the one through whom came death, the other through whom came the resurrection of the dead: on whose account also two testaments are spoken of. But as for the fact that it was made a precept in Israel, that from day to day they came together to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year, I do not think it signifies anything after the fulfilment of the burnt offering, which shall be unto life eternal, but the past times of the Church, in which they were blessed that mourned. And by the four days is figured her universality, on account of the four parts of the world, through which she is spread far and wide.
But as to the proper sense of the history, I do not suppose the Israelites decreed this except because they understood that in that matter the judgment of God had been brought forth rather to smite the father, lest anyone thereafter should dare to vow such a sacrifice. For why should mourning and lamentation be decreed, if that vow was one of joy? But if that too — the fact that the people of Ephraim was afterward subdued by the same Jephthah — is to be referred to the judgment of God which shall be at the end, as the Lord Himself says: 'Those who would not have me to reign over them, bring hither and slay before me,' then neither there are the forty-two thousand who fell commemorated with an idle number.
For just as those two months, on account of the sixty days, signify the number six of the six ages, so there too the sevenfold taken six times figures this same thing, so far as pertains to the six ages of the world; for six times seven are forty-two. Nor was it in vain that Jephthah himself judged the people six years. It may be asked how the angel said to the mother of Samson, when he announced to her a son to come, because she was barren: 'And now observe, and drink not wine and strong drink, and eat not anything unclean.' For what is unclean? — unless perhaps the dissolution of discipline, which had begun to be in Israel, had weakened them even to the eating of those things which God had forbidden among the kinds of animals.
For why should it not be believed that they could much more readily do this too — they who were even transgressing to the worship of idols? As for the fact that the mother of Samson, indicating to her husband how the angel had announced to her a son to come, said: 'And I asked him whence he was, and his name he did not announce to me,' it may be asked whether she spoke truly, since it is not read, when the angel spoke to her. But it is to be understood that Scripture there was silent about this, but here recorded what it had there passed over in silence. That too — that she did not say, 'I asked him what he was called, and his name he did not announce to me,' but said, 'I asked whence he was' — seems inconsistent with what she added: 'and his name he did not announce to me.'
For she had not asked his name, when she asked whence he was, but the place or the city, since she thought him a man. For she called him even a man of God, though in appearance or bearing similar to an angel — that is, because she saw one so illustrious, as she herself related. But if it be so distinguished: 'And I asked him whence he was and his name,' so that 'I asked him' is supplied, and afterward is inferred, 'he did not announce to me,' then there is no question; for what she says, 'he did not announce to me,' can be referred to both — that is, neither whence he was, nor his name. Likewise, as for what the same woman says was told her by the angel, that 'the boy shall be a Nazarite of God from the womb even to the day of his death,' it is not read to have been said by the angel. And as for what is read to have been said:
'he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,' is not recorded by the woman. And so both she did not say something which she heard, and yet it is by no means to be believed that she said something which she did not hear; but rather that Scripture did not set down all the words of the angel, when it inserted him himself speaking to the woman into the narration. But it was said, 'from the womb even to the day of his death,' because those were called Nazarites in the law who had a vow for a time, according to those things which Scripture had commanded through Moses. Whence is this, that it was enjoined upon him that iron should not come up upon his head, and that he should not drink wine and strong drink.
For this Samson observed his whole life long, which those who were called Nazarites observed on certain days, vowing and rendering their vow. As for what Scripture says, that 'Manoah knew not that it was an angel of God,' it is manifest that his wife too believed him to be a man. Therefore what he said to him — 'Let us now constrain thee, and let us make ready before thee a kid of the goats' — he invited him as a man, but in such a way that he might feast on this with him, which sacrifice he had prepared. For to make ready a kid of the goats is not wont to be said except when a sacrifice is being made. Finally he too answered thus: 'If thou constrain me, I will not eat of thy bread' — wherein he showed that he had been invited to a feast. Then he added: 'And if thou make a burnt offering, thou shalt offer it to the Lord.'
He said 'if thou make a burnt offering' precisely because the other had said, 'let us make ready before thee a kid of the goats.' But not every sacrifice was a burnt offering; for of the burnt offering none was eaten, because the whole was burned, and therefore it was called a holocaust (whole-burnt). But the angel, though not about to eat, admonished that a burnt offering should rather be made — yet not to himself, but to the Lord; on this account especially, because the nation of Israel at that time had grown accustomed to sacrifice to whatever false gods; whence at that time too they had offended God, so as to be delivered to the enemy for forty years. What means this — that, after the angel who was speaking with them was made manifest to Manoah and his wife, the same Manoah said to his wife: 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God'?
This was of course from that saying of the Law, where it is written: 'No one can see my face and live.' They supposed, therefore, as men do, that they had seen God, since so great a miracle had been wrought, namely that he stood in the fire of the sacrifice, he who a little before had been speaking with them as though he were a man. But were they calling him God in an angel, or were they calling the angel himself God? For thus it is written: 'And Manoah took a kid of the goats and a meat-offering, and offered it upon a rock to the Lord who works wonders; and Manoah and his wife were watching. And it came to pass, as the flame ascended above the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the Lord also ascended in the flame. And Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.'
'And the angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that it was the angel of the Lord; and Manoah said to his wife: We shall surely die, because we have seen God.' In these words, then, since he did not say, 'We shall surely die, because we have seen the angel of the Lord,' but 'We have seen God,' a question arises: whether they understood God in the angel, or whether they were calling that same angel God. For that third possibility—that they supposed him to be God who was an angel—cannot be maintained, since Scripture says most plainly: 'Then Manoah knew that it was the angel of the Lord.' But whence did they fear death? For Scripture had not said in Exodus, 'No one sees the face of an angel and lives,' but it said 'my face,' when God was speaking.
Or was it in this very fact—that Manoah had recognized God in the presence of the angel—that he was so disturbed as to fear death? Now as to what his wife answered him: 'If the Lord had wished to put us to death, he would not have received a burnt-offering and a sacrifice from our hand, nor would he have shown us all these things, nor indeed would he have made these things heard by us'—did they believe that the angel himself received the sacrifice, because they saw him stand in the flame of the altar; or did they by this understand that the Lord had received it, because the angel did this in order to show himself to be an angel? But whichever of these it may be, the angel had already said: 'If, however, you make a burnt-offering, you shall offer it to the Lord'—that is, not to me, but to the Lord.
The fact, then, that the angel stood in the flame of the altar should rather be understood as signifying that Angel of great counsel in the form of a servant, that is, in a man, whom he was to take upon himself—one who would not receive the sacrifice but would himself be the sacrifice to come. What is the meaning of the statement that Samson smote the foreigners 'leg upon thigh'? For who has a leg upon his thigh, since the leg is downward and extends only from the knee to the ankle? Then, if it were meant to signify the place of the body where he wounded them, could it be that all whom he struck had been wounded in one and the same place of the body? And if that were credible, we might perhaps suspect that he fought with the leg-bone of some animal as with a club, and struck them with it upon the thigh;
just as it is written of him that he slew a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass. But neither is that, as I have said, credible—that in fighting he watched for one single spot where he might strike them; and Scripture does not say, 'He smote them with a leg upon the thigh,' but 'a leg upon the thigh.' Doubtless, then, it is an unusual manner of speaking that produces the obscurity. For it is spoken as though one were to say: 'He smote them exceedingly wonderfully'—that is, so that, stupefied with amazement, they would set leg upon thigh; namely the leg of one foot upon the thigh of the other, as those are wont to sit who are stupefied with wonder. As if one were to say: 'He struck them hand to jaw'—that is, with such slaughter that in sad amazement they would set hand to jaw.
That this is indeed the sense, the translation which is from the Hebrew sufficiently teaches; for it reads thus: 'And he smote them with a huge blow, so that in their stupefaction they set calf upon thigh.' For it is as if it said: they set leg upon thigh, since the calf is indeed at the back, together with the leg. What is the meaning of Samson's words to the men of Judah: 'Swear to me that you yourselves will not kill me; and deliver me to them, lest perchance you fall upon me yourselves'? Some have interpreted this manner of speaking thus: 'lest perchance you come against me yourselves.' But that he said this so as not to be killed by them is shown by what is written in the Book of Kingdoms, when Solomon commanded that a man be killed, saying: 'Go, fall upon him.'
This is not understood, because it is not our custom to speak thus. For likewise, as to what military authorities say, 'Go, relieve him,' meaning 'kill him'—who would understand it, except one who knows the custom of that manner of speaking? It is also commonly said among us: 'He has shortened it for him,' which means 'he has killed him'; and no one understands this except one who is accustomed to hearing it. For this is the general force of all forms of speech: that just as the languages themselves are not understood unless they are learned by hearing or by reading. AMEN.