Judges 14:9 · Bible study
Judges 14:9 Commentary: Honey, a Lion, and the Nazirite Vow
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Analysis of Samson taking honey from the lion: Did he violate his Nazirite vow? Why did he hide the source from his parents?
Research Summary
- Meaning: Samson takes honey from a lion's carcass, eats it, shares it with his parents, but hides its origin, providing the basis for his riddle.
- Key words: radah (scrape out, take forcibly); geviyyah (body/carcass); nagad (tell, declare, here negated: “he did not tell”).
- Main debate: Whether Samson violated his Nazirite vow by touching the carcass. Some argue he scraped honey without contact; others say the contact was unavoidable and legally excused.
- Theological theme: God brings sweetness out of death, and uses flawed human choices to advance Israel's deliverance.
- Best use: A case study in moral ambiguity, divine sovereignty, and the gap between public gift and hidden source.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
So he scooped some honey into his hands and ate it as he went along. And when he returned to his father and mother, he gave some to them and they ate it. But he did not tell them that he had taken the honey from the lion’s carcass.
WEB World English Bible 2000
He took it into his hands, and went on, eating as he went. He came to his father and mother and gave to them, and they ate, but he didn’t tell them that he had taken the honey out of the lion’s body.
KJV King James Version 1769
And he took thereof in his hands, and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And he took it into his hands, and went on, eating as he went; and he came to his father and mother, and gave unto them, and they did eat: but he told them not that he had taken the honey out of the body of the lion.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And he taketh it down on to his hands, and goeth on, going and eating; and he goeth unto his father, and unto his mother, and giveth to them, and they eat, and he hath not declared to them that from the body of the lion he took down the honey.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
and he took it out in his hands, and went on, and ate as he went. And he came to his father and to his mother, and gave them, and they ate; but he did not tell them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And when he had taken it in his hands, he went on eating: and coming to his father and mother, he gave them of it, and they ate: but he would not tell them that he had taken the honey from the body of the lion.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y tomándolo en sus manos, fuése comiéndolo por el camino: y llegado que hubo á su padre y á su madre, dióles también á ellos que comiesen; mas no les descubrió que había tomado aquella miel del cuerpo del león.
E tomando-o em suas mãos, foi-se comendo-o pelo caminho: e chegado que houve a seu pai e a sua mãe, deu-lhes também a eles que comessem; mas não lhes revelou que havia tomado aquela mel do corpo do leão.
Il prit entre ses mains le miel, dont il mangea pendant la route; et lorsqu’ il fut arrivé près de son père et de sa mère, il leur en donna, et ils en mangèrent. Mais il ne leur dit pas qu’ il avait pris ce miel dans le corps du lion.
Und er nahm ihn in seine Hand und aß davon unterwegs und ging zu seinem Vater und zu seiner Mutter und gab ihnen, daß sie auch aßen. Er sagte ihnen aber nicht an, daß er den Honig aus des Löwen Leibe genommen hatte.
En hij nam dien in zijn handen, en ging voort, al gaande en etende; en hij ging tot zijn vader en tot zijn moeder, en gaf hun daarvan, en zij aten; doch hij gaf hun niet te kennen, dat hij den honig uit het lichaam van den leeuw genomen had.
Egli prese in mano di quel miele, e si mise a mangiarlo per istrada; e quando ebbe raggiunto suo padre e sua madre, ne diede loro, ed essi ne mangiarono; ma non disse loro che avea preso il miele dal corpo del leone.
A wziąwszy go w ręce swoje szedł drogą i jadł, a przyszedłszy do ojca swego i do matki swojej, dał im, i jedli; ale im nie powiedział, że z ścierwu lwiego nabrał miodu.
Он взял его в руки свои и пошел, и ел дорогою; и когда пришел к отцу своему и матери своей, дал и им, и они ели; но не сказал им, что из львиного трупа взял мед сей.
就用 手 取蜜， 且吃 且走；到了 父 母那裡，給 他父母，他們也吃了；只是沒有 告訴 這蜜 是從死 獅 之內取來的。
And he took the honey in his hand, and went on, tasting it on the way; and when he came to his father and mother he gave some to them; but did not say that he had taken the honey from the body of the lion.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Judges 14:9
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Samson scooped honey from the lion's carcass, using the rare verb radah, which the Cambridge Bible glosses as “scraped off,” a household word for taking honey from a hive. He ate some himself and gave it to his father and mother, but he did not tell them where it came from.
The concealment receives two explanations in the sources. Gill's Exposition suggests either that he wanted to keep his parents from scrupling to eat (since honey from a carcass was unclean) or that he was protecting the riddle he was forming. Keil and Delitzsch argue that had they known, they would have refused to eat, and the secret of the riddle would have been exposed.
Whether Samson violated his Nazirite vow by contact with the carcass is debated. Gill points to Josephus, who says Samson took three honeycombs without touching the carcass itself. Poole's annotation notes that “some such pollutions were involuntary and unavoidable,” implying that even if contact occurred, circumstances may have excused it. The episode provides the raw material for Samson's riddle in verse 14: “Out of the eater came something to eat.”
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- No violation (scraping only): Gill points to Josephus: Samson took honeycombs without touching the carcass. The verb 'radah' can mean scraping, not handling.
- Violation but excused: Poole notes that some legal defilement was involuntary or necessary; the Nazirite vow may have been overridden by divine purpose.
- Concealment for riddle: Keil and Delitzsch argue Samson hid the origin so his parents would not guess the riddle, and so they could eat without scruple.
- Concealment to protect parents: Gill suggests Samson kept silent so his parents would not refuse the honey on purity grounds, sparing them unnecessary guilt.
What is clear: Samson took honey from the lion's carcass, ate it and gave it to his parents, and deliberately did not tell them where it came from.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Did Samson break his Nazirite vow? | The honey came from a dead lion, so contact with a carcass was a potential violation of Numbers 6:6-7. | Some (Gill, following Josephus) argue Samson scooped the honey without touching the carcass, thus avoiding defilement. Others (Poole) note that such pollution could be involuntary or necessary, implying the act may not have been sinful in context. |
| Why did Samson conceal the honey's origin? | All sources agree that Samson did not tell his parents where the honey came from. | Gill suggests either to avoid their scruples about eating unclean food, or to protect the secrecy of his riddle. Keil and Delitzsch emphasize that the parents would have refused to eat and would have discovered the riddle's basis. |
| Meaning of the verb 'radah' | The verb implies forceful or careful extraction, not simple taking. | Cambridge Bible glosses it as 'scrape off' (like taking honey from a hive). Keil and Delitzsch argue it means 'to tread, take forcible possession of,' with a pregnant construction meaning 'to get possession of and take into the hands.' |
| Theological significance of the episode | The event provides the hidden fact behind Samson's riddle and is part of God's plan to confront the Philistines. | Some see it as an example of God's ability to bring good from death. Others focus on Samson's moral ambiguity: his actions are neither clearly approved nor condemned by the narrator. |
Historical & Cultural Context
This verse sits within Samson's marriage to a Philistine woman from Timnah, a union his parents opposed because the Philistines were uncircumcised, outside the covenant community (Judges 14:1-3). But the narrator adds that “his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD, who was seeking an occasion against the Philistines” (v. 4). This frame gives the honey episode its theological weight: what looks like a personal choice becomes an arena for God's purposes.
The Nazirite vow (Numbers 6) required separation from wine, from haircuts, and from contact with dead bodies. A lion's carcass was clearly unclean, and touching it would defile a Nazirite. Yet Samson had previously torn the lion with his bare hands under the Spirit's power (v. 6). Here, months later, he finds bees have made honey in the skeleton. The Hebrew word geviyyah can mean either “body” or “corpse”; most translations (WEB, KJV, BSB) render it as “carcass” or “body of the lion,” emphasizing the deadness.
Wild honey was a valued food in ancient Israel, a rare sweetener in a diet of grains and olives. David's warriors ate honey from the forest (1 Samuel 14:25-30). But honey from a dead animal was off-limits under the purity laws. Samson's action therefore carries ambiguity: did he scrape honey from the skeleton without touching the bones, as Gill and Josephus suggest, or did handle the carcass itself?
The Philistine setting heightens the tension. Timnah was a border town, and mixed marriages were forbidden. Samson's secrecy about the honey parallels the secrecy of his earlier lion-killing, which he also hid from his parents (v. 6). The riddle that follows, “Out of the eater came something to eat”, depends on this unrevealed event.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Judges 14:9. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts, and the verse is consistently transmitted in the Masoretic tradition. The rare verb radah appears in the same form in all major witnesses.
Reception History
This verse has been read primarily through two lenses. Jewish tradition, reflected in the Talmud and later rabbinic writings, uses the verb radah as a technical term for taking honey from a hive, suggesting an ordinary household action. The question of defilement for a Nazirite was debated; some authorities argued that honey was not susceptible to impurity, or that scraping it out avoided touching the carcass.
Christian interpreters from the Reformation onward have often focused on the moral and typological dimensions. Matthew Henry sees the honey as a symbol of comfort that came from an encounter with danger. John Wesley's notes on the surrounding passage emphasize the sovereignty of God in using Samson's weaknesses. In modern reading, the verse is frequently studied as a test case for ethics in ambiguous situations, where a good gift emerges from a dead thing, and where secrecy complicates the gift.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The sweet gift from a dead place. Samson finds honey where death once reigned. God can bring nourishment out of disaster. The honey is real, but so is the carcass it came from.
- Secrecy as strategy, or secrecy as sin? Samson conceals the honey's origin. Is he protecting his parents from scruples, or is he hiding the truth that would expose his riddle? Pastors can explore how concealment serves both wise and selfish ends.
- The riddle of God's sovereignty. The narrator frames the whole episode as the LORD's doing (v. 4). Even Samson's questionable choices become part of a larger rescue plan for Israel. This does not excuse sin, but it magnifies God's ability to work through flawed instruments.
Five-point outline
- From strength to sweetness. The Spirit-empowered victory over the lion yields unexpected provision. No act of obedience is wasted.
- The question of defilement. Did Samson break his Nazirite vow? The text leaves room for both readings. This invites humility: not all moral puzzles have clear answers.
- Sharing the honey, hiding the source. Samson gives his parents a gift while withholding the truth. The act of generosity is tainted by incomplete honesty.
- The riddle takes shape. Out of the eater, something to eat. The honey becomes the basis for a public challenge. The hidden becomes the center of attention.
- God's purpose in human messiness. The marriage, the lion, the honey, the riddle, all serve a hidden divine agenda. Pastors can encourage trust in a God who writes straight with crooked lines.
Illustration hooks
- Roadside fruit. A driver spots a wild apple tree growing next to a landfill. The fruit is edible, but the ground it came from is foul. How do we receive good gifts from questionable sources?
- Family recipes with altered origins. A cook tells guests the secret ingredient came from a fancy store, when in fact it came from a discount bin. The meal is enjoyed, but the small lie erodes trust.
Questions your congregation is asking
- “Did Samson sin here, or was he just using wisdom to avoid controversy?”
- “Can God use my bad decisions, like a mixed marriage or a hidden secret, for his purposes?”
- “If I enjoy something that came from a morally complicated situation, am I guilty?”
Leading a Discussion
This passage sits in a narrative where Samson's choices look headstrong, yet the narrator insists God is working through them. The honey from the lion's carcass raises questions about purity, secrecy, and the line between human initiative and divine sovereignty. As you read verses 5, 9 together, notice what the story tells us and what it leaves unresolved.
Discussion questions
- What do we learn about Samson's character from his actions in verses 5, 9? What surprises or troubles you?
- The verb radah is rare. How does the image of “scraping” honey into his hands affect your view of whether Samson touched the carcass?
- Why do you think Samson did not tell his parents where the honey came from? List possible motives from the text and from what you know of the story.
- In what ways does this episode prepare the ground for the riddle in verse 14? Do you think Samson already had the riddle in mind?
- How does verse 4 (the narrator's comment that “this was of the LORD”) shape your reading of Samson's actions? Does it remove his moral responsibility, complicate it, or something else?
- If you had been one of Samson's parents, would you have wanted to know where the honey came from? Why or why not?
- When have you received a good gift from a questionable situation? How did you handle the knowledge of its origins?
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)
| I Samuel 14:25 | All the people came into the forest; and there was honey on the ground. |
| I Samuel 14:30 | How much more, if perhaps the people had eaten freely today of the plunder of their enemies which they found? For now there has been no great slaughter among the Philistines.” |
| Proverbs 25:15 | By patience a ruler is persuaded. A soft tongue breaks the bone. |
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.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary notes that a rare Hebrew word in this verse, used in the Talmud for scraping honey from a hive or detaching bread from an oven, suggests the action of scraping honey into the palm. This word is one of the ordinary household terms of old Hebrew that seldom appear in written literature.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
Samson gave his parents honey taken from a lion's carcass without telling them where it came from. By concealing the source, he made them unknowingly eat from an unclean animal, which the law forbade. The note implies this deception was a fault.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill points out that Samson, as a Nazarite, carefully avoided defiling himself by not touching the lion's carcass directly when taking the honey. He then gave some to his parents but concealed where it came from, either to prevent them from scrupling over it or to keep his riddle from being solved.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
Jfb notes that the Hebrew phrase describes a lion at the peak of its youthful vigor, and these savage beasts lived in Judah's wild mountain passes. Samson's feat required no weapon, only the superhuman courage and strength the Spirit's occasional influences gave him, gradually training him for his public calling.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch note that Samson hid the honey’s source from his parents because they would have refused it as unclean. They also give careful attention to the Hebrew verb, arguing it means taking forceful possession, not simply breaking or removing the honey.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange stresses that Samson's lion fight is incidental, not a heroic labor like Hercules' exploits. The Spirit of Jehovah came upon him at the exact moment of need, empowering him without weapons. Samson's quiet humility—telling no one and later eating the honey without ceremony—shows a greatness that makes no display of itself.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry observes that Samson's parents could not see how their son's desire for a Philistine wife could serve God's plan. Yet the narrator quietly reveals that the Lord himself was working through this very choice, using Samson's personal inclination as the occasion to begin delivering Israel from Philistine rule.
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.