Samson's death pointing to Christ's death?

[Jonaitis]

Is Samson's death a typology of Christ's death? He defeated his enemies at the cost of his life, thus saving the people of Israel.

 

[YeshuaFollower]

Is Samson's death a typology of Christ's death? He defeated his enemies at the cost of his life, thus saving the people of Israel.

NO

 

[Jonaitis]

NO

Why not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is Samson's death a typology of Christ's death? He defeated his enemies at the cost of his life, thus saving the people of Israel.

Some theologians say yes.

 

[Jonaitis]

Some theologians say yes.

What say you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What say you?

In brief, I don't posit it in a dogmatic way that Samson specifically is this, but in line with the things I've studied, I do think there's some emergent meaning inherent in many figures in the Old Testament that are typological allusions to the Messiah to come.

I'd have to go pull books off my shelves and do some other scholarly research, but even with that, I think I vaguely remember one of the Baptist preachers I heard long ago embellish his sermon by indicating that he thought there was a minor parallel in form between Samson's actions and those of Jesus.

 

[Jonaitis]

In brief, I don't posit it in a dogmatic way that Samson specifically is this, but in line with the things I've studied, I do think there's some emergent meaning inherent in many figures in the Old Testament that are typological allusions to the Messiah to come.

I'd have to go pull books of my shelves and do some other scholarly research, but even with that, I think I vaguely remember one of the Baptist preachers I heard long ago embellish his sermon by indicating that he thought there was a minor parallel in form between Samson's actions and those of Jesus.

Let's say for the sake of upholding the idea that there is typology at all underlying the Old Testament document, and that the revelation of Christ was progressing toward its fullness at his advent, would it be possible to see that there?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's say for the sake of upholding the idea that there is typology at all underlying the Old Testament document, and that the revelation of Christ was progressing toward its fullness at his advent, would it be possible to see that there?

Yes, I think so. That's one reason I was using Samson as my previous avatar. But I guess some people missed it.

Now, I'm just settling for James T. Kirk.

 

[Fervent]

I'd say its a reach to say its a type, and that overextending the notion of a type is part of what makes typological readings of Scripture somewhat problematic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd say its a reach to say its a type, and that overextending the notion of a type is part of what makes typological readings of Scripture somewhat problematic.

You're definitely right to say that we need to be cautious. But we can't be so cautious that we just throw the hermeneutical and exegetical possibilities to the wind simply because we find some notion or story within the Old Testament distasteful to our modern moral inclinations.

Before comparing notes and sources, I'd say that the main point here in typological comparisons is to realize that some Old Testament events are only typological in some minor form, thematically speaking, but not in substance.

The instance of Samson, then, is that his story is only typological in the sense where he was used by God and defeated the "enemies of God," and when doing so, he stretched out his arms to bring down one powercenter in the spiritual misdirections of paganism and to "free" Israel. Robert Hampshire describes some additional nuances that MIGHT BE (and I say "might be") at play in the typological meaning of Samson.

​

How Does the Story of Samson Point to Jesus?

That is why we needed Jesus Christ to come and save us: Because we could not save ourselves. We also see in Samson’s story the crucial lesson that God will ultimately be glorified, even if it is through our mistakes and blunders.

www.christianity.com

​

Scott McKnight says otherwise:

Samson - A Hero of the Faith?

Samson is mentioned in two places in Scripture. The first is the story of Samson in Judges 13-16. The only other mention is in Hebrews 12 among a list of other Old Testament characters.And what more shall ...

www.christianitytoday.com

The caveat in this is that I'm very, very aware of the violence aspect which is prominently embedded in the Samson narrative in the book of Judges, so this issue in and of itself needs to be assessed and addressed as a part of any typological or allegorical analysis that might be made of Samson (or of any other figure or event in the Old Testament). In such case, I'd bring in a number of additional sources--but not end with those--in order to better think through these "types."

 

[Fervent]

You're definitely right to say that we need to be cautious. But we can't be so cautious that we just throw the hermeneutical and exegetical possibilities to the wind simply because we find some notion or story within the Old Testament distasteful to our modern moral inclinations.

Before comparing notes and sources, I'd say that the main point here in typological comparisons is to realize that some Old Testaments events are only typological in some minor form, thematically speaking, but not in substance.

The instance of Samson, then, is that his story is only typological in the sense where he was used by God and defeating the "enemies of God" and by doing so, he stretching out his arms are brought down one powercenter in the misdirections of paganism. Robert Hampshire describes some additional nuances that MIGHT BE (and I say "might be") at play in the typological meaning of Samson.

​

How Does the Story of Samson Point to Jesus?

That is why we needed Jesus Christ to come and save us: Because we could not save ourselves. We also see in Samson’s story the crucial lesson that God will ultimately be glorified, even if it is through our mistakes and blunders.

www.christianity.com

​

Scott McKnight says otherwise:

Samson - A Hero of the Faith?

Samson is mentioned in two places in Scripture. The first is the story of Samson in Judges 13-16. The only other mention is in Hebrews 12 among a list of other Old Testament characters.And what more shall ...

www.christianitytoday.com

The caveat in this is that I'm very, very aware of the violence aspect of this which is prominent as a part of the Samson narrative in the book of Judges, so that issue in and of itself needs to be assessed and addressed as a part of any typological or allegorical analysis that might be made of Samson (or of any other figure or event in the Old Testament). In such case, I'd bring in a number of additional sources--but not end with those--in order to better think through these "types."

I'm not opposed to typological evaluation, but its utility is often overextended such that nearly anything can be said to be typological. Samson's death largely being a consequence of his own frivolity renders it difficult for me to see it as typological of Christ's death even in the loosest sense even leaving aside the violence. It seems to me more damaging to be generous in application of types than it is to be overly miserly at any rate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not opposed to typological evaluation, but its utility is often overextended such that nearly anything can be said to be typological. Samson's death largely being a consequence of his own frivolity renders it difficult for me to see it as typological of Christ's death even in the loosest sense even leaving aside the violence. It seems to me more damaging to be generous in application of types than it is to be overly miserly at any rate.

Ok. So you tend to lean in the direction of Scott McKnight. That's fine. But just realize we could argue this for days, and frankly, all that would happen is that I'd have to put the Enterprise into dry-dock for a while after the battle ...

But seriously, being the Existentialist (...oh gawd, there he goes again with that "I'm an existentialist stuff") that I am, I'm not committed to a hermeneutic that absolutely HAS to see an angel behind every rock described in the Bible. It's just there are a few rocks in the Bible that may have to be seen in that way ...

 

[Jonaitis]

I'd say its a reach to say its a type, and that overextending the notion of a type is part of what makes typological readings of Scripture somewhat problematic.

You're right, that's why the NT writers, especially Matthew, quotes some unusual passages as alluding to Christ. They were really reaching and can be seen as problematic.

 

[Fervent]

You're right, that's why the NT writers, especially Matthew, quotes some unusual passages as alluding to Christ. They were really reaching and can be seen as problematic.

Are you comparing your interpretive efforts to an apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? And were they really unusual, or do they only seem so to a naive reader?

 

[Jonaitis]

Are you comparing your interpretive efforts to an apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? And were they really unusual, or do they only seem so to a naive reader?

Judge it for yourself.

Matthew, for example, quotes and refers to Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as concerning Herod's slaughter, when the original context of that passage is concerning the Babylonian invasion. Or, when Paul references Genesis 2:24 as relating to the mystical union of the Church to Christ in Ephesians 5:31-32. You will see that the common interpretative method for many New Testament writers of the Old Testament greatly involved typology. They took what seemed to be great liberties in finding Christ in the OT.

I'm having difficulty finding two great articles by Richard Barcellos on matter, but he explains it well.

 

[Fervent]

Judge it for yourself.

Matthew, for example, quotes and refers to Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as concerning Herod's slaughter, when the original context of that passage is concerning the Babylonian invasion. Or, when Paul references Genesis 2:24 as relating to the mystical union of the Church to Christ in Ephesians 5:31-32. You will see that the common interpretative method for many New Testament writers of the Old Testament greatly involved typology. They took what seemed to be great liberties in finding Christ in the OT.

I'm having difficulty finding two great articles by Richard Barcellos on matter, but he explains it well.

As far as I can tell, Matthew is not writing an interpretive text so we have to first establish that his use of the text is not meant to function prophetically which would render it largely independent of interpretation. I'm not entirely convinced we can establish sound hermeneutic principles from how the author's of Scripture used the texts since their function was not necessarily as textual commentaries. We can certainly learn some methods of application, but since their task was not primarily interpretation we can't always rely directly on their usage to glean their understanding.

My objection here is not to using the existing elements sermonically or prophetically, but with interpreting the passage as typological. In my mind, if a text is to be interpreted typologically we should to some extent be able to develop the type independent of our knowledge of Christ. With Samson, it seems that we must work backwards from Christ to identify his death as typological rather than working from Samson's death as a type to Christ's death as the antitype.

 

[Jonaitis]

As far as I can tell, Matthew is not writing an interpretive text so we have to first establish that his use of the text is not meant to function prophetically which would render it largely independent of interpretation. I'm not entirely convinced we can establish sound hermeneutic principles from how the author's of Scripture used the texts since their function was not necessarily as textual commentaries. We can certainly learn some methods of application, but since their task was not primarily interpretation we can't always rely directly on their usage to glean their understanding.

My objection here is not to using the existing elements sermonically or prophetically, but with interpreting the passage as typological. In my mind, if a text is to be interpreted typologically we should to some extent be able to develop the type independent of our knowledge of Christ. With Samson, it seems that we must work backwards from Christ to identify his death as typological rather than working from Samson's death as a type to Christ's death as the antitype.

Interesting perspective. I'll take it as an answer for this thread.

 

[bling]

Samson is not an atonement sacrifice, while Christ is.

Christ is going through this torture, humiliation and cruel murder because we sinned and to benefit us. Samson death did not benefit anyone, but what he did before he died could have some benefit for the Jews, God could have protected Samson and even given him back his sight, with the same result.

Samson might be considered a martyr for the cause, but was that part of Christ’s reason for going to the cross?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I see nothing in Samson at all that reminds me of Christ. Certainly not his death. His death is basically a suicide accomplished for revenge, not a sacrifice based upon love. He actively causes his own death as a means of revenge while Christ acquiesces to His death to be in accordance with the Will of his Father. Samson is easily manipulated by his desires, self-absorbed, arrogant, proud and violent. Christ is in no way like that. If anything, Samson is the antithesis of Christ.

 

[YeshuaFollower]

Why not?

Amonsgt other differences not mentioned here , Jesus was humble and against violence Samson was arrogant and violent, they are too different.

Blessings