Tag Archives: Duane Lindsey

Bible Interpretation, Sunday School

Commentary on Judges 13-16 (Samson)

1 Comment

Toward the end of the period of the judges lived one of the most famous judges, Samson.  He lived from approximately 1089 BC to 1049 BC. The story of Samson begins in chapter 13, which is where we pick up the narrative.

In verse 1, we learn that God is once again punishing Israel by allowing them to be ruled over by the Philistines. Who were the Philistines? According to F. Duane Lindsey in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, the

Philistines arrived in large numbers during the invasion of the Sea Peoples about 1200 B.C. They organized a pentapolis or confederation of five cities—Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod on the strategic coastal highway, and Gath and Ekron on the edge of the Shephelah or Judean foothills (cf. Josh. 13:3). When the Philistine aggression moved eastward into the land of Benjamin and Judah, the Israelites accepted that domination without resistance (cf. 14:4; 15:11) till the time of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 7:10–14).

For what evil was Israel being punished? Serving the false gods of the Canaanites instead of serving the one true God who brought them out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.

After 40 years under Philistine rule, God is going to bring a deliverer forth to begin to rescue his people from the Philistines. The angel of the Lord appears to a Danite woman who is barren and tells her that she will conceive and birth a child who will be dedicated to God for his entire life. The boy would be a Nazirite (see Numbers 6:1-21), which meant that he was never to cut his hair, he was to abstain from drinking any alcohol, and he was never to have contact with a corpse.

Notice that verse 5 says that he will only begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines, a modest pronouncement. The final defeat of the Philistines would be left to Samuel (1 Sam. 7:10–14) and David (2 Sam. 5:17–25). Immediately we are suspicious that this particular judge will not live up to the potential he has.

One would expect that a man dedicated to God before his birth, a man who was a divinely appointed deliverer of Israel, would lead an exemplary and godly life. Instead, we will see that Samson is a deeply flawed man who personifies all that is wrong with Israel.

In chapters 14-15, the writer records several incidents from Samson’s life. We learn that God gives Samson supernatural physical strength at particular times. Due to this God-given strength, Samson personally kills hundreds of Philistines and becomes a “leader” of Israel. What is interesting is that Samson never leads others into battle or appears to administer the affairs of Israel in any official way. He simply keeps the Philistines at bay because they are scared of him as an individual. Daniel Block, in Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary), summarizes Samson’s life:

No other deliverer in the Book of Judges matches his potential. Called prenatally by Yahweh, stirred as a youth by the Spirit of Yahweh, empowered with extraordinary gifts by Yahweh, and granted exceptional opportunities for heroism by Yahweh, the narrator devotes more attention to Samson than to any other deliverer. Despite all these advantages and this special attention, Samson accomplishes less on behalf of his people than any of his predecessors. . . . Though Samson is impressive as an individual, he turns out to be anything but a military hero. He never leads Israel out in battle; he never engages the Philistines in martial combat; he never experiences a military victory. All his accomplishments are personal; all his victories, private.

As we begin chapter 16, we learn that Samson forms a relationship with a Philistine woman named Delilah. The rulers of the Philistines bribe Delilah to discover Samson’s source of physical strength. Three times Delilah begs to know Samson’s secret, and three times he lies to her.

Finally, the fourth time she asks, Samson reveals that he has been dedicated to God since birth, and this is symbolized by the fact that his hair has never been cut. If his hair is cut, his physical strength will be like that of any other man.

Samson falls asleep and Delilah cuts his hair. The Philistine rulers overpower him and carry him off as a prisoner. His eyes are gouged out and he is kept as a slave doing hard labor.

In verses 23-31, Samson is brought before a large number of Philistine leaders at a temple to entertain them. In his last act, he asks God for physical strength one more time so that he can knock down two columns that support the temple roof, thus killing all of the people on the roof of the temple. What a sad end to a life with so much potential.

What are we to make of Samson’s story? Daniel Block invites us to compare Samson to the nation of Israel:

Samson is a Wunderkind, miraculously born by the will of God. Samson is called to a high life of separation and devotion to Yahweh. Samson has a rash, opportunistic, and immature personality. Samson is inexorably drawn to foreign women, like Israel was drawn to foreign gods (both ‘play the harlot’). Samson experiences the bondage and oppression of the enemy. Samson cries out to Yahweh from his oppression. Samson is blinded (cf. 1 Sam 3:1–3). Samson is abandoned by Yahweh and does not know it.

Samson, as the “greatest” deliverer of Israel during the time of the judges, is a great disappointment. Contrast him to the greatest deliverer of Israel and all mankind, Jesus Christ. Jesus was a Wunderkind born by the will of God who fulfilled all of his potential. He perfectly obeyed God the Father in everything and defeated man’s greatest enemies, sin and death.

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible

Why Are Old Testament Sacrifices Incapable of Completely Dealing with Sin? Part 2

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

In part 1, we started to look at why animal sacrifices of the kind specified in the Old Testament Law are incapable of completely dealing with human sin once and for all. First, the sacrifices were limited in their moral efficacy, and second, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins.

Biblical scholar Duane Lindsey, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, provides three more reasons why they weren’t completely effective.

Third, the sacrifices were limited in purpose to the covenant preservation and renewal of a redeemed people. The Levitical sacrifices were a part of the worship of a redeemed people in covenant relationship with their God. Corporately, and perhaps for the most part individually, the occasion of the slaying of the Passover lamb and the application of its blood to the doorposts in Egypt were outward expressions of inward faith that signaled the regeneration and justification of individual Israelites.

The subsequent sacrificial system dealt ideally with worship and covenant renewal, not initial salvation. It was comparable to the New Testament believer’s experience of 1 John 1:9, not to the sinner’s experience of John 3:16. . . .

Fourth, except for the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope and duration to one sin per sacrifice. The forgiveness granted was real though temporary (in the sense that each sin required another sacrifice). Thus while God accepted the sacrifices for the removal of guilt in the case of the sin being dealt with, such temporary stays of divine wrath did not result in the permanent purging of a person’s conscience (Heb. 10:2).

Fifth, the efficacy of sacrifice was not inherent in the animals sacrificed or in any or all parts of the sacrificial ritual. God provided atonement and forgiveness in view of the all-sufficient sacrifice that Jesus Christ would offer on the cross. Christ’s death was “a sacrifice of atonement” by which God paid in full for the forgiveness which He had extended before the Cross (Rom. 3:25).

In other words, the Levitical sacrifices were validated in the mind of God on the basis of Christ’s death as the one truly efficacious Sacrifice for all sin, the Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; cf. 1 Peter 1:19–20). The efficacious value of the sacrifices was therefore derivative rather than original. It is in this sense that the author of Hebrews asserts, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). Nevertheless the benefits experienced by the Old Testament believers were just as real as the clothing which is worn by a 20th-century credit-card purchaser whose account has not yet been paid in full.

Lindsey summarizes, “The Levitical sacrifices were efficacious both for restoring the covenant relationship and (when offered in faith) for the actual forgiveness of particular sins, but this efficacy was derivative, needing to be validated by the one all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross.” Once Christ’s sacrifice occurred, the animal sacrifices were no longer needed.

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible

Why Are Old Testament Sacrifices Incapable of Completely Dealing with Sin? Part 1

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Although virtually no Christians advocate a return to the sacrifices enumerated in the Law, especially in the Book of Leviticus, we should still ask ourselves why this system was not sufficient to completely deal with the sins of mankind.

Duane Lindsey provides a very helpful explanation of the issues in The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Lindsey first notes that the sacrifices did accomplish something. Atonement for sins is mentioned several times in Leviticus. According to Lindsey,

[S]acrificial atonement involved the actual removal of the guilt and punishment for the particular sin(s) involved. The broad scope of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement . . . extended this principle to include “all the people” (Lev 16:33) and “all their sins” (v. 22), that is, “all the sins of the Israelites” (v. 34). The complete forgiveness of the Israelites’ sins for the past year is further described in terms of cleansing from sin in verse 30.

But Lindsey notes that there were several limitations of these sacrifices that made them unable to finally and completely deal with mankind’s sin problem.

First, the sacrifices were limited in their moral efficacy. Since empty ritualism was never an acceptable option to God, a truly acceptable sacrifice must have been prompted by genuine faith and moral obedience to the revealed will of God (26:14–45, esp. v. 31; Pss. 40:6–8; 51:16–17; Prov. 21:27; Amos 5:21–24; Heb. 10:5–10; 11:4, 6).

Sacrifices that were not brought in faith were perhaps sufficient at times for restoring ceremonial cleanness and meeting civil requirements (e.g., the restitution connected with the guilt offering), but did not really please God because they were empty formality. . . .

Second, with the possible exception of the Day of Atonement ritual, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins. Theologically they did not atone for the sin nature, or for the imputed sin of Adam. Nor did they even include willful acts of sin which were committed in defiance of God (cf. Num. 15:30–31, and comments on Lev. 4:1–2). Therefore Levitical sacrifice was not a complete and final scheme whereby all forms of sin could be removed.

It was mainly concerned with sins of ignorance, accident, carelessness, and omission, including sins of ritual defilement and misdemeanors that violated property rights. Sins for which there was no individual sacrifice were those done in defiance of the Lord and His commands—willful violations of the Ten Commandments (except minor violations of the eighth and ninth commands), willful disregard for ceremonial regulations, and any other violations of covenant relationship between Israel and the Lord. Such sins could be immediately forgiven only on the basis of unqualified grace in response to faith and repentance (cf. Pss. 32; 51). Otherwise they awaited the cleansing of the Day of Atonement ritual.

We’ll look at three more limitations of the Levitical sacrifices in part 2.