Talk:Judg 14:16-20

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.

Spirit of the Lord (v. 19)

Matthew, great question. I'll look this up in some commentaries when I'm in town again (late next week), but here's my initial thought: Because of his Nazarite (sp?) vow, Samson has God's favor, even if God doesn't explicitly approve of Samson's actions. Theologically, this raises some sticky issues about abuse of authority, but such issues aren't unique to this story (I'm thinking about Talmage's chapter on submitting to authority in the Articles of Faith—I think he addresses issues of submitting to unrighteous authority and says something about authority being put in place by God and so, even when it's being exercised unrighteously, the obligation of the saint is to submit to the authority). --RobertC 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This brings up some fundamental questions for me: What are we to make of the whole Samson story? Are we comfortable with its depictions of God as source of superhero strength and tribal defender? Since most scholars doubt that these stories are historically reliable, what are we to gain from these accounts? Is there a uniquely LDS interpretation of this part of the Bible? --Rob Fergus 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would guess the story of Samson is an embellished legend—that is, based on some historical facts, but embellished in the retelling of the story. I agree that reading the story as God giving Samson strength to do unrighteous acts is troubling. I think an LDS view is more open to errancy in the Biblical account than some other views. I also think the LDS view may have more emphasis on the covenant aspect (a point the SS lesson manual emphasizes). Perhaps God is bound to give Samson strength according to the Nazarite covenant, regardless of what Samson chooses to use his strength for. I do think that the LDS view tends to be negative toward Samson. I like the theme developed in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary that Israel and the judges become progressively worse in the book of Judges, culminating with Samson as the most self-centered and unrighteous judge (throughout his life, not just with Delilah). --RobertC 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Milton's exploration of the text, personally. Must we ask whether, however, it is historical? It seems to me that this question only arises if a text presents itself as historical. I have serious doubts whether any text presents itself as historical before at least the exile. Even afterward, I wonder whether any Hebrew text presents itself as historical (though I think some Greek texts certainly do). How does this text present itself? --Joe Spencer sometime 31 May 2006

The Baker's link isn't working for me right now. I'll try again later. I haven't read Milton's exploration.

Rob F (and others) As for the question of historicity I don't really see the relationship between that and my question. Suppose we say that the story is not at all historical. Would that change somehow the way in which we should approach this verse and my question? For me the significance of the question hinges on the fact that this is scripture not that it is historical. --Matthew Faulconer 05:00, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this more I wonder if we should distinguish errancy (note use by RobertC above) from historicity. A historical record could have an error in it. A non-historical record could be error free. The only problem I see with the assumption of errancy is that it is the easy way out to any difficult scriptural question. Anytime the scriptures don't say what I would prefer they do (and for me that seems to happen most in the OT) then I assume there is an error.

Maybe the right way to think of errors in scripture is that they are a quality of the scriptures in general. As such they help explain in general the fact that I have many open, unanswered questions (some people call this the stuff they "put on a shelf"). However, I wonder if we want to resist the desire to invoke the idea of an error to explain any particular passage of the scriptures because doing so would close a question that should still be open. Instead we should continue searching for a possible explanation. Certainly the principle of charity would dictate that a somewhat awkward reading we can make sense of is better than a reading that chalks the issue up to an error. (see also a related discussion on Talk:D&C 130:21-23.)

To get back to this particular scripture, I don't know of any reading that to me satisfies the question I posted. I think D&C 121:37 goes against the idea that one can use the power of the Lord to do evil.

--Matthew Faulconer 14:56, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, if this is historical, then we might ask about what God or Samson did or didn't actually do, or if the story we have really represents things the way they happened. If it isn't historical, then we are left asking how well this story might represent the way God actually deals with real people. Since most LDS readers may be inclined to "liken the story unto themselves", maybe it doesn't matter if the story really happened or not. I think it matters whether this story (or any Biblical story) actually happened or not. If it really happened, and is accurately reported, then it tells us something about God. If its just a story, it just tells us about somebody's idea about God. Most people would find the first more compelling. How does this story help us understand how God relates to real people if it a) didn't really happen or b) if it isn't reported accurately?--Rob Fergus 21:48, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)Link title

I indent twice because this is a double reaction (and I'll sign this one, yikes!). Matthew, have you read Dennis Rasmussen's _The Lord's Question_? Your dad published it originally with the Ketter (sp?) foundation I believe. Anyway, it presents the scriptures as a series of challenges to our way of thinking. Isn't this the idea? It very well ought to be constantly calling our understandings into question, suggesting that we haven't got the picture, etc. It seems to me that a verse like this is not--given we agree on the meaning of the canon--a reason either to introduce the question of historicity (which seems to me distracted--more on that below) or to introduce the question of errancy. Perhaps both of these recourses (historicity and errancy) are really misunderstandings of what a prophet is? Paul himself in 1 Cor 13:9 suggests that prophecy should not be understood in any absolute sense. Errancy is--perhaps, because I always have to hedge--escape.

But historicity as well? I think so. To be adddressed by the scriptures is to be addressed in a certain way, and the manner of address matters greatly (it would be odd to read the Book of Moses like one reads a psalm, etc.). When a text presents itself historically, as a history--and that in the strictest sense--it should be read in terms of its historicity. But if a text ignores that question, it is usually damaging to introduce the question. Jonah, for example, is not presented as a history. It would be, perhaps, to do violence to the text to read it in terms of history. I think, Rob, we ought to be very careful in trying to discuss the historicity of texts.

Returning to the verse... I think this verse does raise the very question presented on the commentary page. How do we deal with it? If one cannot use the power of the Lord to do evil... was this evil on Samson's part? This very question is at the heart of Milton's working through Samson's story. It is a shorter tragedy called _Samson Agonistes_ that he ultimately made the third part of the trilogy of _Paradise Lost_ and _Paradise Regain'd_. He explores what it means on God's part to work through this "evil" character, and how salvation is wrought thereby. To complicate things, it is clearly a parody of _Prometheus Bound_, for what that's worth.--Joe Spencer 22:39, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Rob & Joe, I don't have the whole question of historicity as it related to the scriptures figured out. Thanks for the interesting comments as they provide me with food for further thought. I don't expect to have this one worked out it my mind in any settled way for quite some time. Luckily, I'm in no hurry on this question. --Matthew Faulconer 14:55, 2 Jun 2006 (UTC)

RobertC, great link to the Baker's Evangelical Dictionary. Thanks, Matthew

One more thing, Joe, thanks for the point about Milton. Though I do think we cannot use God's power for evil, God can use evil people and their actions to accomplish his purposes. There are many examples of this in the scriptures. I think that may help explain what is going on here. --Matthew Faulconer 15:01, 2 Jun 2006 (UTC)

I posted this question here on Jim F.'s Sunday School blog which generated some discussion others might want to check out. I also put a related question on the talk page for D&C 121:37. --RobertC 08:43, 5 Jun 2006 (UTC)

RobertC, thanks for the link. The discussion there is interesting and I added a comment as well.

All, Just as a side-note plug for the wiki: I feel like we have done all of this discussion and in a sense maybe all that there is to say is said (either on this page or that one) but still I don't feel like I have the closure I want. In one sense of course we shouldn't expect a sense of closure around a question like this--at least not right away. But in a more limited sense I would like to feel like we know where we ended up with the discussion. What at least are the options for interpretation and the pros and cons. This no doubt will expose holes and may require some further discussion. (Take for example the comments made by Rob Fergus. I think that in trying to sum up the position he takes above we will find that we didn't fully discuss it and the implications.)

I think the discussion that was done so far is great, but the part we haven't begun, writing up commentary based on it, is the harder part. I'll try to work on this a bit more and look forward to others helping me if they are interested in it as well.

I do think that the writing may take two parts. 1) overall comments about how to interpret stuff like this--especially in the Old Testament. 2) more brief comments as they relate specifically to this passage. --Matthew Faulconer 14:40, 7 Jun 2006 (UTC)

power of God to use evil

On this point:

One view is that God is using Samson to show the Philistines his power. However, this does not address the following theological question: is God supporting Samson's seemingly selfish desire to settle a wager in verses 12-13? If so, this would seem to contradict the notion in D&C 121:37 that one cannot use God's power to do evil.

Here's my current take. God is not "supporting Samson's seemingly selfish desire to settle a wager" but he is using Samson's selfish behaviour to punish the Philistines. --Matthew Faulconer 07:05, 16 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, I think that's a sensible view. I'm guessing you would say (at least if pressed) that God does not condone Samson's action, but he's not stopping the action either (in the sense of depriving Samson of his God-given, congenital strength). In this sense, I'm not sure this view is incompatible with the covenant view I tried to articulate (though there is a difference in emphasis and they are not completely overlapping views). --RobertC 11:42, 17 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Yes. that makes sense to me. I may try to fiddle with this later, but I like it the way it is as well. --Matthew Faulconer 05:12, 18 Jun 2006 (UTC)