extremely gentle on the Philistines.  (This is a time when clothing took a lot of manual labor to make, so a single extra outfit would be a big deal, and 30 extra outfits would be unheard-of largesse.)

Sadly, the Philistines are bad sports and they cheat.

And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson’s wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so? (Judges 14:15)

What does this tell us about Philistine character?  They can’t stand the idea of losing to an Israelite.  So they cheat and ask Samson’s new bride to help them.  Actually, they don’t ask; they demand and threaten.  She must find out the answer for them or they will burn her and her whole family.  (We have to note that this woman was threatened, unlike Delilah, who was bribed with an enormous sum of money.)

The 30 companions also suspect that this riddle was cooked up by the bride and her family with Samson as a family conspiracy to impoverish the Philistine neighbors instead of just to be nice to Samson and give him some friends to celebrate with.  Because the 30 companions think they are being cheated, they think they are allowed to cheat back. 

Notice— the Philistines are bad losers, suspicious, cheaters, and extortioners.

16 And Samson’s wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee?
17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.
18 And the men of the city said unto 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 unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. (Judges 14:16-18)

It is sad, but Samson’s bride caves to the pressure from her people.  I personally have to wonder what I would have done instead if I were in her place.  I could tell Samson, but what could he do to help?  (Well, we see later he could do plenty, but she didn’t know that.)

And Samson’s bride eventually worms the answer to the riddle out of him and tells it to her people.  The 30 Philistines give the answer to Samson in a way that makes it seem like they just figured it out by logic, but the nature of the riddle is such that it can’t be figured out through logic. 

Naturally, Samson recognizes that they have used his wife as a tool.  And he’s mad.

19 ¶And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father’s house.
20 But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.  (Judges 14:19-20)

The fact that Samson went and killed 30 men in Ashkelon and looted them to pay his debt shows that he was perfectly capable of protecting his wife and her family.  If she had just stood firm and confided in him, he could have helped protect her and her family.  Or they could have moved into Israelite territory instead.

Samson paid his debt, but he was still mad at his wife, so he went back to his father’s house.  On one hand, you have to give him credit for not directly taking that anger out on her or the 30 companions.  On the other hand, withdrawing still caused problems because it gave the impression that he had abandoned his wife and that she could be married again to someone else.    

So she did marry again.  And to whom?  “to his companion, whom he had used as his friend”  This may have been one of those 30 Philistines who had been brought to Samson to celebrate with him, one of the group that had threatened Samson’s bride and her family!

What does this tell us about the Philistines?

It tells us that the Philistines had a very loose idea of what constituted divorce.  It’s looser than what our society has today, but they interpreted Samson’s mere absence to mean he had divorced her.  And it wasn’t just the men who thought this, but Samson’s new bride did too and her father.

This girl had plenty of time to get married before Samson got interested in her, but she wasn’t, which makes it seem like no one had even noticed her or wanted her before Samson showed any interest.  Then after the wedding and after Samson leaves in a huff, someone else is interested in her now.  The Philistines don’t seem to want something until someone else wants it.

Trouble happens when Samson cools down and wants to make up with the missus.

1 But it came to pass within a while after, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in.
2 And her father said, I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her; therefore I gave her to thy companion: is not her younger sister fairer than she? take her, I pray thee, instead of her.

Samson may have been mad, but he still considered himself married, unlike the woman he married.  And you have to give him credit for bringing a gift with him to try to smooth things over.  I imagine at that time bringing home a goat would be like bringing home a paycheck today.   But he’s prevented from even getting close to his bride, by the father, who gives him the bad news that she’s no longer his wife.  That must have been absolutely devastating.

The father thinks he can placate Samson by offering Samson marry his bride’s younger sister instead, but this dismisses Samson’s whole basis for choosing the girl he did.  If he wanted the first girl for her character, her young sister isn’t necessarily going to be the same way.

So what does Samson do about this?

3 ¶And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be more blameless than the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure.
4 And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails.
5 And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.
6 ¶Then the Philistines said, Who hath done this? And they answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he had taken his wife, and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire. (Judges 15:3-6)

What Samson does to the Philistines strikes us as really extreme, not to mention cruel to the foxes.  However, consider that according to the Law of Moses, his wife had essentially been permitted to commit adultery with one of his companions.  The father’s protest only gives plausible deniability.  For adultery, his bride and the man whom she’d been allowed to marry should have been burned, but the Philistines all think there is nothing wrong with the remarriage, so their whole society is culpable as well. 

Seen this way, Samson’s burning of the Philistine fields, crops, vineyards, and olives is a mild warning.

Samson’s use of the foxes can also be seen as a sort of object lesson, albeit a cruel one.  The two foxes tied together by their tails might represent marriage, and the firebrand between them represented both the power inherent in sexual activity.  300 couples with a fire between them that they can’t (or won’t) control or which pulls them in different directions would destroy a town’s society just like those 300 foxes destroyed the Philistine crops.

Okay, so what do the Philistines do when they find out Samson has done this?  Do they go after him?  No.  They go and burn his wife and her father.  There is not a word about punishing the companion who had married her. 

At this stage, it becomes rather ambiguous about whether the Philistines burned Samson’s wife and father-in-law as retaliation for Samson’s act, or whether it was imperfectly and belatedly executed justice and they hoped to get Samson off their back with a show of doing the proper thing.

What does this tell us about Philistine justice?  They make a show of justice, but it isn’t really just.

What is Samson’s reaction? Is he going to accept it?

7 ¶And Samson said unto them, Though ye have done this, yet will I be avenged of you, and after that I will cease.
8 And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter: and he went down and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam.

I think what Samson is saying here is that because they let the companion go and killed his bride and her father, by law that looks like retaliation and not justice, so that indicates yet another way their society is messed up and he has to do something about that. 

So he kills a bunch of them.  I don’t know what “smote them hip and thigh” means.  It sounds like an obscure idiom.

9 ¶Then the Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi.
10 And the men of Judah said, Why are ye come up against us? And they answered, To bind Samson are we come up, to do to him as he hath done to us.
11 Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them.

As an oldest child who used to help settle fights among my younger siblings, I read this and kind of snicker because it sounds like the protests I heard at the beginning when both parties were squawking.

Actually, it is another sign of the problems in Philistine society because they knew what they had done and they would not take correction, especially not from one man, and certainly not from an Israelite. 

Even though the justification of both the Philistines and Samson are incredibly abbreviated here, we must assume that the men of Judah got an earful of both sides of the story, enough that they would be able to tell where the fault was.  Yet because they were under the dominion of the Philistines and they didn’t want to rock the boat, they took the Philistine side!  They had enough people that they could have taken Samson’s side, and fought the Philistines, but instead they did the equivalent of delivering the judge into the hands of the criminals.   

12 And they said unto him, We are come down to bind thee, that we may deliver thee into the hand of the Philistines. And Samson said unto them, Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me yourselves.
13 And they spake unto him, saying, No; but we will bind thee fast, and deliver thee into their hand: but surely we will not kill thee. And they bound him with two new cords, and brought him up from the rock.
14 ¶And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.
15 And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

As we have seen, the Philistines would not give Samson justice, so he had to take matters into his own hands.  In doing so, Samson made powerful enemies.  His own people wouldn’t maintain his cause and would only promise to not kill him themselves.  Samson really had no one to help him but God.  And when it came down to this moment of greatest extremity, God helped Samson and gave him the strength to fight and maintain his cause as judge against an army of Philistines.

Even when no one else was willing to do justice, and Samson was alone, God helped him execute justice.  (And yes, here execute is an appropriate word.)  No wonder he served as judge in Israel for 20 years. 

Reading this makes me thankful for the justice system we have today.  It also shows the importance of having a fair justice system. 

The way Samson is able to stand when everyone is against him teaches me something about what it will be like at the second coming when Christ comes again.  It also teaches me about Christ’s ability to judge at the final judgment when all are brought before Him.

At the beginning of this post, I pointed out that the writer of these chapters makes meaning out of Samson’s unfortunate experience with the Philistine woman this way: “it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.” (Judges 14:4).

Samson experience reveals the Philistines to be:
--entertained by high risk bets, but unwilling to risk losing to someone of lower status
--bad sports
--cheaters
--demanding and threatening in order to get their way
--extortionate
--suspicious, suspecting conspiracy where there is none, or at least making a show of it to manipulate
--loose in their views of marriage and grounds for divorce
--unjust
--retaliatory

It seems the Lord was trying to show the Israelites the problems that were caused by being under Philistine dominion, by showing them how they could not ally themselves with that way of life.  Samson became an irritating factor to stir things up.  His strength through his Nazarite vow was supposed to show the Israelites they could be stronger by keeping their covenants.  Sadly, so many Israelites missed the message of hope that Samson was supposed to be.

The lesson for us today is that the Lord does not want us to be comfortable wallowing in our sins, and He will and does bring irritating factors into our lives to try to show us our sins are bad for us, to show us we should fight the sin instead of giving in to it, to show us the real evil of our sins.