“It
Was of the LORD”
(Did
God Want Samson to Marry a Pagan?)
Troy
J. Edwards
And
thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring
after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. (Exodus 34:16)
Neither
shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his
son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn
away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the
anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)
If
we read Judges 14:4 literally, it appears as if God is the direct cause
of someone violating His commandments, thus making His own character appear
questionable. It implies that Samson’s sexual lust and willingness to marry
pagans was the result of God’s doing.
A
number of commentaries on Judges 14:4 claim that even though this was a clear
violation of God’s divine statute, God had a “secret purpose” in bringing this
about, which was the destruction of Israel’s enemies. However, if an all-wise
God must move people to sin in order to fulfill His purposes—secret or
otherwise, then He can be neither wise nor holy. Paul writes:
But
if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is
God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for
then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more
abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:5-7)
James
also wrote, “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God”
(James 1:20). In simple terms, God does not need our sin to bring about His
purposes. Furthermore, God would never subject man to temptation for any
reason. Again, James said, “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
tempteth he any man” (James 1:13b).
So
how do we reconcile Judges 14:4 with the truth that God does not want or need
sin to accomplish His plans? It helps us if we take the time to learn Hebrew
background, expressions and phraseology from which Scripture is derived.
Certain expressions in Scripture, when rendered “word for word” in English,
need to be understood from a Hebraic perspective. For example, the
phrase “It was of the Lord” does not necessarily mean that God is the “divine manipulator”
of the event:
It
is a solemn, but not unusual expression in the Hebrew tongue, to say of a thing
beyond measure great, that it is of the Lord; not always meaning hereby, that
God himself is the immediate cause of it, but signifying it to be such, that
naturally no account is easy to be given of it.[1]
Hence
the statement “It was of the Lord” is an expression unique to the culture in
which the Bible was written. It is what language experts refer to as an idiom.
The Bible has many idioms that were pretty much transliterated into the English
language. One of those idioms is one in which God is said to do that which
He merely permitted. This is otherwise referred to as the “Hebrew idiom of
permission.”
While
explaining the authority to remit sins that our Lord delegated to His apostles,
Thomas Jackson writes:
….
and this authority our Saviour expresses according to a well-known idiom of the
Jews’ language. It is no wonder, then, that God is said to do that which He
permitted men to do, when they had by their sins provoked Him to withdraw
from them the restraints of His providence and grace. Inattention to Scripture
forms of expression is one of the most fruitful sources of theological error.[2] (Emphasis added)
Jackson
noted that our neglect of Hebrew idioms is the primary source of error. No
doubt, that this inattention of this truth has led many to read in Scriptures
such as Judges 14:4 the false idea that God moved Samson to sin.
Jackson
goes on to explain how Judges 14:4 is to be understood through the lens of this
the Hebrew idiom of permission:
Samson’s
marriage with a heathen woman, belonging to the original inhabitants of Canaan,
was a direct violation of the law of God. He had said to His people, “Neither
shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his
son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” (Deut. vii. 3.) When
Samson set his heart upon such an alliance, his parents attempted to dissuade
him from the enterprise, and urged him to turn his attention to some daughter
of Israel, as his future wife; but in this it is said, “His father and his
mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that He sought an occasion against the
Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.”
(Judges xiv. 4.) The meaning, we apprehend, is, not that it was “of the Lord”
that Samson should break His law; but that as Samson was bent upon this unholy
connexion, and would not be satisfied without it, God would not interpose His
power to prevent it, but would overrule it for good, as He often does the evil
actions of bad men. To Samson and his family the consequences of this marriage
were most disastrous, as might be expected; but it led to beneficial results so
far as the people of Israel were concerned. At this time they suffered greatly
under the oppressive dominion of the heathen, who still dwelt in the land. By
means of this marriage Samson was brought into direct intercourse with these
oppressors; he destroyed their power, and liberated his own people, though he
brought upon himself great dishonour, and even lost his life. Samson sinned,
and endured the bitter penalty of his waywardness and folly; but “it was of the
Lord” to bring good out of the evil, by making it a means of relief to His
suffering people.[3]
As
Jackson explained, it was Samson who was determined to violate God’s clear
commands. God, being an omni-resourceful God, would find a way through Samson’s
rebellion to accomplish His purpose for Israel. Nevertheless, this does not
infer that God authored the event. That is why we must read Judges 14:4 as idiomatic
rather than literal:
Ch.
xiv.v.4 Of the Lord, in the Scripture idiom, does not necessarily imply
that the event to which it may refer originated with God, but merely that he,
to whom all things are known, had determined to make it subservient to
accomplish his purposes. Samson grievously erred if the female was an idolator.[4]
Old Testament scholar
Walter C. Kaiser also saw how reading Judges 14:4 with the idea that God literally
brought about Samson’s rebellious behavior demonstrates a flawed understanding of the text. Kaiser
explains that it must be examined in light of the Scripture idiom of
permission:
The sin of Samson must not be attributed to the Lord,
but the deliverance of the Israelites by Samson was from the Lord. Remember, scriptural
language frequently attributes directly to God what he merely permits.[5] (Emphasis added)
Kaiser, as others, agree
that Scriptures appearing to make God the author of sin must be read in a
permissive sense. While God permitted Samson to sin and had the ability to work
around his sin to accomplish His goal, as Kaiser further explains, this does
not mean that God wanted or needed the sin itself:
My conclusion is that Samson was neither directed nor
tempted by God to do what God had specifically prohibited in His Word. God
wanted the defeat of the Philistines, but that did not give Samson carte
blanche. Moreover, God’s blessing on one or more aspects of a person’s life is
no indication that everything that person does is approved. Samson was plain
bullheaded about this decision, and he refused to listen to his parents or to
God. But neither Samson’s foolishness nor his stubbornness would prevent the
design of God from being fulfilled.[6]
As Kaiser noted, when we
examine Samson’s behavior, we cannot necessarily see any influence on God’s
part. As another scholar noted, Samson, being an only child, may have possibly been
engaging in “bratty” behavior:
This chapter opens with the courtship and marriage,
which was properly reproved by his parents as contrary to the Mosaic law.
Samson, as if often the case with only and darling sons, was wayward; he had
not been subjected to control, and would not now submit to it. The matter,
however, was “of the Lord:” not by his direction or approbation, but by the
permission of his providence; and it formed an essential link in that chain
of events which led to the liberation of Israel from the Philistines.[7] (Emphasis added)
It is possible that
Samson was raised in a way that would ingrain in him a selfish attitude though
the Bible appears to be silent on whether or not this is true. The most important
thing for our purposes here is to understand that God did not influence it.
Therefore, the statement, “it was of the Lord” must be understood as permissive
rather than causative on God’s part.
Other scholars believe
that Samson’s persistence to marry the Philistine woman was due to a desire to
infiltrate their country and bring Israel’s deliverance:
Many Philistines were living in the villages of Dan
across the border from their own land. They were not of the seven nations
devoted by Moses to destruction, but still, it was contrary to the law of Moses
that the Israelites should marry them. This law Samson was either ignorant of,
or disregarded it. The expression, “She pleaseth me well,” is translated by
some, “She answereth my purpose well:” and is coupled with the words, “It was
of the Lord,” to show that Samson planned this in order to have a quarrel with
the Philistines from their oppression. “It was of the Lord” in the sense
that the Lord permitted it, that Samson might push forward, and in his individual
capacity, forced to become God’s agent in the punishment of the Philistines.[8] (Emphasis added)
While this appears to be
a different perspective from the previous quote, what is most important for our
study is that both scholars understand God’s role in a permissive sense.
God simply is not in favor of His people marrying those who could influence
their hearts away from the true God:
Samson’s parents viewed his plan to marry the woman as
unwise, but it was “of the Lord.” This means that God permitted it, though
it was not a marriage that He preferred. It did not violate the Mosaic Law,
and it was a situation God would use to punish the Philistines (Jdg_14:4; cf.
Jdg_14:19). This fact did not mitigate Samson's guilt, but it shows how God
providentially overrules human folly and brings His will to pass in spite of it
(cf. Psa_76:10; Rom_8:28).[9] (Emphasis added)
Such marriages are not
God’s preference and He could not have endorsed Samson’s behavior regardless of
the outcome. However, He did not restrain Samson but allowed him to go forward
with this unadvised act. Perhaps a better rendering of Judges 14:4, based on
the exegetical evidence is as follows: “But his father and his mother knew
not that the LORD would overrule this to bring about His original
intentions to deliver Israel.”
Nonetheless, it is wise for
the reader to keep in mind that any Scripture which seemingly makes God appear
to be the author of sin, sickness and catastrophe must be interpreted through
the Hebrew idiom. We have a number of books on this subject with more soon to
be published. Check
out our bookstore to see our latest books by click here.
Keep checking back as we will be adding new books soon. Finally, visit and
subscribe to our YouTube
channel for more video teaching related to this and many
other topics.
[1] Shuckford,
Samuel The Sacred and Profane History of the World. Connected from the
Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire (London: W.
Baynes, 1808), pp. 39, 40
[2] Jackson,
Thomas The Providence of God, Viewed in the Light of Holy Scripture
(London: John Mason, 1862), pp. 300, 301
[3] Ibid,
pp. 301, 302
[4] Davidson,
David The Comprehensive Pocket Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments
with Explanatory Notes by David Davidson (Edinburgh: James Brydone, 1848),
p. 181
[5] Kaiser
Jr., Walter C. Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 1996), pp. 196, 197
[6] Ibid,
p. 197
[7] Patton,
William (Editor) The Cottage Bible and Family Expositor: Genesis-Song of
Solomon (Hartford: Case, Tiffany, & Burnham, 1842), p. 383
[8] Towner,
D. B. “Daily Scripture Readings” in Record of Christian Work, Volume
13 (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 336
[9] “Judges
14:4” in Constable, Thomas L. Expository Notes of Dr. Constable, E-Sword
edition
===================================================
Visit our web page:
Like us on Facebook:
Follow us on Gab.com
Subscribe to us on Minds.com:
Become a Contact with me on MeWe:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
