And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him: The audience is waiting expectantly for the narrator to say the lion attacked, but instead, he says the spirit of Yahweh empowered Samson. And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, may be translated “So” or “Then.” In some languages a contrastive connector such as “But” (Contemporary English Version) may be appropriate in this context. For the Spirit of the LORD, see verse 3.10. This is the second time Yahweh’s spirit is mentioned in connection to Samson (see verse 13.25). Came mightily renders a single Hebrew verb meaning “rush” (New Revised Standard Version). Revised English Bible says “suddenly seized,” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “gripped,” and New International Version uses “came [upon him] in power.” The use of this verb shows the strong effect that God’s power had on Samson. Throughout this book, there are several verbs used to describe God’s empowerment of people, and translators should render each one individually. Good News Translation says here “Suddenly the power of the LORD made Samson strong,” which may say slightly more than is needed. Contemporary English Version has “But the LORD’s Spirit took control of Samson,” which is a helpful model.

And he tore the lion asunder: This clause shows the great strength that Samson received when Yahweh’s spirit “rushed” upon him. The Hebrew verb rendered tore … asunder refers to tearing something apart or in two. This verb is repeated in the next clause (translated tears), which makes the expression here all the more emphatic. We might say “tore … apart” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “ripped … in two.” Tore the lion is literally “tore it.” Revised Standard Version makes the pronoun “it” explicit. We might say “and he killed the lion by tearing it to pieces.”

As one tears a kid: This comparative clause expresses how easily Samson killed the lion. He did it as easily as someone killing a young goat. The word as, which introduces the comparison, may be rendered “like” or “as easily as.” The Hebrew text does not name the agent for the action in this clause, so Revised Standard Version uses the impersonal agent one, which may be rendered “a person.” The agent is probably Samson, so New International Version says “as he might have torn….” There are also ways to avoid naming the agent, for example, “Samson tore the lion to pieces as if it were a kid” (Revised English Bible). For kid see verse 6.19. It would be much easier to kill a kid than a lion, which is perhaps five or six times larger. Normally goats were butchered, according to Jewish law, so the narrator is just making a comparison. The Hebrew verb shasaʿ, rendered tore … asunder and tears, contains strong fricative sounds, so its repetition may be an attempt at imitating the sound of the ripping. In some languages an ideophone can be used to show how Samson tore the lion apart.

And he had nothing in his hand means Samson did all this without any tools or weapons. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces a counter-expectation here, so it may be translated “but” or “yet.” He had nothing in his hand is literally “something was not in his hand.” Here is another use of the keyword hand to describe a heroic feat by a judge. We can say “with nothing in his hands” or more idiomatically, “with his bare hands” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). Contemporary English Version places this expression earlier in the verse, saying “and with his bare hands he tore the lion apart, as though it had been a young goat.”

But he did not tell his father or his mother what he had done: The theme of “not telling” begins here and continues through this entire subsection. This statement makes it clear that Samson was not with his parents when he killed the lion. At this point in the story, the narrator does not inform the audience why Samson did not tell his parents. However, for those familiar with the rules of the Nazirite vow, killing a lion is clearly a breach of the rules, since Nazirites were not to touch blood or dead bodies. But is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here. The Hebrew verb rendered tell (nagad) is a keyword in this subsection and if possible, the same verb should be used throughout, though in some languages it may be better to use a more specific verb here, such as “reveal” or “disclose.” For his father or his mother, see verse 14.2. This phrase may be rendered “his mother and father” or simply “his parents” (Good News Translation). What he had done refers in a general way to killing the lion. This whole sentence may be rendered “But he didn’t tell his parents about it” or “But he didn’t tell his parents about killing the lion.” Contemporary English Version adds implied information by saying “His parents didn’t know what he had done, and he didn’t tell them.”

Possible translation models for this verse are:

• Then the spirit of Yahweh suddenly seized Samson, and he tore apart the lion with his bare hands, as easily as if he were killing a baby goat. But Samson did not tell his parents what he had done.

• But Yahweh’s power took control of Samson, and he attacked the lion with his bare hands and ripped it apart, as easily as if it were a young goat. But Samson did not tell his father and mother anything about it.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .