By Larry Barnes in Judges —

Judges 14

12/01/2025

Judges 14 NKJV: We are now getting into Samson's early life. He marries a Philistine woman, and we get to see some of his arrogance and anger issues. Of course, God is using this to set Samson up to begin delivering them from the Philistines. I get the impression this is not Delilah, whom we should encounter later in the book.

You're absolutely right on all counts!

Judges 14 is the beginning of Samson's "adult" exploits, and the woman here is the unnamed "woman in Timnah" (a Philistine from the town of Timnah). This is definitely not Delilah. Delilah shows up later, in Judges 16, in an entirely different episode (the one that ends with the haircut and the collapse of the temple). The Timnah woman is wife #1 (sort of—things go south fast), while Delilah is a later relationship that’s more of a paid betrayal than a marriage.

A few quick notes on chapter 14 that highlight what you’re picking up on:

  • Samson’s demand (“Get her for me, for she pleases me well” — 14:3) already shows that impulsive, self-willed streak. He’s not exactly asking; he’s commanding his parents.
  • The riddle and the wager at the wedding feast reveal both his arrogance (“If you had not plowed with my heifer…”) and how quickly his temper flares when he loses the bet (he goes down to Ashkelon, kills 30 men, and takes their garments to pay off the debt).
  • Yet the narrator slips in that crucial line in verse 4: “But his father and mother did not know that it was of the Lord—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines.” So even Samson’s brash, borderline-reckless decisions are being sovereignly used by God to pick a fight with Philistia.

It’s classic Judges: deeply flawed deliverers whom God still uses mightily. Samson is probably the most extreme example—his personal life is a train wreck, but God keeps turning even his worst impulses into Philistine body counts.

You’re spot-on that Delilah is still two chapters away (Judges 16). The Timnah story actually ends tragically in chapter 15 with the fox-tails-and-fire incident and the death of the woman and her father, which only fuels Samson’s rage further.

I noticed that even with this early wife, Samson is susceptible to giving in when pressured long enough. I was a bit shocked at the extent the men went to to get her to betray Samson. Even though it seems like a small matter, the riddle, I guess it displays the enmity between the Philistines and Israel.

That’s a really sharp observation, and you’re seeing the pattern that runs through Samson’s whole life.

Even this early, we see the fatal flaw that will be fully exploited later with Delilah: Samson cannot withstand persistent emotional pressure from a woman he’s attracted to.

  • In Judges 14:16–17, his Timnah wife “pressed him so much that his soul was vexed to death,” and he finally tells her the riddle’s answer on the seventh day.
  • In Judges 16:16–17, Delilah does the exact same thing: “she pressed him daily with her words and urged him, so that his soul was vexed to death,” and he finally tells her about his hair.

Same verb (“vexed/annoyed to death”), same tactic, same result. The writer is deliberately showing us that this weakness was already there from the very first woman in his life.

And you’re absolutely right about the Philistines’ reaction. Threatening to burn a woman and her father’s entire house alive (14:15) just to avoid losing a stupid garment bet is wildly disproportionate. It shows how deep the hatred ran. To them, being outwitted by an Israelite (even in a party game) was intolerable; they’d rather commit arson and murder than lose face. So a “small matter” like a riddle becomes a microcosm of the larger Israel–Philistine conflict.

It also foreshadows what happens next: when Samson’s wife is given to his companion and then burned anyway (15:6), it lights the fuse for open warfare. One personal betrayal spirals into thousands of dead Philistines because neither side can let an insult go.

Samson is a walking powder keg, and the Philistines keep striking matches. God just makes sure the explosion always lands on the right side. 😅

Apparently, Samson was so enraged by the betrayal that he killed 30 Philistines to get the 30 garments he needed to pay off the bet, then he dumped his wife, giving her to his companion, the best man. Would this have been a fellow Israelite?

Great question, and the text actually clarifies this pretty directly.

No, the “companion” (or “friend,” “best man”) was not an Israelite—he was a Philistine.

Here’s why we know that:

  • Judges 14:20 (NKJV): “But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, who had been his best man/friend.”
  • Judges 15:1–2 – When Samson later calms down and goes back to claim his wife (bringing a young goat as a reconciliation gift), her father says: “I really thought that you thoroughly hated her; therefore I gave her to your companion. Is not her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please, take her instead.”

The father is clearly a Philistine (he lives in Timnah, a Philistine town), and he gave his daughter to one of the thirty Philistine wedding guests who had been part of the riddle wager. In fact, this “companion” is almost certainly the ringleader of the group that threatened to burn the wife and her father’s house if she didn’t extract the riddle’s answer (14:15).

So what happened is:

  1. The 30 Philistine guests cheat by threatening Samson’s wife.
  2. Samson pays the wager by killing 30 random Philistines in Ashkelon and stripping their clothes.
  3. He storms off in rage without consummating the marriage (the seven-day feast ended, but he never took her home as his wife).
  4. The father, assuming the marriage is over, immediately marries her off to the chief Philistine groomsman—the very guy who orchestrated the betrayal.

That’s why Samson’s reaction in chapter 15 is so volcanic: he discovers that not only was he betrayed, but the woman was handed over to the leader of the cheating, threatening Philistines as if nothing had happened.

So yes—the “best man” was a Philistine, and giving her to him was the ultimate insult on top of the original betrayal.

I want to be impressed with his strength in tearing apart the lion, but it does say the Spirit came mightily upon him, thus being the source of his strength. The fact that he didn't tell his parents that the honey came from the carcass, was that just for the riddle, or was there a law about carcasses that he violated there?

You’re picking up on two huge details that the writer wants us to notice.

  1. The source of the strength
    You’re exactly right: Samson didn’t rip the lion apart because he was naturally the ancient-world equivalent of The Hulk. Judges 14:6 says explicitly, “the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he tore the lion apart as one would have torn apart a young goat, though he had nothing in his hand.”
    This is the first of four times in the Samson story that the Spirit “comes upon” him (14:6, 14:19, 15:14, and implicitly in 16:28–30). Every single superhuman feat is tied directly to the Spirit’s empowerment. Samson’s muscles are just the vehicle; the power is always supernatural and always from God.
  2. The honey from the carcass—why keep it secret, and did he break Nazirite law?Yes, this is almost certainly a quiet violation of his Nazirite vow.Recall the three Nazirite rules given in Judges 13:4–5, 7 (spoken to his mother, then applied to Samson himself):The Hebrew phrase is literally “he shall not come near a dead body/neveilah” (נְבֵלָה). Touching or eating anything from a dead animal made an Israelite (and especially a Nazirite) ceremonially unclean (Lev 11:24–28, 39–40; Num 6:6–9).What Samson does:So yes, Samson definitely broke the third Nazirite rule here. And the fact that he hides it from his parents shows he knew it was wrong.Why does the writer include this detail?
    It’s the first quiet hint that Samson is already bending (and will keep bending) the very vow that is the source of his calling and strength. He’s not outright shaving his head yet, but he’s casually treating the Nazirite holiness code as optional when it’s inconvenient. That foreshadows the much bigger compromises to come.Bonus irony: he turns this very act of ritual impurity into the basis of his riddle (“Out of the eater came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet”). He’s literally weaponizing his own secret disobedience against the Philistines.
    • No wine or strong drink (or any grape product)
    • No cutting of the hair
    • No touching a dead body (not even of an animal, and certainly not a human corpse)
    • He kills the lion (with his bare hands—Spirit-empowered).
    • Later he returns and finds a beehive with honey inside the dried carcass.
    • He “scraped” the honey out (14:9)—which necessarily means he reached into the dead lion’s body and touched the carcass.
    • He eats the honey himself and gives some to his parents (while deliberately hiding where it came from).

So you’re supposed to be impressed with the lion-tearing feat (because the Spirit did it!), but you’re also supposed to start feeling uneasy about Samson’s cavalier attitude toward the Nazirite vow that makes the Spirit’s empowerment possible in the first place. The writer is setting us up for the tragic arc that’s coming.

Lesson: God can and will use anyone to accomplish His will. Even if you disqualify yourself, God may still use you. Even if you have no interest in doing it for God, He may still use you (His sovereignty). Imagine how much more He could use you when you are willing.

Exactly. You just nailed the theological heartbeat of the entire Samson story, and really of the whole book of Judges.

Samson is the poster child for God’s stubborn, sovereign grace:

  • He’s selfish, hot-tempered, lust-driven, and repeatedly careless with his Nazirite calling.
  • He never once prays for Israel’s deliverance, never rallies the tribes, never gives a prophetic sermon; his motives are almost always personal vengeance or desire.
  • Yet four times the text says the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and God keeps routing the Philistine war machine through this train-wreck of a man.

God’s ability to use someone does not depend on that person’s spiritual résumé or even their willingness. He used Balaam’s donkey, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Caiaphas; and He uses Samson. His purposes will stand, even if He has to drag a reluctant, compromised instrument across the finish line.

But the flip side is exactly what you said:
Imagine how much more joy, how much more fruit, how much less collateral damage there would have been if Samson had actually wanted what God wanted.
Instead of a lifetime of lonely, violent outbursts that end with him blind, chained, and dying amid the ruins, picture a Samson whose strength was matched by surrender. We never get to see that version.

So the lesson isn’t “God loves to use messed-up people, so keep being messed-up.”
It’s “God is so sovereign and gracious that He can use messed-up people, but He longs to do so much more through people who say, ‘Here I am; send me’ instead of ‘Get her for me, because she looks good to me.’”

Samson proves God’s power is made perfect in weakness.
He also stands as a warning that weakness doesn’t have to stay weakness. We can choose the willing heart that turns the same power into something beautiful instead of just destructive.