Judges 13:23 · Bible study
Judges 13:23 Commentary: Manoah's Wife
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
How Manoah's wife reasons from God's actions to quiet her husband's fear. A model for discerning divine favor in hard times.
Research Summary
- Meaning: God's acceptance of worship, revelation of wonders, and spoken promise all prove his intention is to bless, not destroy.
- Key words: lu (unreal condition), chafetz (desired/wished), laqach (accepted/took), minchah (grain offering).
- Main debate: Minimal; the verse is widely seen as a model of pastoral reasoning.
- Theological theme: God's present kindness is a reliable indicator of his ultimate disposition toward his people.
- Best use: Comforting those who fear divine rejection, teaching believers to interpret God's actions as consistent with his character.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
But his wife replied, “If the LORD had intended to kill us, He would not have accepted the burnt offering and the grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things or spoken to us this way.”
WEB World English Bible 2000
But his wife said to him, “If Yahweh were pleased to kill us, he wouldn’t have received a burnt offering and a meal offering at our hand, and he wouldn’t have shown us all these things, nor would he have told us such things as these at this time.”
KJV King James Version 1769
But his wife said unto him, If the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
But his wife said unto him, If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt-offering and a meal-offering at our hand, neither would he have showed us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And his wife saith to him, `If Jehovah were desirous to put us to death, He had not received from our hands burnt-offering and present, nor shewed us all these things, nor as at this time caused us to hear anything like this.'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
But his wife said to him, If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt-offering and an oblation at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would he at this time have told us [such things] as these.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And his wife answered him: If the Lord had a mind to kill us, he would not have received a holocaust and libations at our hands; neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor have told us the things that are to come.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y su mujer le respondió: Si Jehová nos quisiera matar, no tomara de nuestras manos el holocausto y el presente, ni nos hubiera mostrado todas estas cosas, ni en tal tiempo nos habría anunciado esto.
E sua mulher lhe respondeu: Se o SENHOR nos quisesse matar, não tomaria de nossas mãos o holocausto e o presente, nem nos teria mostrado todas estas coisas, nem em tal tempo nos haveria anunciado isto.
Sa femme lui répondit: Si l’ Éternel eût voulu nous faire mourir, il n’ aurait pas pris de nos mains l’ holocauste et l’ offrande, il ne nous aurait pas fait voir tout cela, et il ne nous aurait pas maintenant fait entendre pareilles choses.
Aber sein Weib antwortete ihm: Wenn der HERR Lust hätte, uns zu töten, so hätte er das Brandopfer und Speisopfer nicht genommen von unsern Händen; er hätte uns auch nicht alles solches erzeigt noch uns solches hören lassen, wie jetzt geschehen ist.
Maar zijn huisvrouw zeide tot hem: Zo de HEERE lust had ons te doden, Hij had het brandoffer en spijsoffer van onze hand niet aangenomen, noch ons dit alles getoond, noch ons om dezen tijd laten horen, zulks als dit is.
Ma sua moglie gli disse: “Se l’Eterno avesse voluto farci morire, non avrebbe accettato dalle nostre mani l’olocausto e l’oblazione; non ci avrebbe fatto vedere tutte queste cose, e non ci avrebbe fatto udire proprio ora delle cose come queste”.
Któremu odpowiedziała żona jego: Gdyby nas chciał Pan zabić, nie przyjąłby z rąk naszych całopalenia, i ofiary śniednej, aniby nam był okazał tego wszystkiego, aniby nam na ten czas był objawił takowych rzeczy.
Жена его сказала ему: если бы Господь хотел умертвить нас, то не принял бы от рук наших всесожжения и хлебного приношения, и не показал бы нам всего того, и теперь не открыл бы нам сего.
他的妻 卻對他 說：「耶和華 若 要 殺我們，必不 從我們手裡 收納 燔祭 和素祭，並不 將 這 一切 事指示我們，今日 也不 將這些話 告訴我們。」
But his wife said to him, If the Lord was purposing our death, he would not have taken our burned offering and our meal offering, or have given us such orders about the child.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Judges 13:23
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Across commentaries, this verse is recognized as a landmark of practical theology under the Old Covenant. Adam Clarke calls it "excellent reasoning" that can steady a soul in "cloudy and dark dispensations." Gill notes that the wife presents three concrete arguments: God accepted their offering by fire, he showed them extraordinary things (the angelic appearance and ascent), and he told them a specific promise about their son. Keil and Delitzsch summarize: "His wife quieted his fears, however, and said, 'Jehovah cannot intend to kill us, as He has accepted our sacrifice, and has shown us all this.'" Matthew Henry adds that she reasoned from what God had already done, receiving the offering, showing them wonders, and giving them words of hope. The consensus is clear: Manoah's wife does not contradict the terror of the divine presence; she interprets God's actions as evidence of his ongoing favor, not his intent to destroy.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The wife's argument that God's acceptance of sacrifice, revelation of wonders, and spoken promise are incompatible with an intention to destroy is the story's clear theological takeaway, affirmed across interpretive traditions.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The meaning of 'at this time' (כָּעֵת) | The phrase marks a specific present moment, not a general time. | Most commentaries treat it as simply 'now,' but some (Cambridge) note its unusual form and suggest it may contrast with a time in the distant past when such wonders occurred. |
| Whether Manoah's fear was unreasonable | His fear is based on a genuine Old Testament principle (seeing God brings death). | Some highlight the wife's greater faith as an example; others note that both responses, fear and reasoned trust, are valid stages in encountering the holy. |
| Is the wife's argument universally applicable? | The principle that God's kindness is evidence of his good intent is sound. | Clarke applies it broadly to all souls who feel condemned; Gill limits it to those who have received similar specific revelations and assurances. |
| Does acceptance of offering guarantee favor? | In this context divine acceptance of sacrifice by fire is a sign of approval. | Cain's offering was not accepted (Genesis 4:5), showing that acceptance is conditional on the heart, the wife's argument works because God's action has already shown his pleasure. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The fear Manoah expresses, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God", rests on a deep current in Israelite tradition. From Exodus 33:20 ("no man can see me and live") to the more vivid warnings after the golden calf, beholding the Almighty directly was understood to be lethal for fallen humans. Manoah's fear is not superstition; it is the proper awe of a man who realizes he and his wife have been in the presence of Yahweh's angel, who ascended in the flame of their sacrifice.
The setting is the Philistine oppression period, around 1161 BC by some reckonings. Israel had been in distress for forty years (Judges 13:1). Into this gloom, the angel twice appeared to Manoah's wife, then to both of them. The couple offered a young goat and a grain offering on a rock. When fire consumed the sacrifice and the angel rose heavenward in the flame, Manoah recognized the nature of their visitor. His wife, by contrast, weighed the evidence of the encounter, the acceptance of the gift, the revelation of secrets, the promise of a son, and concluded that the same God who had drawn near with kindness would not now strike them dead.
The Hebrew particle לו (lu) that begins the wife's speech marks a contrafactual condition: "If Yahweh had desired to kill us (he certainly did not, as shown by...)". The perfect verbs that follow (accepted, showed, caused to hear) are completed actions, fixed points from which she builds her case. Her reasoning depends not on a vision but on the concrete, shared experience of worship and revelation.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries and lexical sources note no significant textual variants for Judges 13:23. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts. The only minor variation is in the rendering of the phrase "at this time" (כָּעֵת), which some translations treat as a simple temporal marker, but this reflects interpretation rather than a textual difference.
Reception History
From early Jewish exegesis through Reformation commentaries, this verse has been treasured as a model of theological reasoning grounded in God's actions. The Geneva Bible (1599) and Matthew Henry (1710) both highlight the wife's faith as a counterpoint to Manoah's fear. John Wesley used the verse to contrast the certainty of God's promise with the uncertainty of human dread. In the Methodist tradition, Adam Clarke's long pastoral exposition (1826) applied the wife's logic to believers struggling with guilt: "Add to this the very light that shows thee thy wretchedness, ingratitude, and disobedience, is in itself a proof that he is waiting to be gracious." Across traditions, Reformed, Wesleyan, Anglican, this verse has been read not merely as narrative but as a canon of pastoral care: when believers fear divine rejection, they are to look at what God has already done and let those facts quiet their hearts.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The fear of the Lord is holy terror, but it is not God's last word. Manoah's dread (v. 22) is real and appropriate. The wife does not scold him; she redirects his gaze from abstract fear to concrete evidence of kindness.
- Three visible proofs of favor: (a) God accepted their sacrifice, he consumed it with fire as a sign of pleasure; (b) God showed them all these things, the theophany, the miracle, the ascent; (c) God told them such things, the promise of a son who would deliver Israel.
- The present goodness of God is a reliable guide to his ultimate intent. The same Lord who draws near with mercy does not then pivot to destruction. Grace and judgment do not flip like a coin.
Five-point outline
- The context: national distress (Philistine oppression) and personal fear (Manoah's terror).
- The wife's method: she argues from God's actions back to God's heart, interpreting the past as a window to the future.
- The three arguments, offering accepted, wonders shown, revelation given, each eliminates the possibility of an intention to kill.
- The Hebrew grammatical cue: the conditional particle lu introduces an unreal scenario. She is saying, in effect, "If the Lord had wanted to kill us, we would have seen different evidence."
- The application: when believers fear divine rejection, they may examine God's track record, answered prayers, Scripture's promises, the cross of Christ, and reason as this woman did.
Illustration hooks
- A child who falls and scrapes a knee is terrified that a parent will be angry. But when the parent kneels, cleans the wound, and speaks gently, the child realizes the parent's heart is for healing, not punishment. Manoah's wife does the same: she reads the kneeling as proof of love.
- A patient awaiting test results grows anxious, but the doctor's calm, unhurried manner and willingness to discuss next steps suggest the news is not as grim as feared. The wife reads God's unhurried presence the same way.
Questions your congregation is asking
- How can I know whether a trial is God's judgment or his training?
- What do I do when I feel afraid that God is angry with me?
- Is it okay to use logic and evidence in my faith, or should I just trust blindly?
Leading a Discussion
This short verse is a masterclass in how to test our fears against the concrete evidence of God's character. Manoah's wife does not dismiss her husband's fear; she answers it with a careful argument grounded in what had just happened. As your group works through these questions, notice how she moves from the visible (offering, wonders, words) to the invisible (God's disposition).
Discussion questions
- Read verses 19-23 together. Why did Manoah think they would die? What Old Testament background supports his fear?
- The wife names three things God did: accepted a burnt offering and grain offering, showed them all these things, and told them such things. Why does each fact lead her to the conclusion that God is not going to kill them?
- The Hebrew particle lu introduces an unreal condition. How does the grammar shape the force of her argument? What would she have said differently if she were unsure?
- Manoah was afraid; his wife was calm. Does the passage suggest that one was right and the other wrong? Or can both fear and faith coexist in the same household?
- What situations today cause sincere believers to fear that God might turn against them? How could the wife's reasoning be applied to such fears?
- How does this verse point forward to the cross of Christ? If God gave his Son, what can we infer about his intentions toward us (Romans 8:32)?
- Is there a danger in reasoning from God's past goodness to his future intentions? How do we avoid presumption while still trusting his character?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 4:4 | Abel also brought some of the firstborn of his flock and of its fat. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering, |
| Genesis 4:5 | but he didn’t respect Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry, and the expression on his face fell. |
| Psalms 25:14 | The friendship of Yahweh is with those who fear him. He will show them his covenant. |
| Psalms 27:13 | I am still confident of this: I will see the goodness of Yahweh in the land of the living. |
| Psalms 86:17 | Show me a sign of your goodness, that those who hate me may see it, and be shamed, because you, Yahweh, have helped me, and comforted me. |
| Proverbs 3:32 | For the perverse is an abomination to Yahweh, but his friendship is with the upright. |
| Ecclesiastes 4:9 | Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. |
| Ecclesiastes 4:10 | For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls, and doesn’t have another to lift him up. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke argues that the very light exposing our sin and the regret we feel are not signs God is against us. Instead, these pangs are proof God himself kindled them to guide and refine us, not to drive us away. His long patience and gift of his Son show he is not seeking to destroy.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
This commentator notes that the Hebrew phrase translated "at this time" is an unusual expression that functions idiomatically. In several passages, including Judges and Numbers, it is rendered simply as "now," and parallels exist with "at the day" meaning "now" in 1 Samuel and 1 Kings.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
She reasons from God's actions backward: a God who intended to destroy them would not have accepted their sacrifice, revealed His plan, or given them further instruction. Her conclusion is that His acceptance proves His favor, not His anger.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights how Manoah's wife uses three specific signs—God's acceptance of their sacrifice, the angel's appearance, and the promise of a son—to argue that God intends to bless rather than destroy them. He draws a parallel: a believer can reason from God's past revelations and accepted sacrifices that He plans to save, not condemn.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch highlights that Manoah's wife calms his fear of death by reasoning that God would not accept their sacrifice and show them miracles only to kill them. The phrase "at this time" means in their own era, implying such divine encounters, though rare, could happen in the present.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange highlights the contrast between Manoah, who needs repeated confirmation, and his wife, who intuitively recognizes the divine visitor from the start. He interprets the angel's name "Peli" not as "secret" or "ineffable" but as "Wonder-worker," pointing to God's active, miraculous power displayed in the flame. The wife's calm reasoning from God's acceptance of their offering shows her wiser faith.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights that God hid the angel's identity from Manoah out of mercy, not deception. If Manoah had known he was speaking to a divine messenger, fear would have silenced him. He sees this as a pattern: Christ walked the earth unrecognized because we could not bear the full glory of God unveiled.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley rejects Matthew Henry's claim that the goodness of God's promised land will intensify the punishment of those who perish. He argues that this reasoning fails under predestination: if some are not elected, they never had a genuine offer, and if all the elect are saved, the grant was never free to the others.