Samson's Hair (part 2 of 2)

Samson’s hair becomes a mark of the Creator God’s covenant with him and with his parents.  Like Israel’s covenant markers, not cutting his hair was to be taken as a signal of their collective faithfulness to the covenant that their God had taken the initiative to enter into with them.  If Samson is a microcosm of Israel, then there should be other points of contact between his story, especially related to his covenant marker, and that of Israel.  What happens when Samson’s hair is cut?  The story reports that the Lord left Him, he had his eyes gouged out, he was bound in chains, and he was deported to the land of the Philistines. 

How does this relate to Israel?  The nation to which the Creator God referred as His firstborn son, that had been so improbably brought to birth through the events of the Egyptian exodus (as improbably as Abraham and Sarah having a child in their old age and as improbably as an infertile woman giving birth), was given instructions as to how to live so that they may appropriately represent their God to and in and for the world.  Though there is a large number of specific instructions to Israel, the primary instructions that will mark them out as the people of the Creator God are recorded in Leviticus.  There they are instructed: “You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it, for I am the Lord your God.  You must keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary.  I am the Lord” (26:1-2).  

As Samson’s hair was the response of his parents and himself to the Creator God’s covenant, so too was following these basic provisions laid out in Leviticus Israel’s response to God’s covenant with them.  It demands to be noted that it is neither a refrain from hair cutting nor the adherence to what is detailed in Leviticus that brings one in to covenant with the Creator God of Israel, but rather, it is the keeping of these things that is the glad response to the covenant activity of that God. 

What would happen to Israel if they failed to keep that which was their required response?  What if they worshiped idols, violated the Sabbaths and did not reverence the sanctuary?  Would their God cut them off and have nothing to do with them?  No, such would not be the response.  Rather, the Creator God promised that He would execute disciplinary judgment according to His covenant requirements and in accordance with the fact that He was recognizing them and establishing them as His covenant people. 

This is detailed in the same chapter in Leviticus, wherein the Creator God promises that horror, consumption, and fever will be visited upon His covenant people if they fail to live up to their obligations.  He promises that seed will be sown in vain and that enemies will eat whatever happens to be produced through that vain sowing.  He promises to set His face against His people and to strike them down before their enemies, as they are ruled over by those who hate them (26:16-17).  The afflictions go on and on and culminate with “You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will consume you” (26:38).  Israel is also promised that the horrors that their God will inflict will serve to “diminish eyesight and drain away the vitality of life” (26:16b). 

Is this not, along with the fact that Samson was ruled over by his enemies, almost precisely what is reported to have happened to Samson when he forsakes (though he did not actually cut off his own hair) the mark of his God’s covenant with him?  However, that same God also promises that “I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out from the land of Egypt” (26:45a), doing so “when they confess their iniquity and their ancestors’ iniquity which they committed by trespassing against Me” (26:40a). 

In the end, Israel’s God promises to bring them back to their promised land.  In much the same way, even though Samson has been bound, and even though the Levitical curses have devolved upon him, “His hair began to grow back after it had been shaved off” (16:22). As the Creator God would not forget His people, so He had not forgotten Samson.  With words that hearken back to the Creator’s remembering of His covenant with Israel, Samson, having been placed before the Philistines, having apparently and to some extent realized his failures, and having devised a rather interesting “exit strategy,” cries out “O Master, Lord, remember Me!  Strengthen me just one more time, O God, so I can get swift revenge against the Philistines for my two eyes!” (16:28) 

With that, Samson brought the house down upon himself and the Philistines.  Thus he perished among the nations, and was consumed within the land of his enemies; and thus, though a deliverance from the Philistines is brought about through his actions, the note of personal revenge has been struck, and Samson, though the symbol of his God’s covenant with him had begun to reappear (his hair growing back), dies along with the Philistines.  He does not experience a return to the land, but dies in his bondage.  Maddeningly and enigmatically, so ends the story of Samson.     

Samson's Hair (part 1)

Finally he told her his secret.  He said to her, “My hair has never been cut, for I have been dedicated to God from the time I was conceived.  If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me; I would become weak, and be just like all other men.” – Judges 16:17  (NET)

The story of the maddeningly enigmatic character, Samson, begins in a familiar way for the Hebrew Scriptures, which is with a barren woman.  It is said that there was “a man named Manoah from Zorah, from the Danite tribe.   His wife was infertile and childless” (Judges 13:2).  The God of Israel steps into this situation, and the “The Lord’s angelic messenger appeared to the woman and said to her, ‘You are infertile and childless, but you will conceive and have a son” (13:3). 

Immediately upon hearing this, one is reminded of the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel.  Because the patriarchs of Israel had all experienced, to an extent, what was now being experienced by Manoah and his wife, those hearing this story already know that there is going to be something special about this child.  They know that the Creator God of Israel has a special purpose in mind for this family, in line with His larger purposes for Israel.   

From the angelic messenger, Manoah’s wife is said to have received explicit instructions in relation to the treatment of the boy that is going to be born to her.  The messenger tells her, “Now be careful!  Do not drink wine or beer, and do not eat any food that will make you ritually unclean.  Look, you will conceive and have a son.  You must never cut his hair, for the child will be dedicated to God from birth.  He will begin to deliver Israel from the power of the Philistines” (13:4-5). 

With this, thoughts are moved beyond the patriarchs of the nation to Israel itself.  This mention of ritually unclean foods hearkens to the Mosaic law, and the use of “son” is a reminder that in the Exodus narrative, which was intensely programmatic and definitive for Israel, the Creator God refers to Israel as His firstborn son (4:22).  Naturally then, like Samson, Israel was a child dedicated to God from its birth, with certain restrictions in regards to ritual purity.  If one was to think big picture, then Israel, ultimately, was going to be the means by which the Creator God acted in history to deliver the whole of His creation from the power of death.  Thus, Samson becomes a microcosm of Israel. 

When Manoah is given the privilege of encountering the angelic messenger and the instructions are recounted to him, he is told “Your wife should pay attention to everything I told her.  She should not drink anything that the grapevine produces.  She must not drink wine or beer, and she must not eat any food that will make her ritually unclean.  She should obey everything I commanded her to do” (13:13b-14).  Fascinatingly, the very thing upon which so many focus when it comes to Samson and the sign of his covenant, which was the instructions related to his hair, is not reiterated to Manoah. 

Instead, the messenger tells him, twice, that his wife should pay attention to everything that she has been told to do in regards to her and her son.  In this case, she has received further instruction and it is going to be incumbent upon her to share these instructions with her husband.  It is also incumbent upon her husband to trust his wife in regards to this matter of their son’s hair, which provides an interesting twist to the dynamic of the story, especially within a society ordered around patriarchal dominance.  The report of this situation is yet another compelling reversal of social norms, as it elevates this woman and forces her husband to rely on her in a way that was quite uncommon and potentially revolutionary in that day and age. 

Corinth's Communion (part 20)

Speaking of the body, as Paul stresses the importance of the movement of the whole of the church body---with individual practice subsumed to its relevance to the strengthening of the church body (highlighted in chapter twelve) as that body attempts to exist as a microcosm of the kingdom of heaven (the will and rule of the Creator God expressed vicariously on earth through a community of covenant people) while also being an ambassadorial light to the world that speaks boldly of the reign of the Creator God and the coming together of heaven and earth that is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus (which is what is stressed at the communion table)---and though the topic is different than that which is addressed in the fifth and sixth chapters, a move to the tenth chapter sees Paul again taking up and operating within the motif of the meal. 

There, Paul again stresses the significance of the body of believers that comprises the church community (eyeing this in the light of the mention of the need for a careful regard for the body in 11:29) when he writes “Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?  Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). 

Perhaps the peculiar, subversive, absolute, and expected equality expressed at the Christian meal table, with all partaking equally in the same food and drink without succumbing to the cultural pressures of honor and shame, is what is here in Paul’s mind when he speaks of the breaking of bread and sharing in the body of Christ, as the members of the covenant community are tasked with continuing the mission of the Christ by being His ongoing physical presence in and for the world, with this powerfully symbolized by the way in which the meal is shared?  With the importance placed on the meal table in that time and place as a reflector and shaper of culture (or the reinforcer of its norms), the church’s meal table becomes a transformative force for its participants, with that transformation making its way outside the “four walls” of the church.   

Additionally, one does not overlook the Abrahamic covenant pretensions that are present with the mention of blessing in conjunction with the sharing of the cup and the breaking of the bread.  All talk of “blessing,” when on the lips (or the pen) of the covenant people, is provided context by that covenant.  Consequently, one must affirm that there is something of grand importance in the breaking of the bread that speaks to the body of Christ---the church---and its role to be a blessing for the world.  This role is powerfully communicated to an on-looking world through meal practice.      

In moving beyond the eleventh chapter, further evidence that Paul’s “careful regard for the body” (11:29) when participating in the Lord’s Supper is encountered, demonstrating that this “careful regard for the body” has little to nothing to do with that which occupies the thoughts of the participants as they consume the bread and the wine.  Rather, even greater weight is lent to the idea that Paul has in mind the environment and setting that has been created by the group that is attempting to celebrate that which they are calling the Lord’s Supper, and to the idea that he is calling specific attention to the social constructs that were so important in delineating those that cast their allegiance with King Jesus.  

Corinth's Communion (part 19)

With this foundational context in place, it’s now possible to let Paul speak for himself at length, as the modern observer is now situated at a meal (with symposium not far from the thoughts) with this particular Christian body and able to hear: “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.  In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard or a swindler.  Do not even eat with such a person.  For what do I have to do with judging those outside?  Are you not to judge those inside?  But God will judge those outside.  Remove the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). 

When attempting to consider how this is to be interpreted first by its recipients, and then by the later church (throughout the centuries) that should make every effort to hear and understand as a first century listener so as to make proper application to practice in an attempt to live out what it would mean to be a Christian in their own situation (place and time), this cannot be read apart from a comprehension of the social forces that were at work and in place in that time. 

Just as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (initially a community meal to be sure that would eventually devolve to the symbols of bread and wine and the communion ceremony) would be a microcosm of all that was intended for the kingdom of the Creator God, so too would a celebratory meal and attendant symposium be a microcosm of the larger society in which such are taking place.  Additionally, this section of the letter demands to be heard as a whole, without division or isolation of independent thoughts. 

Because of the mention of not eating with such people and with the dis-association list given here that is repeated and expanded upon in the sixth chapter, it also demands to be heard in the context of a meal, thus reinforcing the insistence of this study.  Finally, the letter demands to be heard in the context of what the meal says about the gathered body of believers, both to its participants and any observers.  For purposes of this study, because of Paul’s mention of judging, the letter must be heard with a pronounced mindfulness of what Paul says about eating and drinking without careful regard for the body (of believers) and the eating and drinking of judgment that such would entail. 

Yes, at the risk of redundancy, this letter must be considered in whole as the mounting argument that it is.  One does violence to the text and to Paul’s thesis when statements are carelessly isolated and used as aphoristic-truth clubs with which to beat people over the head in an effort to reinforce previously arrived at conclusions that are based on subjective prejudices and biases.  While one should recognize that Paul does indeed deal with a variety of problems, failing to see that there is a substantial progression that is based upon an underlying rhetorical movement with a particular point of reference, would be a wanton abuse of the Apostle’s work that might lead the reader into all sorts of erroneous conclusions while missing the larger point of the letter altogether.  It is imperative to recognize that the substantial progression in the letter appears to be closely related to Paul’s concerns with “the body.”

Water Into Wine (part 2)

Returning then to the wedding banquet that Jesus would have been attending, with it taking place in the context of a culture that overtly operated on the premises of honor and shame, those considered to be possessive of the least amount of honor would be seated at the far end of the table.  Thus, the banquet table in the ancient world would be an effective microcosm of the stratifications of the existing social order.

So how does this visible social stratification at the banqueting table have any bearing on Jesus turning the water into wine?  It would seem that it has much to do with the “when” of the miracle.  To understand the significance of what has happened, and to continue layering in levels of understanding, it is necessary to do some historical contextualizing so as to recover an aspect of the ancient world and its feasts that has been almost completely lost to the modern, western world. 

This effort at contextualization turns first to Pliny the younger, a magistrate of ancient Rome, who lived from the late first century into the early second century.  As a part of his writings, he provided information about feasts and community meals in and before his day, and his reports speak to the social order that is demonstrable in the service progressions in the meals.  In reference to a meal at which he was an honored guest (and so would have been seated adjacent to or quite near the host), Pliny writes: “Some very elegant dishes were served up to himself and a few more of the company; while those which were placed before the rest were cheap and paltry.  He apportioned in small flagons three different sorts of wines; but it was not that the guests might take their choice: on the contrary, that they might not choose at all.  One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of lower order (for you must know the measures of friendship according to degrees of quality); and the third for his own free men.” 

What Pliny here describes is quite common, and one can see how this report might be applied to painting an appropriate picture of the wedding feast at Cana and the attendant miraculous turning of the water into wine.  Pliny makes the point that while there were three different sorts of wines presented to the table, one should not be deluded into thinking that each person at the table was going to be able to choose which of the three wines they were going to take for themselves.  If all were looked upon as equals, this might be the case, but this was not the prevailing situation. 

It can here be seen that there were clear delineations made between and among guests.  In case the seating position relative to the host was not a sufficient indicator to a person of his perceived (and thus actual) societal ranking as adjudicated in the court of public opinion, the quality of the food and wine which he would find offered to him (which would also be connected to his seating position) would be a further indicator. 

Naturally and as one would expect, the host would have the finest wine and food served to his most honored guests, with the lesser wine served to those that were understood to be slightly less honorable (in this honor and shame society in which all competed to accrue honor and eschew shame---this would not be a commentary on someone’s character, but merely their public standing), with the poorest quality wine and food offered to those that were the least honorable, who also would have been seated the furthest away from him at the u-shaped table, if they were fortunate enough to be seated at the table at all (women, for instance, would not be seated at the table, but would be positioned in seats along the walls). 

Only Son (part 15)

When a teacher of Israel, be it Nicodemus or Jesus, spoke of their God’s son, such language would not be restricted to thoughts of messiah and kingship, or to Adam alone.  Speaking in such a way would also direct one’s thoughts to Israel itself.  This would be in connection with Israel’s most powerful, popular, and deterministic story---that of the Egyptian exodus, which was believed to have been personally conducted by the Creator God via the instrument of Israel’s greatest leader, that being Moses. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, Moses is given his instructions.  He is said to have been told by the Lord God of Israel, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control.  But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go” (4:21).  This is the pretext for the especially important statement (for purposes of this study) that follows, which is “You must say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn, and I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’”’” (4:22-23a). 

So here, quite importantly, as it relates to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, and what it is that Jesus seems to be attempting to communicate to Nicodemus about Himself and about His place within the Creator God’s long running redemptive plan for His creation, Israel can be found being referred to as the son of God.  With this, Israel, in a sense, is picking up the narrative from where it was left off by the first being to be recognized as the son of God, that being Adam. 

The son of God that was Adam, according to the story of Israel, was exiled from the garden and dragged all of humanity and creation down with him.  Here in Exodus the reader meets up with the son of God that is Israel, as they find themselves in an exilic state of oppression and subjugation.  This son, Israel, is going to be liberated from his bondage.  Following the liberation (essentially a restoration and a resurrection), this son of God is going to be brought under a covenant and given responsibilities related to that covenant.  That covenant comes to be known as “the law”; and the responsibility with which they have been charged, in essence, is to rightly bear the divine image and reflect their God’s glory into the world in such a way that it will cause all men to seek their God, especially as they see the blessings that are enjoyed by this particular people, Israel (understood as the “only son” of the Creator God). 

Israel was to be the representative of the Creator into the world.  Like Adam, they were given a realm of dominion that they were to occupy, in which they were to have dominion, and which they were to steward as a foretaste of the renewed creation to come.  Whereas for Adam the realm of dominion was the whole of the creation, Israel’s realm of dominion was the land that had been promised to them through the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham---the firstfruits of an entire creation that was to be redeemed (a microcosm of what would eventually come to be true, again, of the entire cosmos). 

There, in that place of dominion, they were to be fruitful and multiply.  Their successful occupation of their land, and all that went with it, would be accomplished by their adherence to the basic premises of the covenant, which were to avoid idolatry, to reverence the sanctuary, and to keep the Sabbaths that their God had ordained for them.  It was understood to be the case that if they succeeded in these areas, they would be blessed.  On the other hand, if they failed they would be cursed. 

On the whole then, this was a matter of trust.  In this area, Israel (son of God) would stand alongside Adam (son of God).  Adam’s successful occupation of the land would be accomplished by adherence to the premises of the covenant that the Creator God gave to him, which was to freely eat of all the trees of the garden, save one.  Blessing or cursing would result.  Of course, the narrative record indicates that Adam chose to violate the covenant, so it would be the curse (rather than the blessing) that came upon him and the creation. 

Israel & Adam (part 1 of 2)

Israel was set apart to the Lord; they were like the firstfruits of a harvest to Him. – Jeremiah 2:3a  (NET)

There are interesting similarities to be found between Adam (and Eve) and Israel.  As it is well-nigh possible that the story of Adam is the story of Israel in microcosm, while also being the pre-story for the existence of Israel and the explanation for the superiority of Israel’s God, the similarities make perfect sense. 

In terms of the Scriptural narrative, Adam, of course, was the first of humankind.  He is also represented as the first person to enter into a covenant with the Creator God.  By comparison, Israel was chosen out of all humankind, beginning with Abraham, to be the special, covenant people for the Lord.  As Adam is said to have strayed from the Lord in the matter of the fruit and the rebellion from his simple charge, the actions of God’s chosen, special covenant people would later cause their God to ask why “they strayed so far from Me” (2:5b). 

That straying was highlighted by the prophet Jeremiah and marked by the fact that “They paid allegiance to worthless idols, and so became worthless to Me” (2:5c).  Essentially, they were following the path of Adam, who paid attention (allegiance) to the words of the serpent, as reported by his wife, and thereby relinquished the responsibilities that had been given to Him by God, bringing a curse upon the earth.  It could be said that Adam became worthless to God, and humankind (forsaking covenant responsibility) became a liability in creation. 

The covenant God said to Israel through His prophet Jeremiah: “I brought you into a fertile land so you could enjoy its fruits and its rich bounty” (2:7a).  Likewise, humankind had been delivered into a perfect creation, a fertile land, given responsibility for stewardship and dominion over that creation.  Instruction was provided such that all but one small part of its fruits and its rich bounty could be enjoyed.  However, because Adam could not restrict himself to that which God had offered for Him to enjoy, that perfect creation of God “was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11). 

Because of Adam’s actions, “God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful” (6:12).  That is, they had been subjected to corruption and decay because of humankind’s rebellion and faithlessness to the obligations of the covenant as divine image-bearer.  Similarly, Israel had been delivered into the bountiful land but God said that they had “defiled it,” adding that “you made the land I call My own loathsome to Me” (Jeremiah 2:7b).

The Lord goes on to ask, “Has a nation ever changed its gods (even though they are not really gods at all)?  But My people have exchanged Me, their glorious God, for a god that cannot help them all!” (2:11).  The question that is asked and answered concerning Israel, working back through Adam, can then be equally applied to all of humankind.  Just as Israel stooped and fell to the worship of other gods, so too did Adam (first, according to Israel’ story).  For whom did Adam exchange his allegiance?  First, his allegiance went to his wife.  Secondly, it went to the serpent, for the one that could effectively countermand the directives of their Creator, causing humankind to break faith with their God, is the one that is trusted and so worshiped.