Judges 15:1 · Bible study
Judges 15:1 Commentary: Refused Entry
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Samson returns to his wife with a gift, but her father refuses him entry.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Samson returns to his wife with a reconciliation gift, but her father refuses him entry because he has given the woman to another man.
- Key words: visited (H6485, “paid attention to/investigated”), kid (H1423, a young male goat, common gift), chamber (H2315, inner women’s quarters). The verb “would not allow” (H5414, natan) is translated “gave not” or “permitted not” in the sense of refusal.
- Main debate: Whether Samson’s wife was fully married or merely betrothed to his companion; the consensus is that she was given away in a legal transfer, but commentators differ on the precise marital status at the time of the refusal.
- Theological theme: God’s providence operates through human conflict and flawed choices; personal vendetta becomes the instrument for national deliverance, yet the narrative does not whitewash Samson’s motives.
- Best use: A cautionary tale about acting on assumptions without communication, and a demonstration of how rejection can fester into wider destruction, pointing readers to the need for reconciliation before anger takes hold.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Later on, at the time of the wheat harvest, Samson took a young goat and went to visit his wife. “I want to go to my wife in her room,” he said. But her father would not let him enter.
WEB World English Bible 2000
But after a while, in the time of wheat harvest, Samson visited his wife with a young goat. He said, “I will go in to my wife’s room.” But her father wouldn’t allow him to go in.
KJV King James Version 1769
But it came to pass within a while after, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
But it came to pass after a while, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And it cometh to pass, after some days, in the days of wheat-harvest, that Samson looketh after his wife, with a kid of the goats, and saith, `I go in unto my wife, to the inner chamber;' and her father hath not permitted him to go in,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And it came to pass after a time, in the days of the wheat-harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid of the goats. And he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber; but her father would not suffer him to go in.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And a while after, when the days of the wheat harvest were at hand, Samson came, meaning to visit his wife, and he brought her a kid of the flock. And when he would have gone into her chamber, as usual, her father would not suffer him, saying:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y ACONTECIÓ después de días, que en el tiempo de la siega del trigo, Samsón visitó á su mujer con un cabrito, diciendo: Entraré á mi mujer á la cámara. Mas el padre de ella no lo dejó entrar.
E aconteceu depois de dias, que no tempo da colheita do trigo, Sansão visitou à sua mulher com um cabrito, dizendo: Entrarei à minha mulher à câmara. Mas o pai dela não o deixou entrar.
Quelque temps après, à l’ époque de la moisson des blés, Samson alla voir sa femme, et lui porta un chevreau. Il dit: Je veux entrer vers ma femme dans sa chambre. Mais le père de sa femme ne lui permit pas d’ entrer.
Es begab sich aber nach etlichen Tagen, um die Weizenernte, daß Simson sein Weib besuchte mit einem Ziegenböcklein. Und als er gedachte: Ich will zu meinem Weibe gehen in die Kammer, wollte ihn der Vater nicht hinein lassen
En het geschiedde na sommige dagen, in de dagen van de tarweoogst, dat Simson zijn huisvrouw bezocht met een geitenbokje, en hij zeide: Laat mij tot mijn huisvrouw ingaan in de kamer; maar haar vader liet hem niet toe in te gaan.
Di lì a qualche tempo, verso la mietitura del grano, Sansone andò a visitare sua moglie, le portò un capretto, e disse: “Voglio entrare in camera da mia moglie”. Ma il padre di lei non gli permise d’entrare,
I stało się po kilku dni, pod czas żniwo pszenicznego, że nawiedził Samson żonę swoję, wziąwszy koźlę z stada, i mówił: Wnijdę do żony mojej do komory; ale mu nie dopuścił ojciec jej wnijść.
Чрез несколько дней, во время жатвы пшеницы, пришел Самсон повидаться с женою своею, принеся с собою козленка; и когда сказал: "войду к жене моей в спальню", отец ее не дал ему войти.
過了 些日子，到割 麥子 的時候，參孫 帶著一隻山羊羔 去看 他的妻，說：「我要進 內室 見 我的妻。」他岳父 不 容 他進去，
Now a short time after, at the time of the grain-cutting, Samson, taking with him a young goat, went to see his wife; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the bride's room. But her father would not let him go in.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Judges 15:1
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The supplied commentators agree that Samson returns to his wife after some time, perhaps months, with a young goat as a gift, intending reconciliation. Barnes, Gill, and Keil & Delitzsch note that such a present was customary after a period of estrangement (compare Genesis 38:17). The father's refusal, recorded in verse 2, stems from his belief that Samson hated his wife (Gill, Cambridge Bible). He had consequently given her to Samson's companion, the Philistine who served as best man at the wedding (Judges 14:20). Matthew Henry, Clarke, and Lange all describe the father's offer of the younger sister as a further attempt to placate Samson. The harvest setting is not incidental: the standing grain becomes the target of Samson's retaliation in verse 5. The consensus holds that this incident directly precipitates Samson's violent revenge, a point Jamieson-Fausset-Brown and the Cambridge Bible stress. The refusal thus functions as a narrative pivot, moving the story from personal conflict to wider conflict with the Philistines.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The father refused Samson entry to his wife because he had given her to another man, believing that Samson hated her—a refusal that directly leads to Samson’s declaration of vengeance against the Philistines.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Samson’s intention in returning | All supplied commentators agree Samson intended reconciliation, bringing a kid as a peace offering (Clarke, Gill, Henry). | Some (e.g., Lange) emphasize his noble disposition; others note that his anger had subsided. No commentator suggests he came with hostile intent. |
| Marital status of the wife | The woman had been given to Samson’s companion (Judges 14:20), and the father considered the marriage over. | Barnes suggests she was only betrothed to the companion; Cambridge Bible holds a full marriage had taken place. The father’s offer of the younger sister implies he still saw Samson as a potential son-in-law. |
| Justification of the father’s action | The father acted on the genuine belief that Samson hated his daughter (v. 2). | Some (e.g., Gill) imply the father was hasty and unjust; others (Matthew Henry) present him as trying to make the best of a bad situation. The text does not explicitly condemn his decision. |
| The role of the wheat harvest | The timing explains both the dry conditions and the agricultural context for the burning of the grain in verse 5 (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Cambridge Bible). | No debate: all commentators use it to foreshadow Samson’s method of revenge. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The phrase “in the time of wheat harvest” anchors the story in the Palestinian calendar (mid-May to mid-June), a dry season when grain shocks lay in the fields and were highly combustible (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Cambridge Bible). This detail prepares the reader for Samson’s later destruction of the Philistines’ crops.
Samson’s gift of a kid (young goat) follows a well-attested Near Eastern custom of bringing a present when visiting after a separation (Barnes, Gill). Gill cites Isidore’s etymology, linking the Latin word for kid to eating, as the goat was considered a choice food. The chamber (Hebrew cheder, H2315) refers to the women’s private quarters in the house (Gill, Cambridge Bible). Samson’s request to go in to his wife indicates his intention to resume marital relations, a right recognized in that culture (compare Genesis 29:21).
The father’s refusal must be understood against the background of a marriage agreement. Some commentators (Barnes) suggest that the wife may have only been betrothed, not fully wed, to Samson’s companion; the act of giving her to the companion was therefore not a divorce but a transfer of the betrothal. Others (Cambridge Bible) hold that the woman was already married to the companion (Judges 14:20). The father’s logic, that Samson must hate her to have left in anger, reflects a straightforward cultural assumption. His subsequent offer of the younger sister (“Is not her younger sister fairer than she?”) echoes the custom of Levirate-like substitution (cf. Genesis 38:8-10; Matthew Henry notes the father’s desperate attempt at peace). The refusal is the direct cause of Samson’s declaration in verse 3 that he will now be “blameless” in harming the Philistines, a turning point from the personal to the national conflict.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources do not mention any significant textual variants for Judges 15:1. The verse is stable across the major Hebrew manuscripts and early translations. The repeated phrase “after a while” (Hebrew miyyamim, “from days”) occurs in the same form in Judges 14:8, suggesting consistency in the scribal tradition. No variants are reported for the key terms kid, chamber, or the father’s refusal.
Reception History
Early Jewish interpretation (e.g., Targum Jonathan) renders “visited his wife” as “remembered his wife,” emphasizing that time had passed. Church fathers such as Augustine read the Samson cycle typologically, seeing in Samson’s rejected reconciliation a foreshadowing of Christ’s rejection by Israel and His subsequent judgment. Medieval commentators often moralized the narrative, warning against giving in to anger and the consequences of marrying outside the covenant. During the Reformation, Luther and Calvin treated the passage as a historical record of God’s use of flawed leaders; Calvin specifically noted that Samson’s personal vengeance did not nullify God’s overarching purpose to deliver Israel from Philistine oppression. Modern scholarship generally reads the verse within its literary and historical context, focusing on the cultural customs of marriage, gift-giving, and harvest cycles.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- A gesture of peace is met with a wall of mistrust. Samson brings a kid as a sign of reconciliation, but the father does not even let him speak inside. The refusal is immediate, rooted in a past assumption of hatred.
- A broken relationship creates a chain of consequences. The father’s decision, giving the wife to another, triggers Samson’s anger, which then sweeps beyond the family to the whole region.
- God works through human conflict to accomplish His purposes. Samson’s personal revenge becomes the occasion for striking at the Philistine oppressors. The chaos is real, but it is not outside God’s sovereign control (see Judges 13:5, 14:4).
Five-point outline
- Timing matters. Wheat harvest sets the stage for the coming fire. The season is dry; the grain is ready to burn. The narrator lets us see the trap before it springs.
- Gifts can be misunderstood. Samson’s kid is a peace offering, but the father cannot see past his own fear. He interprets the gift as an intrusion rather than an olive branch.
- Assumptions harden into decisions. “I most certainly thought that you utterly hated her” (v. 2) reveals a heart that has already closed the door.
- Substitutes are not the same. The father offers the younger sister as a replacement, but Samson does not want a substitute. He wants the one he married.
- Rejection can become the launchpad for justice, or vengeance. Samson’s reply (v. 3) shows he sees himself as morally vindicated. Yet the story does not endorse his methods; it simply records them.
Illustration hooks
- The estranged relative. A family member who left in anger shows up with a small gift, hoping to reconcile. But the person they wronged has already given away their room. The rejection stings, and the conflict escalates.
- The dry season before the fire. In farming communities, a single spark during wheat harvest can destroy a year’s livelihood. The story’s timing is not coincidence, it is calculated tension.
- Assuming the worst. The father thought Samson hated his daughter, so he acted on that assumption without verifying it. How often do we make permanent decisions based on temporary emotions?
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why didn’t Samson force his way in? He was strong enough to break down the door (Gill notes this), yet he chose to walk away. The restraint is surprising, and it suggests that his anger still had a boundary.
- Was the father-in-law wrong to give the wife away? Culturally, he may have had some authority to do so if he believed the marriage was over. But his action was based on a false assumption, leading to tragedy.
- Does this story justify revenge? No. The narrative records Samson’s vengeance without commending it. Greater vengeance belongs to God (Romans 12:19). Samson’s actions, though used by God to judge Philistia, are not a model for personal retaliation.
Leading a Discussion
This brief scene is a hinge in the story of Samson. A simple family visit turns into a rejection that sparks a cycle of violence. As you read the passage, consider how assumptions, misunderstandings, and cultural customs collide, and how God’s larger plan moves forward even through human failure.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What do we learn from the details of the verse? (Time of year, gift, chamber, refusal). Why might each detail matter?
- Interpretation: Why does the father say he “thought” Samson hated his daughter? What clues in the previous chapter (14:20, the wife’s betrayal) might have led to that conclusion?
- Interpretation: Why does Samson bring a young goat? (See Genesis 38:17 and the commentaries on customary gifts.) What does this tell us about his intentions?
- Application: The father acted on a false assumption. When have you made a decision based on what you “thought” was true, only to discover you were wrong? What helps you wait for more information?
- Application: Samson does not use his strength to force his way into the chamber. How is that restraint surprising? What does it suggest about his character at this moment?
- Connection to the larger story: How does the father’s refusal set the stage for the events that follow (vv. 3-5)? In what way is this private wrong used by God for a larger purpose (cf. Judges 14:4)?
- Reflection: Samson is both a flawed judge and a tool of God’s deliverance. How does this tension challenge the way we think about God using imperfect people today?
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 6:4 | The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. |
| Genesis 29:21 | Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her.” |
| Genesis 38:17 | He said, “I will send you a young goat from the flock.” She said, “Will you give me a pledge, until you send it?” |
| Luke 15:29 | But he answered his father, ‘Behold, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. |
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
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke notes that Samson returned to his wife with a kid as a gift, hoping to make peace after her betrayal. But he found she had already been given to the brideman, the very person to whom she had revealed his riddle.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes observes that Samson's present of a kid was a common gift, but the wife's continued residence in her father's house indicates she was only betrothed to his companion, not yet fully married. The arrangement suggests an incomplete marital bond.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator notes that the wheat harvest (mid-May to mid-June) sets the scene for the story, placing it a couple of months after the wedding. The gift of a kid may reflect a pagan custom linking goats to the goddess of love. The woman is still in her father's house, indicating she had not yet moved to her husband's home.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note draws attention to
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights that Samson, after his anger subsided, brought a kid as a gracious gift to reconcile with his wife. When her father refused him entry, Samson, though far stronger, did not force his way but patiently submitted to the refusal, showing remarkable restraint.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB points out that Samson's visit came during the dry wheat harvest, when the grain was extremely flammable. The kid he brought was a customary Eastern gift, likely meant as a gesture of civility and reconciliation.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch note that Samson brought a kid as a customary gift when he returned to his wife, showing an intent to reconcile. The father's refusal reveals that he already assumed Samson hated her, which is why he gave her away to another man.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange portrays Samson as a naturally noble man who quickly forgives personal wrongs and turns them into a national cause against Israel's enemies. The three hundred jackals become his ingenious army, and the phrase "shank and thigh" emphasizes the complete destruction he inflicted, contrasting his heroic vengeance with the Philistines' cowardly attacks on the weak.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that Samson's gift of a kid was not about its value but its meaning as a customary token of reconciliation, intended to restore friendship after a quarrel. This small gesture shows that even in his anger, Samson was willing to make the first step toward peace.
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.