Judges13:1–25

The razor that names him — and the razor he names to Delilah verbal / quotation — confirmed

מוֹרָה (môwrâh, H4177, “razor”) is one of the rarest nouns in the canon: the Verifier finds it in three verses only. Two of them are Samson's. Here the angel says “no razor shall go up upon his head, for a Nazirite-of-God shall the boy be from the womb” (13:5); at Judges 16:17 Samson says the same three words — razor, Nazirite, womb — to a woman who is being paid to hear them. The Verifier confirms all three shared lexemes. ⚙ The sentence that constitutes him is the sentence he sells. Cambridge notes that the unshorn hair “seems to have been the one essential characteristic” of this kind of consecration; that is exactly what makes 16:17 a self-erasure rather than a haircut.

Judges 16:17

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H4177 môwrâh (rare — in 3 vv canon-wide), H5139 nâzîyr (in 16 vv), H990 beṭen (in 72 vv). Judges 16:17 reproduces the angel's clause of 13:5 inside the book itself; the rare lexeme plus the near-verbatim clause justifies the verbal tier.

“Too wonderful for me” — the one other verse that uses this word verbal / quotation — confirmed

The angel refuses his name with a single adjective: פֶלִאי (pilʼîy, H6383). The Verifier finds the lexeme in exactly two verses in the whole canon — Judges 13:18 and Psalm 139:6, where the psalmist says such knowledge is too wonderful for him, too high, he cannot attain to it. Cambridge makes the same connection independently: “The divine Name is inscrutable, like the divine action, Psalm 139:6.” ⚙ Manoah's question and the psalmist's confession are the same discovery from opposite ends — one man asking and refused, one man not asking because he already knows the answer is out of reach. Pulpit adds the practical consequence: the name was one which, as Paul puts it, it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Psalm 139:6

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H6383 pilʼîy — in 2 vv canon-wide, i.e. these two verses are its entire attestation. This is a rare-lexeme verbal link, NOT a quotation: neither verse cites the other, and no literary dependence is claimed.

Hannah's vow uses the angel's word verbal / quotation — confirmed

The third and last occurrence of מוֹרָה (H4177) is 1 Samuel 1:11, where Hannah — also barren, also visited at a sanctuary, also given a son who will judge Israel — vows of her own accord what the angel here imposes without asking: no razor shall come upon his head. Cambridge observes that besides Samson, “the only other and not quite certain example” of a lifelong Nazirite is Samuel, and that he is not called one until Sirach 46:13. Ellicott draws the inference the two passages invite: “the distress of the people had led mothers to meditate on the old law of life-dedication to God.” ⚙ The difference is the whole point: Hannah vows her son to God; Samson's mother is told. One is consecration offered, the other consecration decreed.

1 Samuel 1:11

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H4177 môwrâh — in 3 vv canon-wide (Judges 13:5; Judges 16:17; 1 Samuel 1:11). Rare shared lexeme in a shared formula (“no razor upon his head”); no citation is claimed in either direction.

A word for what a dream does to a king structural / thematic — confirmed

לְפַעֲמוֹ (pâʻam, H6470) in 13:25 is not a gentle stirring. The Verifier finds the lexeme in only five verses; the others are Genesis 41:8 (Pharaoh's spirit was troubled) and Daniel 2:1, 2:3 (Nebuchadnezzar's spirit was troubled and his sleep left him) — each of them, like this verse, pairing pâʻam with רוּחַ (H7307). Ellicott cites both passages under this word and glosses it “to agitate or thrust him”; Cambridge notes the passive is rendered “was troubled” at Genesis 41:8 and Psalm 77:4, and compares Mark 1:12, “the Spirit driveth him forth.” ⚙ What unsettles a pagan king from outside, in a dream he cannot read, unsettles Samson from inside, by the Spirit of YHWH. The tier is kept at structural rather than verbal deliberately: the lexeme is genuinely rare, but the direction of the action is opposite and no literary dependence is in view.

Genesis 41:8 · Daniel 2:1 · Daniel 2:3

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H6470 pâʻam (rare — in 5 vv) and H7307 rûwach (in 348 vv). The rare lexeme is real and confirmed, but the usage is inverted (divine impulse vs. a troubled spirit), so the link is recorded as a shared motif of agitation, deliberately downgraded from verbal.

The two-town corridor: Zorah and Eshtaol structural / thematic — confirmed

The unit is pinned to a two-town corridor: Zorah (H6881) and Eshtaol (H847), named together at 13:2 and 13:25 and shared with Joshua 15:33, Joshua 19:41, Judges 18:2 and 18:8 — the Verifier confirms the lexemes in each. Cambridge places Zorah at the modern Ṣar‘a, 15 miles west of Jerusalem, directly opposite Beth-shemesh, and notes that the situation “exposed it to Philistine influences”; Pulpit observes that the town is assigned to Dan in Joshua 19:41 and to Judah in Joshua 15:33, probably because the tribal boundary ran through it. Judges 16:31 closes the circle: Samson is buried “between Zorah and Eshtaol,” in the burying place of Manoah his father, and shares H4495 and H6881 with this unit. ⚙ The geography is the plot. A man consecrated to separation is born on the one seam where Israel and Philistia touch, and is buried on it — the whole cycle happens inside a corridor a few miles wide.

Judges 16:31 · Judges 18:2 · Judges 18:8 · Joshua 15:33 · Joshua 19:41

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H6881 Tsorʻâh (in 10 vv), H847 ʼEshtâʼôl (in 7 vv), H4495 Mânôwach (in 14 vv), H1839 Dânîy (in 5 vv), H4940 mishpâchâh (in 224 vv). Real shared toponyms and clan terms binding the Samson narrative to the Danite material and to the Joshua town-lists; no quotation is claimed.

The barren woman is not an accident of plot structural / thematic — confirmed

עֲקָרָה (ʻâqâr, H6135) links this opening to Genesis 25:21, where Isaac entreats YHWH for Rebekah “because she was barren,” and she conceives (hârâh, H2029) — both lexemes confirmed by the Verifier; and the verb of Isaac's entreaty there is ʻâthar, the same rare word used of Manoah's prayer in 13:8. Barnes lists the pattern plainly: Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, John the Baptist. Cambridge: “The child in such cases was a special gift of God, and marked out for a special career.” Geneva reads it as doctrine — the deliverance “came only from God, and not by man's power.” ⚙ The barrenness is the argument. Israel cannot produce its own deliverer any more than this woman can produce a child.

Genesis 25:21 · Genesis 11:30 · 1 Samuel 1:2

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H6135 ʻâqâr (in 11 vv) and H2029 hârâh (in 42 vv) with Genesis 25:21. Genesis 11:30 and 1 Samuel 1:2 are added on the commentators' own citation (Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge), not on Verifier-computed bases, and carry no verbal claim.

Zechariah, Elizabeth, and a repetition the Verifier cannot check structural / thematic — confirmed

Ellicott states it flatly at 13:2: “Many of the phrases here used occur in Luke 1:7; 1:11; 1:15; 1:31; 2:23.” Cambridge notes that the Angel's appearance betokens the announcement of a deliverer “cf. Luke 1:11; 1:15 ff., 1:31 ff.”; Pulpit sets the promise beside Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth and the blessed Virgin; Ellicott at 13:4 points out that the LXX's sikera for שֵׁכָר is the very word standing in Luke 1:15 of John. ⚙ The structure repeats point for point: an aged or barren wife, an angelic annunciation, an abstinence imposed before birth, a son who prepares rather than completes the deliverance. This is a Greek-to-Hebrew link, so no shared Strong's number exists and none is claimed — the basis is structural, and it is carried by the LXX vocabulary and by the annunciation form, not by lexical identity.

Luke 1:7 · Luke 1:13-15 · Luke 1:31

basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew): shared Strong's numbers are impossible in principle, so no verbal tier is available. Basis is the shared annunciation form (barren wife, angelic promise, pre-natal abstinence, forerunner-deliverer), recorded by Ellicott, Cambridge and Pulpit at these verses, plus the LXX rendering sikera for H7941 shêkâr standing in Luke 1:15.

Mahaneh-Dan — the same rare name in two different places flagged — verify source

מַחֲנֵה־דָן (H4265) occurs in exactly two verses: Judges 13:25, where it lies “between Zorah and Eshtaol,” and Judges 18:12, where it is placed in Judah, behind Kiriath-jearim, on the Danite migrants' march north. The Verifier records the shared lexeme, so the verbal tie is real; what is contested is whether the two verses name the same ground. Cambridge states the difficulty plainly — here the site “lies in the heart of the Danite settlements,” whereas a temporary encampment outside the district is what the name would naturally describe — and since it is unlikely there were two Dan's Camps in one small region, he concludes “there is something wrong about the name here” and proposes reading Manahath-dan (after S. A. Cook), tying it to the Manahathites of Zorah in 1 Chronicles 2:52–54. Ellicott and Barnes simply transliterate and let the discrepancy stand; Poole and Gill suggest the Danite expedition of ch. 18, though narrated later, happened earlier; K&D admits “the situation cannot be determined precisely.” ⚙ Flagged rather than asserted: the lexeme is shared and rare, the identification of the two sites is not established, and Cambridge's emendation has no manuscript support whatever — it is a conjecture repairing a difficulty, and should be used as nothing more.

Judges 18:12 · Judges 18:11 · 1 Chronicles 2:52-54

basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H4265 Machănêh-Dân — in 2 vv canon-wide (Judges 13:25; Judges 18:12), so the lexical link is certain. FLAGGED because the geographical identification behind it is disputed in the sources: Judges 18:12 locates the camp in Judah behind Kiriath-jearim, this verse between Zorah and Eshtaol. Cambridge proposes emending to Manahath-dan (1 Chronicles 2:52-54) — an unattested conjecture, not a variant reading. Verify before relying on either location.

The messenger whose name is Wonderful ancient/widely-held

The named voices here are unusually united. Poole: the angel of the LORD is “the Son of God, oft so called in the Old Testament, as may be gathered from Judges 13:18, yet distinguished from the Lord, because he appeared here as it were in the form of a servant.” Benson says the same and reads pilʼîy against Isaiah 9:6, “where it is applied to Christ, the wonderful child born.” Gill calls him “the uncreated one, the Angel of the covenant, the Son and Word of God.” Geneva glosses v. 11: “He calls him man, because he so seemed, but he was Christ the eternal word, which at his appointed time became man.” JFB names him “the messenger of the covenant.” K&D stops one step short and is the more careful witness: pilʼîy is “a predicate belonging to God alone (compare the term ‘Wonderful’ in Isaiah 9:6).” ⚙ Two honest limits. First, Isaiah 9:6 uses פֶּלֶא (H6382), a cognate of the same root, not the identical lexeme H6383, and the Verifier did not return Isaiah 9:6 among the candidate bases — the link is by root and by predicate, which is enough to notice and not enough to call verbal. Second, the text's own claim is narrower than the commentators': it says the messenger receives a burnt offering, refuses to be fed, ascends in the flame, and bears a name that belongs to God alone. That is what must be accounted for.

Judges 13:18 · Isaiah 9:6 · Judges 6:11-22 · Exodus 3:2

The one who begins, and the one who finishes ancient/widely-held

Gill sets the type out in full at 13:5: Samson “was a type of Christ, who was sanctified by the Lord, separated from sinners, and called a ‘Nazarene’: was born of a virgin, as Samson was of a barren woman, and his birth foretold by an angel as this”; and at the same verse he marks the decisive asymmetry — “in this his antitype exceeds him, who is the author of the complete salvation of his people out of the hands of all their enemies,” yet resembles him in that “what he did he did himself alone; not at the head of an army,” citing Isaiah 63:5. At 13:24 Gill reads even the name both ways: “Christ is the mighty God, and mighty Saviour, the sun of righteousness, the light of the world, and the deliverer of his people from darkness of calamity and distress.” Ellicott, Benson, Pulpit and Poole all independently stress the limit built into the promise — Samson only begins. ⚙ The redemptive-historical point is carried by that one Hifil verb, יָחֵל (H2490): God announces a deliverer and, in the same breath, declares him partial. Judges is a book of deliverers who need delivering, and this chapter is the only one that says so in advance. The honest caveat: the New Testament never types Samson on Christ; Hebrews 11:32 lists him among those who through faith wrought righteousness. What Scripture supplies is the pattern — a promised son, a closed womb, a consecration not chosen — and the pattern is taken up explicitly at Luke 1.

Judges 13:5 · Isaiah 63:5 · Hebrews 11:32 · Luke 1:31

He ascended in the flame of his own offering ancient/widely-held

Manoah offers a kid and a minchâh on a rock; the flame goes up, and the messenger goes up in the flame (v. 20) — by the verb ʻâlâh (H5927), the same verb the chapter forbade to the razor in v. 5 and used of sending the offering up in v. 19. Henry makes the application, and it is the oldest kind of Christian reading of a burnt offering: “We may apply this to Christ's sacrifice of himself for us; he ascended in the flame of his own offering, for by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, Heb 9:12.” Cambridge, from an entirely different school, notices the same theological weight in the flame — the offering “must be consumed by fire which rises to the heaven where He dwells,” and the sign “may well have suggested a more spiritual view of Jehovah's nature.” Poole: he ascended “to manifest his nature and essence to be spiritual.” ⚙ Then the wife's argument in v. 23 is built on the accepted offering and nothing else: He received it, therefore He does not mean to kill us. That is the logic of Romans 5 and Hebrews 9 in its earliest domestic form — a conclusion about God's intent drawn from a sacrifice He has already taken. Marked as a figural reading: Henry's application is homiletic and he says so, and the Hebrew makes no claim beyond the fire and the ascent.

Judges 13:19-23 · Hebrews 9:12 · Leviticus 9:24