But his wife said to him …: Manoah’s wife is once again more practical than her husband. She thinks logically, considering the evidence and drawing her conclusion. But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since she is offering a counter argument. The general verb said may be translated “replied” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “responded” (Contemporary English Version).

If the LORD had meant to kill us: This clause gives a condition that is not true, called in grammatical terms “irreal.” Manoah’s wife does not believe that Yahweh intends to kill them. The Hebrew particle rendered If also occurs in verse 8.19, where there is another counterfactual conditional clause (see comments there). All languages have means to express such conditional clauses. The Hebrew verb rendered had meant means “take pleasure in,” so it may be translated “had wanted” (Good News Translation) or “had intended.” Three consequences follow this conditional clause.

He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a cereal offering at our hands is literally “he would not have taken from our hands a burnt offering and a cereal offering.” This is the first consequence of the condition just mentioned. The fact that Yahweh accepted their offerings (verse 13.19) is proof that he does not intend to kill them. She rightly concludes that even though they actually saw the divine messenger, their lives are not in danger. For burnt offering, see verse 6.26; for cereal offering, see verse 13.19. The keyword hand occurs once again (see verse 1.2). We might say “he wouldn’t have accepted our burnt offering and grain offering” (New Living Translation).

Or shown us all these things: Manoah’s wife gives another consequence here. If he had intended to kill them, the LORD would not have allowed them to see everything they saw. Shown us is literally “caused us to see,” another instance of the Hebrew verb raʾah meaning “see” (see verse 13.20). All these things refers to everything they saw concerning Yahweh’s messenger and their offerings.

Or now announced to us such things as these: This is the final consequence mentioned by Manoah’s wife. If the LORD had intended to kill them, he would not have promised to give them a son. The Hebrew expression rendered now (literally “about the time”) seems out of place, and there is some question about its meaning. Some early translations, such as the Septuagint, omit it (so also Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). However NET Bible renders it “just now.” Announced to us is literally “caused us to hear.” Such things as these (literally “like this”) refers to the promise that they would have a son (verse 13.3).

Translation models for this verse are:

• But Manoah’s wife replied, “Yahweh does not plan to kill us! If he did, he would not have accepted our burnt offering and our grain offering, nor would he have shown us all these things, or made us such a promise.”

• But his wife replied, “If Yahweh really wanted to kill us, he would not have accepted our burnt offering and grain offering. He wouldn’t have shown us all these things. He wouldn’t have let us hear such things just now.”

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 .

This verse indicates that the people of Judah knew that Samson was in their territory and where he was hiding. However, they had been unaware of all the havoc and destruction he had carried out in the territory of the Philistines.

Then three thousand men of Judah went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam: Having heard what the Philistines had to say, the people of Judah respond by sending soldiers to question Samson. Three thousand men is a huge number to send to deal with one person. There is certainly a bit of irony here, since numerous men of Judah must deal with a single man from Dan. Three thousand is obviously a variation on the numbers “three,” “thirty,” and “three hundred,” which appear throughout the story of Samson. As noted in verse 1.4, the Hebrew term for thousand can also mean “contingent” or “platoon.” In this context men may be rendered “soldiers” or “warriors.” For went down to the cleft of the rock of Etam, see verse 15.8.

And said to Samson: The people of Judah strongly condemn Samson for foolishly giving the Philistines an excuse to come into their territory. Thus in this context the general verb said may be rendered by a stronger expression, for example, “said harshly.”

Do you not know that the Philistines are rulers over us?: This rhetorical question expresses the people of Judah’s dismay and anger over what Samson had done. Samson knew, in effect, that the Philistines had control over the Israelite territory yet he provoked them. The Hebrew participle rendered rulers comes from a root meaning “govern” (see verse 8.22). In this context it means “dominate.” Revised English Bible renders this question as “Surely you know that the Philistines are our masters?” and New Jerusalem Bible has “Don’t you know that the Philistines have us in their power?” It may also be rendered as a strong statement by saying “You know full well that the Philistines control us!”

What then is this that you have done to us?: The people of Judah accuse Samson directly, now understanding that the Philistine invasion is Samson’s fault. Good News Translation keeps a rhetorical question by saying “What have you done to us?” Another possible model is “How could you bring this trouble on us?” Revised English Bible uses a strong statement, saying “Now look what you have done to us.” Another possible exclamation is “Just look what has happened to us! It’s all your fault!”

And he said to them: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “But” (New Living Translation) or omitted (Good News Translation). The general verb said may be rendered “replied” (New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version) or “answered” (Good News Translation, New International Version).

As they did to me, so have I done to them: This is Samson’s answer to the people of Judah. He justifies his action, but seems unconcerned about all the destruction he has brought about or the threat his acts have brought on the people of Judah. Indeed, his answer seems almost childish. There is a stark contrast with the previous judges, who did what Yahweh told them to do, instead of deciding for themselves how to pay back Israel’s enemies. Samson uses much the same words as the Philistines in verse 15.10 (see comments there). The two parallel clauses in his response may be reversed by saying “I only did to them what they did to me.” Obviously Samson is making excuses and trying to justify himself.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then three thousand men from Judah went down to the cave of the rock at Etam, and they spoke harshly to Samson, “You know very well that the Philistines rule over us, so why have you brought this trouble on us?”
Samson replied, “I only did to them what they did to me!”

• Then three thousand soldiers of Judah went to Samson at the cave of Etam Rock and said [angrily] to him, “Don’t you realize what you have done to us? You know full well that the Philistines are our masters! Now look at what you have done!”
Samson replied, “What they did to me, I did to them!”

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 .

And Samson said to the lad who held him by the hand: Now the narrator makes clear how Samson, who was blind, got to the place between the columns. He was led there by a boy. We can imagine Samson bending over to whisper to the young person who was leading him. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be omitted (Good News Translation, New International Version) or translated “Then.” The lad who held him by the hand provides new information, presented by Contemporary English Version in reverse order: “A young man was leading Samson by the hand, and Samson said to him.”

Lad renders a Hebrew word (naʿar) meaning “young man” or “male servant” (see verse 7.10). It can refer to a bearer of arms, as in verse 9.54. Here it more likely refers to an attendant or prison guard. Though Good News Translation says “boy,” it is probably better to speak of a “servant” (New International Version) or “young man” (Contemporary English Version).

Who held him by the hand is literally “who seized him by the hand.” The Hebrew verb here comes from a root meaning “be strong.” This verb also reappears in verse 16.28, where it is translated “strengthen.” Here it might imply that Samson was handcuffed or bound to the person leading him. The word hand comes to the forefront once again and will play a crucial role in Samson’s victory. Translators should use terms that are appropriate for a blind person being led. We might say “who was leading him by the hand” (Good News Translation) or “who held him tightly by the hand.”

Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests: Samson surely has a plan and is directing the young person to position him where it is most strategic. In Hebrew this clause begins with two verbs, literally “Cause me to rest and let me touch….” Revised Standard Version seems to omit the first verb. Models that keep it are “Position me so I can touch…” ( NET Bible) and “Put me where I can feel…” (New International Version). The Hebrew verb for feel is an unusual one. It is also found in the story of Jacob and Esau, when Isaac asks to touch Jacob (Gen 27.21). Certainly, in his last act Samson is still mocking his adversaries, as he all but announces what his plan is.

The pillars on which the house rests refers to the many columns holding up Dagon’s temple. For pillars see verse 16.25. The house may also be rendered “the temple” (New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Rests renders a Hebrew verb meaning “set up” or “establish,” so we might say “the pillars on which the temple is built on” or “the columns supporting [or, holding up] the roof of the temple.”

That I may lean against them: Though Samson is already planning how he will bring about his final victory, here he is pretending to be weak and in need of support. But in reality he wants to be well placed to be able to carry out his plan. By stationing himself between the main pillars of Dagon’s temple, Samson knows that he can bring the structure down. He falsely claims he wants to lean on the pillars for support. Contemporary English Version communicates Samson’s ruse well by saying “I need to lean against something. Take me over to the columns that hold up the roof.” Translators may use indirect speech here, but the drama is heightened by keeping the direct quote.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Samson then said to the young man who had him by the hand, “Put me next to the pillars holding up the building so I can feel them and lean against them.”

• Samson asked the young guard who was leading him, “Position me next to the pillars supporting the roof so I can touch them and use them for support.”

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 .

This verse is a good example of Hebrew’s love of repetition, as almost every phrase here has occurred previously.

And the five men who had gone to spy out the land …: See verse 18.14. Once again, the focus shifts back to the five Danite spies, obviously the leaders of the group. They were not brave heroes, but rather lowly Israelites set on robbing and defaming their own countrymen.

The Hebrew verb rendered went up (ʿalah) has a military sense here (see verse 1.1).

And entered and took is literally “they came there [and] they took.” Surprisingly, the Hebrew verbs here occur without the waw conjunction. The verb took links this episode back to the beginning of this whole story when Micah confessed to his mother that he “took” her silver (verse 17.2). Now the Danites in turn rob Micah! Translators should render took in the same way as in verse 17.2 to preserve the link back to Micah’s initial theft, since part of the message here is that Micah is being paid back for his bad actions.

The graven image, the ephod, the teraphim, and the molten image: See verse 17.3, verse 5. The order of the items in this list varies slightly from the order in verse 18.14. The separate mention of graven image and molten image would lead us to believe that these are indeed two rather than one image.

While the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred men armed with weapons of war renders an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “and the priest was standing by the entrance of the gate and the six hundred men armed with weapons of war.” This clause repeats previous expressions, and this repetition along with the picture presented here make it highly ironic. The young Levite stands helplessly as he watches the Danites confiscate the objects of worship. They came to ask about his “welfare/peace” (verse 18.15), but now they take away his livelihood with instruments of war. The priest refers to the young Levite whom Micah installed as his priest (see verse 17.12), even if he is not a true priest. Here again the narrator chooses his words with care, as the mere mention of the priest evokes strong irony. Translators should be careful to render the text as it stands and not put “the Levite” in place of the priest. For stood by the entrance of the gate, see verse 18.16; for six hundred men armed with weapons of war, see verse 18.11.

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 .

So he brought him into his house: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. The pronouns he and his refer to the old man, and the pronoun him to the Levite. Translators are free to use nouns or pronouns, depending on their language. We might say “So the old man brought him into his house” or “So he brought the Levite into his house.” Brought renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “come,” so another possible model is “So he had him come into his house.” New Jerusalem Bible says simply “So he took him into his house” (similarly Revised English Bible).

And gave his asses provender: The old man made sure that the Levite’s donkeys had food to eat. The Hebrew verb rendered gave … provender means “mix,” used to describe making cakes as well as animal feed. While many versions say “fed” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version), New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “mixed fodder.” For asses see verse 1.14. Careful readers will note here that once again the animals seem to get special treatment before the human beings (see verse 19.19). This may be yet another example in the last part of this book of traditional customs being violated.

And they washed their feet: It was customary for people to wash their feet upon entering a house. Roads were certainly dusty and providing water for this act was a sign of true hospitality. In the New Testament Jesus uses this gesture as a symbol of humility and willingness to serve others (John 13.5-9) as he himself washes the feet of his disciples. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and is omitted in several versions (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). It is hard to know if the narrator is purposely showing things occurred out of traditional order, but if so, this conjunction might be rendered “Then” (Contemporary English Version). The pronoun they might refer to all the travelers (Good News Translation), but it also might include the old man who came in from his farm (Contemporary English Version). However, it is far more likely this was a ritual greeting as visitors were received. If the referent for they is not clear, we can speak of “the travellers” (New Jerusalem Bible), “his guests” (Good News Translation), or “the Levite and his party.” Washed their feet may need an explanation in a footnote or the glossary, since in many cultures the meaning of this practice is not known. In a footnote we might say “In biblical times, when people walked long distances, they were welcomed in a home with a kind of foot-washing ceremony. This was a sign of real hospitality.”

And ate and drank: See verse 19.4. After the animals were fed and the guests washed their feet, the old man and his guests had a meal together. Both occurrences of and render the Hebrew waw conjunction. The first time it may be translated “then” (New Jerusalem Bible). The Hebrew verbs rendered ate and drank are plural, so they may describe the guests only, but more likely the old man and his guests. In this respect, the story resembles the one in verse 19.1b-9, where the Levite and his father-in-law share many meals together.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So the old man welcomed the Levite into his home. He gave his donkeys feed. Then the guests washed their feet and they all sat down to eat and drink together.

• So the old man had them come inside. He fed the Levite’s donkeys, and they washed their feet, and then had a meal.

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 .

Once again, following a terrible defeat, the people of Israel turn to the LORD. This is a pitiful scene: though the Benjaminites committed evil acts, they are winning and even massacring their brothers. This verse provides more detail on how the Israelites interacted with Yahweh previously (see verse 20.23).

Then all the people of Israel, the whole army, went up and came to Bethel and wept: Then is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here. All the people of Israel, the whole army is literally “all the sons [or, children] of Israel and all the people.” In Hebrew there is no mention of an army. However, these two phrases certainly refer to the same group of people, that is, the Israelites, and through the repetition of “all” show how determined this group is. For the Hebrew verb rendered went up (ʿalah), see verse 20.18. Once again this verb, which is often used to refer to going to war, is used ironically to speak of the people consulting the LORD. This time, the narrator makes it clear that the people came to Bethel, a place of worship. For wept see verse 20.23.

They sat there before the LORD: In the Old Testament a sitting position is sometimes associated with total discouragement and mourning, and this seems to be the case here as the people sat in the LORD’s presence. The adverb there refers to the sacred place in Bethel, described as before the LORD in verse 20.23. Revised Standard Version omits the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause. By expressing this conjunction and switching the word order, New International Version better expresses the consternation of the people: “and there they sat weeping before the LORD.”

And fasted that day until the evening: Fasted means they deliberately chose not to eat. In the Scriptures fasting is often practiced in times of great sorrow, mourning, or repentance. Here the Israelites were certainly fasting to show their sorrow over the death of the thousands of their men. They may have also fasted as they waited on the LORD for guidance. Most cultures practice fasting, though not necessarily with the same motivation. If an idiomatic expression exists in the target language, it can be used here, for example, “tied their mouths.” In some languages it might be made explicit that they “fasted in mourning” or even “fasted in prayer.” For until evening, see verse 20.23. Contemporary English Version says they were “not eating for the rest of the day,” but this does seem to communicate the function of fasting here.

And offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD: This clause gives more details about how the Israelites worshiped the LORD. Offered renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb translated went up. Burnt offerings were animal sacrifices in which everything was burnt to symbolize complete service to God (see verse 6.26). The Hebrew verb for offered and the noun for burnt offerings come from the same root meaning “go up,” so this is an emphatic expression. The peace offering was a sacrifice in which the best parts of the animal (blood, fat, and vital organs) were offered to God and the rest were eaten by the worshipers (see Lev 3). This shared meal expressed the fellowship between the LORD and those who worshiped him. Translators should try to use the same terms for burnt offerings and peace offerings as are used in other parts of the Old Testament. The Hebrew words for offered, burnt offerings, and peace offerings all have an l sound in the middle of the word, creating a string of similar sounds. It is hard to know whether this repetition is trying to convey mockery and irony or simply sadness and defeat. For before the LORD, see verse 20.23.

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 .

This is what you shall do is literally “And this [is] the thing that you should do.” This verse explains in more detail what the warriors are to do. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version omit this clause. However, keeping it underlines the fact that these are precise orders from the Israelite community to the warriors. We might also say “These are your orders.”

Every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy: Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew word order by beginning with every male and every woman. The first phrase every male brings to mind the Egyptian king’s order to kill all the male babies born of Hebrew women (Exo 1.16). The fact that it comes from Israelites, giving orders to kill other Israelites, means Israel has reached one of the lowest, if not the lowest point, in its history. The Hebrew word for male (zakar) is not found often in this book (only in verse 21.11-12). It is used here to distinguish males from females. While some of the women are spared, no male is to be left alive.

Every woman that has lain with a male is literally “every woman knowing the bed of a male.” This is a euphemism or polite way to refer to any woman who is no longer a virgin. All married women and any others who had had sexual relations were to be killed. The relative clause that has lain with a male applies only to every woman and not to every male. For the Hebrew verb rendered has lain, see verse 11.39, where it is translated “had … known.” Translators should look for natural ways in their language to express this notion. Contemporary English Version says “kill everyone, except the women who have never been married,” but this rendering does not reflect the text accurately, since it is possible that some women who were not married were not virgins. Thus Revised English Bible is more correct by saying “put to death every male person, and every woman who has had intercourse with a man.”

You shall utterly destroy renders the Hebrew verb (charam) that is connected to the concept of “holy war,” which is seen in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua. See also verse 1.17, where the same verb is used in relation to the Canaanite city of Zephath. In the history of Israel, items or people captured during battle were considered “set apart for” or “devoted to” Yahweh, which meant they were never to be taken as spoils and to be completely destroyed. Revised Standard Version regularly renders this verb as “utterly destroy,” an emphatic phrase that might serve as a model. Many versions simply say “kill” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), but this does not seem strong enough. Perhaps the addition of an expression such as “without exception” will show the seriousness of the order here. A footnote reference to verse 6.18 may be helpful to readers.

This order preserves the lives of the virgins of the city, who will serve as brides for the 600 surviving Benjaminite soldiers. Again this is quite ironic, since the rest of the inhabitants of Jabesh are to be killed in punishment for not sending warriors to fight against these same people, the Benjaminites. The order does show to what lengths the Israelites are willing to go to make amends for the damages done during the civil war. Ironically, they do not realize that their means of repairing the damage are equally evil. The downward spiral continues.

At the end of this verse some manuscripts of the ver Septuagintver* add “ ‘but spare any who are virgins.’ This they did” (Revised English Bible). However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends following the Hebrew text, which it gives a {B} rating.

A translation model for this verse is:

• These are your orders: Without exception, you must put to death every male and every woman who is not a virgin.”

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 .