#when you think about it from a psychological study perspective it seems immoral | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

girl-in-the-tower · 3 years

Text

WHY I LOVE THE SCARABIA CM AND YOU SHOULD TOO

Listen, I don’t even know why you’d actually need to look for a reason to love and cherish this beautiful piece of animation, but to each their own. Regardless, you’re in the right place, because I’m about to gush and cry over this CM just to convince you to show it the same level of love that I feel for it. It’ll be difficult, but don’t worry, I’ll be there with you the entire time. So, let’s start with the beginning.

What makes this CM different from the others? Well, let’s look at the most obvious aspect: it’s narrated by two people, instead of just the Overblot victim like in the case of the Heartslaybyul, Savanaclaw and Octavinelle. There we had only Riddle, Leona and Azul speak because, obviously, as the Prefects and shadows of the villains they would be the most important characters. You could call that antagonist privileges if you want, but there’s a reason a show with a big cast doesn’t go in depth with every single one of their characters. Not only would it be infeasible, but also useless. Narratives need a point of focus, otherwise they end up disjointed and incomprehensible.

So why didn’t this CM just have Jamil narrate? He’s the antagonist of chapter 4, after all. Shouldn’t he get his own moment in the spotlight, separate from Kalim? Well, yes and no. For you see, the thing about Scarabia is that unlike other dorms the relationship between the Prefect and vice dorm leader is much more complicated. By which I mean that no other vice dorm leader is an indentured servant to the family of their dorm’s Prefect. Trey is Riddle’s childhood friend, Ruggie sticks with Leona because it gives him a better chance for survival, the Leech twins stay with Azul out of curiosity, Rook admires Vil, Ortho is Idia’s little brother (?) and Lilia has served as Malleus’ parental figure.

(Also, yes, I’m counting Ruggie and Ortho as vice dorm leaders since that’s basically their role anyways.)

None of them are bound to their Prefect. Trey has a life outside of Riddle, Ruggie will drop Leona like a sack of potatoes if the latter gets too much to deal with, the Leech twins EXPLICITLY say that they will turn on Azul if they get bored, Rook actually points out Vil’s flaws to his face, Ortho doesn’t let his brother get away with everything and Lilia’s position is more of a trusted family friend, than an actual guard/babysitter. The point I’m trying to make is that all these people have choices when it comes to their relationships with their respective Prefects. They stay by their side out of their own will and not because someone is forcing them to be there.

The same doesn’t apply to Jamil. He can’t just decide to leave Kalim’s side one day, because he was getting sick of looking after him. And that’s because he didn’t have a choice in being by his side in the first place. That decision was made for him by his parents. Because that’s how indentured servitude works: when you’re in the service of a lord, especially if you’re a poor peasant, your period of time decided upon entering the contract tends to extend to future generations as well since you’re not given any money to save. Most peasants that found themselves in such positions often would marry and start a family while still in the service of their lord and should they die, their family, unable to provide for themselves because their whole life was spent doing unpaid labour, will also enter the same contract. This process would go on until either slavery, which this most certainly is, was banned or the lord decided to set you free. The former was much preferable to the latter, because in a feudal system to be set free by your lord often marked you as an undesirable servant. You would be hard pressed to find a lord that would ‘hire’ you after finding out your former ‘employee’ decided to ‘fire’ you. So it would be very rare for indentured servants to actually manage to free themselves from that position.

This is precisely where Jamil’s frustration arises from as well. As a capable individual, he’s acutely aware of the limitations his status imposes on him. He’s a servant of the Asim family from birth, much like his parents and grandparents were before him. This is not something he chose for himself, but rather something that was imposed upon him. Herein lies the central issue that defines Jamil’s character: lack of choice. Much more than any character, Jamil’s life is governed by the limitations that arise due to his social position. We see that ever since his childhood he was forced to always take into consideration Kalim’s abilities and model his performance as not to eclipse him in any way. If Kalim placed second place in a dancing competition, Jamil must not be among the top three. If Kalim’s grades slipped, his own grades must as well. If Kalim lost two times in a row at mancala, Jamil must make sure he loses the next three games. Yet, paradoxically enough he mustn’t fall behind too much either, for that would make him a useless servant. And as I pointed out before, inept servants are not considered desirable by those in power.

It is in essence a balancing act that Jamil must make sure he adheres to strictly, as not to bring shame to the Asim family to whom he is, in theory, loyal. In relation to Kalim, Jamil must make sure he performs poorly, but in relation to others he must make sure he performs well. It’s that precise position between exceptional and ordinary that he must achieve, and according to Azul, Jamil is excelling at that.

Azul: You usually never make yourself stand out—A wallflower, so to speak.

You make sure not to stand out academically, too. Whether it’s with class standing, or with practical training. But, at the same time…

You never get failing scores. (4-37)

Yet the question we must ask is why? Why must Jamil follow these demands?

Well, for one it’s the issue of the indentured servant that we have discussed before. Jamil is bound to the Asims and going against them will bring repercussions not only on himself, but on his family as well. In the modern age in which Twisted Wonderland seems to be set in, this would not be much of an issue, we would guess. However, while that might be true, we must consider it not only from a logical perspective, but a psychological one as well. The human brain is fascinating in the sense in which it is able to transform information into patterns. And nowhere is this most apparent than in the impregnation of cultural norms into the mind. We tend to think of some things as innately ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ and everything that goes against those beliefs as ‘perverse’ and ‘immoral’. For example, up until a few decades ago, the idea of women as second-class citizens was seen as a perfectly reasonable notion. Those that did not agree with it were considered troublemakers and agitators, and if there’s anything the human individual loves more conformity, it’s ensuring that it’s enacted upon the population at large. The nail that sticks out gets the hammer, as the saying goes.

But what does this have to do with Jamil? Well, the fact is that his role, as Kalim’s servant, comes with certain social expectations.

Jamil: Kalim’s parents were always better than my parents. That’s why… Kalim should be better than me, too. That’s why, I could never surpass Kalim when it comes to studying, exercise, and even playing— (4-36)

The role of a servant is that of support. The Master leads while they provide the conditions and the means to do that. That is precisely the position that the Viper family is supposed to take in relation to the Asim family. For a servant to surpass his master, it leads to a deeply problematic realization: that one’s status is divorced from one’s capacity. Medieval rule was often characterized by monarchs assigning themselves as God’s anointed on Earth. Their right to the throne was not ensured by their capacity or disposition or ideals, but simply by their nature. They were meant to rule, because of the social class and family they were born into. Nothing less, nothing more. It was instinctively understood that there was a great differentiation between them and the common people and that was translated in their position as those to be considered ‘elevated’. They did not mingle with the common folk, because that was beneath them.

And unfortunately, that is a cultural inheritance that is not easily done away with. For though we might claim we left behind the days of feudalism and vassals, there is still a great divide between social classes. It merely took a different form. Lords of the castle turned into politicians, celebrities and glamorous multimillionaires. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, as Shakespeare would put it. Call it what you will, but the end result is that social divide still exists. And we can see that is the case in Twisted Wonderland as well.

Though the game tends to gloss over it in certain aspects, by having Leona’s reception by the main student body be as that of a lazy Prefect, and Malleus’s position is often eclipsed by his elusive attitude, it is constantly made clear that Kalim is someone with an important social background. We might have to be reminded that Leona is the second prince of the Afterglow Savannah, or that Malleus is the next king of the Valley of Thorns, but we aren’t offered the same discretion with Kalim’s character. He is almost always introduced as Kalim, the heir of a multimillionaire family. It is thus impossible to separate him from this title, and by extension, Jamil as well. Whether he likes it or not, as the servant of the Asims, Jamil is tethered to Kalim by being a part of his social image. No true Master can exist without servants, and no servants can be had without a Master. The two are reliant on each other, much like Kalim and Jamil are reliant on the other to define their position in life.

Kalim is the son of a wealthy family because he has Jamil to prove his special status. Jamil is a servant of the Asim family because he has someone to serve. But whether he wants to be part of this system and have his identity be defined by this connection is out of his hands. And that’s the truly unbearable notion that Jamil has to deal with in his chapter: no matter what he does he is never in control of his own life. It’s always something that is decided for him.

This, in itself, is not coincidental I would say. You see, besides being interesting social commentary, it is also an unexpected look into the underlying themes of Disney’s Aladdin. If we were asked to describe what the movie is about, I think it’s safe to say most of us would cite “poor street-rat learns a valuable lesson about not pretending to be someone else and marries the princess” as the answer. And we would not be wrong. It’s obvious that “Be Yourself” is one of the most important lessons Disney wanted to teach to young children and this in itself is not a bad thing. But while these might be understood as genuine life advice at a young age, as adults we often tend to look more closely into the themes and motifs of the movies that shaped our childhoods. And thus I would argue that Aladdin is more than just a story about interclass romance, but rather a look into how the social class system functions as a whole. Aladdin, the main hero, is a street urchin with no money to his name. Jasmine, the heroine, is the daughter of one of the most powerful men in the land. Their romance and subsequent marriage is interpreted as a victory over a flawed and classist system, because they managed to surpass the limitations imposed upon them by society and ‘be themselves’. And though this is a heartwarming message to see performed on screen, it’s important to remember that there are more than just the protagonists in the story. Alongside them we have three more characters we must pay close attention to: the Sultan, Jafar and the Genie.

To do a short summary:

The Sultan: Jasmine’s father and the most powerful man in the country, but rather bumbling and childishly naive. As is typical with Disney parents who are still alive by the start of the movie, he is a figure that possesses authority merely in name. Though kind and generally well disposed, he lacks any real power when it comes to the plot of the movie being tricked by both Jafar and Aladdin, as Prince Ali, and ultimately having to rely on the latter to be saved from the former. The Sultan is the quintessential look at a spoiled monarch whose rule is being facilitated by someone more competent than him, and this informs most of his character as a result. He himself might be a doting and benevolent figure, yet his reign is a prosperous one by accident not by his own making.

The Genie: The spirit who resides in the lamp that Aladdin finds in the Cave of Wonders and who becomes his ally in his quest to marry Jasmine. Perhaps one of the most memorable characters in the movie, thanks to the late William Robbins’ performance, Genie's entire quest in the movie is to achieve freedom by helping out his Master. The parallels between him and the indentured servant position are made abundantly clear by the fact that he is bound to Aladdin until the latter agrees to set him free. Genie’s role in the story is one that is important, but his position is one that mirrors Jafar: they are in the service of someone who is less than them, whether it be competence or magical ability. However, while Jafar detests his position and the Sultan, Genie becomes a father figure to the protagonist. The fact that the two exchange places (Jafar is turned into a Genie and imprisoned, Genie being set free and retaining all his powers) stems directly from how they relate to their social class. Jafar is self-serving and ambitious and Genie is altruistic and self-sacrificial. Genie thinks of the happiness of his Master, though he is still displeased by the concept itself, and for that he is rewarded, proving that putting the well-being of others above your interests is the way to happiness after all. That is, if you’re a Disney hero.

Jafar: The Grand Vizier and the second most powerful man in the land, but is a scheming backstabber that plans to take the throne for himself. As one of the most easily recognizable Disney villains, Jafar makes a strong impression through not only his design, but through his philosophy as well. He’s in spite of his high rank, still pretty much a servant, having to ensure that the rule of the Sultan is enacted accordingly. Yet, as an antagonist he makes certain that whatever he does is in his own interest as well. To say that he is ambitious would be an understatement, but what is it that he wants exactly? There is no clear answer, but the closest we can get to is that Jafar wants power.

But wait, you might say. Didn’t Aladdin also want that? Why is only Jafar the villain, if they were both after the same thing?

That is a good question! And the answer to it is yes and no. Though indeed, both Jafar and Aladdin wanted power it was for different purposes. Aladdin wanted it for the sake of overcoming his social limitations and thus becoming a worthy candidate for Jasmine, while Jafar wanted power for power’s sake. The lesson that Aladdin learns is that he shouldn’t have attempted to do that, because it would have never worked out in the way he intended it to. Though Jasmine can bring herself down to his level, he cannot bring himself up to hers since it would disrupt the social system. One cannot rise up to a higher social standing through power alone, they need recognition as well. Which is why marrying Jasmine becomes an important plot point. Jafar, who achieved power through his scheming, still lacks the recognition, which can only be granted through marriage to a royal or someone of higher social standing. He fails to achieve it, because his rise in social ranks did not have a ‘noble’ purpose like Aladdin’s but it merely satisfied his own agenda and needs.

Jafar’s status as a villain is thus due to the fact that in Western media ‘Ambition Is Evil’ is one of the most prevalent tropes. Think of the Becky Sharps, the Slytherins, the Lucifers, the Littlefingers that populate our literature, their evil nature is more often than not tied to their necessity to rise above others.

To reign is worth ambition though in hell;

Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. (Paradise Lost)

Power corrupts, and ambition corrupts absolutely. Disney characters thus often learn that it is better not to be swayed by power from their role in society for the sake of power, or they will pay the heavy price for doing so. That is why Jafar fails and Genie succeeds, because they related differently to their role in their Master’s lives.

And that is a theme that Twisted Wonderland also touches upon in Jamil’s story. Twisted from Jafar itself it was inevitable that his story would deal with such a topic. However, what deeply impressed me was how self-aware the narrative had been in regards to it.

Ruggie: I feel bad for you. By helping out Kalim you have burned your hands considerably. (R Card School Uniform)

Jamil: I want to avoid standing out. I can’t be satisfied with this. I cannot be too good, nor fall behind, and neither should I get satisfactory grades or fail. This is the best shortcut to success. (SR Card Lab Coat)

Jamil: I am a sworn servant to the house of Asim and thus have a duty to protect the master. (SR Card Ceremony Robes)

Azul: You are always welcome in Octavinelle should you find yourself freed from Kalim. (5-10)

The matter of Jamil’s role as Kalim’s caretaker is one that has been brought up at several points throughout the game. This is usually done with the express purpose of reinforcing his status as his servant, but also to affirm that it is indeed this very position that is preventing him from achieving his full potential.

Azul: If you look at your grades, there are no visible gaps in your classroom lectures, practical skills and physical training. Even I have a weak point when it comes to flying… For you to not even have such an instability is frankly amazing. It is like you can tailor yourself to suit your needs. (SR Card Lab Coat)

Just as Azul remarks Jamil holds himself back on account of his need to perfectly perform a certain persona: the reliable valet. It is a character we often see in media disguised as the Hypercompetent Sidekick or Servile Snarker, who is by his very nature much more accomplished than the master, but must out of financial necessity submit himself to someone else. Or in Jamil’s case, out of filial obligation. And this is where the comparison with Jafar becomes important because while Jamil does embody Jafar’s ambition, it is not treated in the same manner as in the movie. Jamil’s motives for betraying Kamil are similar to the villain: he wants to impose himself upon others and overcome his social position. Having been raised in servitude since young he has been forced to ‘tailor himself’ to the demands and expectations placed upon him. However, because this position has been imposed upon him and it wasn’t of his own volition, Jamil comes to resemble the genie much more than he does Jafar. Which is completely intentional, I believe. But we’ll get to that soon enough.

Taking this into consideration it is interesting to note how the resolution of Jamil’s arc differs from Jafar’s in terms of narrative. The end of Aladdin has us witness the defeat of Jafar at the hands of Aladdin, his imprisonment in the lamp and the release of the genie from his bonds of servitude. It is, of course, a typical Disney happy ending: the villain was defeated by his own hubris, while the heroes prevailed through self-sacrifice and cleverness. The main character has learned the necessary moral lesson (cynically phrased as: do not aspire to overcome your social class through hard work, but wait for recognition from your superiors) and all the characters that aided them during their journey get rewarded as well. It’s the culmination of the Disney formula that selflessness and altruism are the values that separate the heroes from villains, and by extension good from evil. Evil only seeks its own interests, while good works in the interests of others. So what about Jamil?

The end of the Scarabia arc is quite ‘Disney’ to a certain degree: the villain has been exposed, the heroes send to the other end of the ‘world’, they get their second wind, defeat him and live happily ever after. Well, not really. You see, what happens before the heroes go to defeat the antagonist is that Kalim breaks down crying due to Jamil’s betrayal and Azul remarks the following thing:

Azul: Kalim’s gentle disposition towards others is completely different from Jamil and I… No… Taking into account everything, he probably built a grudge over the years. You have been causing trouble for Jamil since you were little, after all. However, you are not in the wrong. You were born a cut above the others. You were loved by everyone around you and we were raised under such a good environment.

You were simply unaware of the greed you’ve been showing. (4-34)

Jamil’s actions aren’t excused, because they are indeed those of a villain: plotting, backstabbing and double-crossing the heroes for his own gains. Yet, they are not simply attributed to his ‘evil’ nature, but rather explained by the environment in which he was raised and the morals that were instilled in him. Jamil is not evil, but rather merely desperate enough to resort to evil means. And that is a profusely important distinction. Though we might commit malicious acts that does not mean that we are malicious by nature, much as committing benevolent acts does not make one irreproachable. And Twisted Wonderland understands this notion: not in the sense that Jamil was right in what he did, but rather than we can understand why he felt like he was pushed to such extremes.

Jamil’s story is one of the more complex ones, in my opinion. It speaks about an issue much deeper and much more insidious than any that have been explored so far in the game. The result is that unlike the other three previous Overblot victims, Jamil has no clear-cut solution to his problem. Even after the incident he is still in the service of the Asim family. Even if Kalim asserts that they are equals at school, he still will remain a servant everywhere else. No matter what he does he is bound to the Asim’s and more specifically to Kalim.

I feel like this would be the note on which I should safely conclude this very long introduction, as we move further and into the real meat of this post: the analysis itself. Thus, without further ado, let’s see why this CM is such a treat from a symbolical and storytelling perspective.

The opening of Aladdin (1992) is perhaps one of my favorites due to the fact that it seeks out to reference its source material: One Thousand and One Nights. By that I mean that it utilizes a technique known as the ‘frame story’: a story which contains within it another story. In the novel the framing device is Scheherezade, the vizier’s daughter who upon learning that she will marry Sultan Shahryar and be promptly killed at dawn, devised a plan to subvert her fate. She would each night begin a tale that would leave the Sultan so enchanted that he postponed her beheading until the next day so she might finish her tale. However, upon finishing the previous story Scheherezade would continue with another one and so on and so on until she eventually managed to avoid death for one thousand and one nights. Hence the name of the collection.

Aladdin uses a similar device in the character of the Merchant who appears at the start of the movie and introduces us, the viewers, to the world of Agrabah which is a place “where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face” according to the original lyrics of the song. But it also includes a shot at the end of the movie which has the Genie lift up the ‘wallpaper’ and speak directly to the audience. These scenes, though easy to disregard, do reinforce the fact that the movie we’re about to see is not taking place as it happens, but rather a second-hand account of it. Much like Scheherezade attempts to avoid her decapitation, so does the Merchant at the start of the movie attempt to convince us to give the story a try, become immersed and then abruptly reminded of the fictionality of what we have just witnessed. And I don’t mean in the sense that it is a movie, but rather in the sense that even within the logic of the movie, this whole set of events has a certain fictionality to it. The fact that initial plans had the Genie and the Merchant be the same character only strengthens this notion.

But the Scarabia CM doesn’t start with the Merchant now, does it? No, it does not. But rather it starts with the very first image of the movie itself: purple smoke against a red flaming background. Except that there is no red flaming background this time, but a calming blue shot of the dunes with what appears to be the Scarabia dorm building in the background, or even Agrabah itself. There is no smoke either but sparkling dust that emanates from a lamp half-buried into the sand. The images are clearly meant to evoke the general aesthetic of Aladdin (1992), but they can also be interpreted symbolically.

The imagery of smoke is often one of ascension, of leaving the earthly shackles and rising higher towards the spiritual world. But it is also a rather solemn symbol as well, given that it can also be associated with the burning of corpses. Its presence in the movie is explained by the fact that this is after all a story about liberation: most obviously the Genie’s, but also the other characters. Everybody wants to be free in some form or another. The colour symbolism is also interesting to remark upon as according to Richard Vander Wende, the production designer of the original film, certain colours have different meanings within the movie. Red symbolizes heat and evil, while blue is a calm colour associated with water. The red background thus carries negative connotations, but it is eclipsed by the presence of the smoke in the foreground, that is a combination of red and blue. If we were to interpret this visual choice we could claim that the movie is trying to let us know that the story we are about to watch is one in which morally-grey protagonists overcome the forces of evil. For, even though Aladdin is our main character, he is not a pure hero by Disney standards as he is after all a thief and the lesson he has to learn is that he should not attempt to scam his way into a better social position.

But the Scarabia CM uses a blue background instead, so this is certainly not the same message it might try to send. Rather, due to the positioning of Scarabia/Agrabah in the background, I believe that it is indeed a story about rising above, but not above the forces of evil as much as above social norms accepted as standards. The Scarabia storyline is very much centered around the notion of social positions and how they function within a system of indentured servitude, as is obvious through the way in which Jamil attempts to overcome the position of servant through schemes and planning. We most certainly encounter the thread of evil within his character, but though his methods are unsavory, his end is, I would say, understandable: freedom.

Jamil: For me, and my family... I'll do anything for our sake!!! (4-31)

Jamil: I’m done playing servant!! I WILL BE FREE—!! (4-32)

The choice of a blue background might thus allude not necessarily to goodness as in the moral concept itself, but rather to the comfort of social norms. There is a certain stability to be had in a system that declares that all those born into wealthy families shall remain wealthy, and all those born into servant families should remain servants. To quote Aladdin: “It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.” (Arabian Nights) In such a system that relies on absolute conventions regarding social classes, someone like Jamil is a threat, because he questions and subverts the limitations imposed upon him. He is smarter and more capable than Kalim, yes, but because he must ensure that he does not draw negative attention upon himself, he is forced to adhere to a lifestyle that is not representative to whom he truly is. The similar shape of Scarabia and Agrabah only serves to highlight that regardless of his environment, as long as he remains a servant through his bond to the Asims, he shall never be able to change his destiny.

The lamp is the most important object in Aladdin (1992) as it is the MacGuffin that is coveted by Jafar and the prison of the all powerful entity that is Genie. The lamp in the movie has thus two connotations: power and imprisonment. The juxtaposition between the two creates an interesting image of how power changes according to one’s position in society. Though Genie’s powers are indeed great it seems that he is incapable of wishing himself free, which is I think a good analogy to the position of indentured servitude in which only a lord’s permission would be capable of restoring an individual’s freedom, even though they would be in theory capable of physically leaving their place of servitude. Their choice not to is not only a reflection of the possible corporal punishment they would endure if captured, but also due to the social contract that forced them to remain in that position. As servants they would remain branded forever as second-class citizens at best or dangerous felons at worst. Not a fate one would ever wish upon themselves in those days.

It is clear that besides Jafar, Jamil also bears quite a lot of similarities to Genie.

It’s like being the genie of the lamp, calling me anytime and anywhere. (Jamil Chat 1)

As I mentioned above, Disney draws an interesting parallel between Jafar and Genie when it comes to relating towards their ‘superiors’: Jafar despises the Sultan and wishes to disposes of him, while Genie forms a parental bond with Aladdin and even reluctantly agrees to remaining bound to the lamp if it means his ward’s happiness. The fact that they exchange positions at the end (Jafar being imprisoned in the lamp, Genie being freed) is the result of the moral choices they make. Genie’s altruism is what allows him to be freed, while Jafar’s ambition is what traps him as thus is the rule of Western philosophy: the needs of the others are superior to our own.

But ignoring Jamil’s OB for now, we realize that he does not truly commit to either one of those positions. He is resentful of his enslavement at the hands of the Asims, but I believe he does not genuinely wish harm upon Kalim himself, but rather towards the system as a whole, which is represented by him. This is an idea we’ll return to eventually, but it is important to mention it in advance, because it paints a better picture of what Jamil’s true intentions were during his attempt to take over Scarabia. It was not power for power’s sake as in the case of Jafar, but rather him trying to assert control over an aspect of his life, which in this case would be his position within the dorm. Jamil isn’t truly interested in the position of Prefect as is, but in what it symbolizes: freedom. As Aladdin shows power is not synonymous to freedom, but rather something adjacent to it. Even a most powerful creature like Genie is bound to the whims and wishes of a mere mortal, much like Jamil is bound to those of Kalim. To overthrow him as Prefect would mean to assert himself as independent of social bonds by having no one be superior to him anymore. Yet, because he does it through immoral means he fails and thus keeps in line with the moral of the movie: you cannot advance socially without the approval of your superiors.

The moon is one of the most referenced symbols in literature due to the fact that it innately appeals to writers and poets alike. It is fundamentally female in nature, due to its connection to the Roman Diana and the Greek Artemis, and associated as a result either with the concept lunacy, to which it lent its name, as well as with witchcraft, solitude, power and change. The moon’s circular shape as observed from Earth is also associated with the notion of eternity and cyclicity, which is perhaps the symbol that is of most interest to us when it comes to Western interpretation, as in Japanese culture the moon can represent a person’s core, unaffected by others. It is more succinctly put a representation of the Self, that which is considered quintessential to one’s identity. And it is this imagery which the CM tends to gravitate towards I would argue.

The moon is a particularly prominent symbol in Aladdin (1992) as it symbolizes the notion of change and new beginnings. Aladdin and Jasmine’s flight during the song sequence “A Whole New World” uses the moon as a backdrop and confers upon it a romantic aura of serenity and calmness, which is referenced towards the end of the movie wherein they fly towards it upon their success at convincing Jasmine’s father to allow their marriage. The moon in this regard is symbolic of unity and fortune, synonymous with true love’s conquest over everything else. But there is also a comedic twist to it as seen in the very last scene of the movie wherein Genie’s face is projected upon it. It is thus primarily a positive symbol associated with goodness.

The CM however is closer in meaning to the notion of the moon as the human core observed in solitude. Unlike the moon in Aladdin, whose shadows are barely perceptible and thus looks more natural, the moon here is overtly engulfed by darkness, with the sole space of light providing a sharp contrast in tone. It is not a symbol of unity, but rather of division creating barriers and boundaries between the characters who are positioned at opposite ends of the circle. Kalim, as a superior in terms of social and financial power, is situated upon the side that shines brighter to symbolize his role as the face of the dorm. He is the Prefect, the one that represents his dorm and the ideals that it is founded upon. Yet, upon further inspection we notice that the word ‘Scarabia’ appears on Jamil’s side, which is not only the dark part, but also takes more space. It is an unequal division but so is much of their life: Jamil remains in Kalim’s shadow, though it is only due to the former’s help that the latter manages to shine as a Prefect. This is confirmed by the positioning of their dorm’s name on Jamil’s side, as he is in fact the one that more overtly exhibits the ideals of careful planning that the Sorcerer of the Hot Lands is known for.

Kalim’s face change is interesting if we consider the notion of the moon representing the human core on which one’s identity is formed, because it confirms that he is indeed as cheerful as he appears to be. His cheerful disposition though likened to the image of the sun, lacks the usual masculine and aggressive features associated with it in Western culture, as he tends towards more feminine ideals of pacifism and serenity, which are associated with the moon. Moreover, as it has been pointed out to me, if one is to consider the Japanese cultural context we would be able to observe that the feminine characteristics of the sun are in perfect accordance with the female interpretation of the star in the form of Amaterasu. His body language is relaxed and openly friendly and there’s nothing about him that truly stands out in terms of contradictions.

Jamil on the other hand presents an entirely different picture. His stance is guarded, that much is certain, and his expression is to be considered at best wooden. Unlike Kalim’s dynamic movement, he remains static and unchanging, sporting merely a look of resigned indulgence towards Kalim, and it seems to a certain extent as if he asserts control over his own reaction towards it. In other words, it is not in the slightest bit natural. Moreover, what does attract our attention is not his expression as in the case of Kalim, but rather the shine of the metal of his choker.

Unlike Kalim which is bathed in light in warmth, Jamil is surrounded by dark and shadows, with the sole point of light being the metal around his neck. This is different from Kalim whose accessories do not stand out in the same vein. The reason is that on a fundamental level they represent entirely different notions. In Kalim’s case it is a representation of his wealth and power, with the lack of focus on them hinting perhaps to the fact that he is at ease with his position as the heir of a multimillionaire family. It does not stand out because that is his right by birth and thus just a natural part of himself. Jamil’s core, on the other hand, reveals that his identity is very much forged by the Viper’s bond to the Asims.

Jamil: I’ve been looking after Kalim ever since we were kids. That’s the Viper family’s duty. (Jamil R School Uniform Lines)

In Kalim’s case the accessories are just that: accessories. But in Jamil’s case they are a mark of servitude. They stand out among the darkness because this is how he perceives his own persona: dominated by the image of the loyal servant who is socially inferior to his master. Even the metal itself seems to have a silver tint, rather than gold, symbolizing that even though he and Kalim should be equal (both sporting gold chokers) reality is very much different, since he is forced to be subservient even though it goes against his instincts.

It is interesting to note that in Aladdin (1992) the notion of space and how it relates to characters plays a significant part. Agrabah, the setting of the movie, is a place of social division in which those of lower status live in poverty, financial distress and crowded spaces, whereas those of a higher status enjoy the luxury and the vast space provided by the palace. Compare the streets of Agrabah during “One Jump Ahead” which are constantly filled with people, objects and animals and project an image of recurring chaos, to the quiet serenity of the palace where the Sultan and Jasmine live. The contrast is staggering. But more than that it is indicative how much social class can make a difference.

It is also interesting to note that with the exception of the Sultan, all characters have at some point transversed these two spaces: Jafar and Aladdin move between the city, the palace and the desert, Jasmine sneaks into the city in order to experience real life and the Genie has access to a fourth space in the form of the lamp. However, the Sultan always remains within the palace walls. The reason for that is rather obvious: it is the seat of power and to leave it would be to admit to inferiority in regards to his position. Unlike the other characters that long for something more, the Sultan is content in his role as representative of financial and social power. He does not need to switch locations, because his static nature is what allows the other characters to progress in their journey.

The CM builts on this premise as well, by showing us the very different worldviews that Kalim and Jamil experience. Fulfilling the role of Sultan, Kalim is surrounded by luxury and comfort, as he rests in his room at the dorm. The colours are warm and calming, as the light very gently illuminates the room in order to cause an impression of coziness, which fits perfectly with his own character. Kalim’s personality is at its core a ‘refreshing’ one, orientated towards creating harmony and a content attitude. All his life was spent among servants that catered to his every whim and desire, so his sense of independence was greatly stifled. If we may put in blunt terms, he’s sleeping through life, relying entirely on his social position due not necessarily to laziness, but rather naivety. Because he never had to leave the palace walls, he never had to develop any sense of autonomy and thus has managed to remain faithful to his social role. He does not experience a sensation of contradiction between who he is and who he is regarded as because he lives in accordance to the characteristics deemed appropriate for him as a member of the elite.

The same cannot be said for Jamil. Juxtaposed with Kalim’s scene we see Jamil walking through the desert as the harsh light shines upon him. There is no comfort to be found in this particular shot. Whereas Kalim is sleeping peacefully and at ease, unaware of the difficulties of life, Jamil is wide awake. Unlike the former, the latter’s life is dictated by restrictions and hardships, all which he has to endure without showing displeasure as befitting his social role. He does not have the privilege of laying around not only due to the demands that are made of him, but also due to his innate desire for change. The desert can thus very easily symbolize the unfairness which he has to endure as a servant, but it can also symbolize his ambition and the effort he is willing to spend on making sure he can change his social status. Unlike Kalim, who rests in the palace, Jamil seeks to escape its confines even if it means enduring hardship. For you see, though the palace is indeed a place of stability, it is also a prison.

The similarities between Agrabah’s palace and the Scarabia dorm building are most certainly intentional. They’re places of unimaginable wealth that function as status symbols for the people that control them. Agrabah is, as we mentioned before, heavily divided, but it is paradoxically the slums that offer more freedom than the palace itself. Looking back at the movie we notice that the biggest symbol we can associate with Jasmine is the bird in the cage yearning to be free. The notion, moreover, is also supported by imagery such as setting the birds free after a talk with her father and, as it had also been pointed out by other critics, that the canopy of her bed is designed to resemble a birdcage. As a princess Jasmine is bound by social roles and conventions to adhere to the expectations placed upon her, and her journey in the movie is to assert herself as an autonomous person before her father by insisting that she be allowed to make her own choices. The problem however lies with the word ‘allow’ itself which once again contradicts her ideals. The notion of allowing someone to do what they want situates the power in the hands of the person who is recognized as the social superior. In the case of Jasmine, it is her father, the Sultan. In the case of Jamil, it is the Asims.

The Scarabia dorm as a symbol of the prison is an obvious one due to the fact that it served as such for Grim and Yuu during episode 4. But that is what we might refer to as physical confinement, which at its core is not compatible with the message of the CM and even of the movie. Because the CM does not focus on Grim and Yuu, but on Jamil and Kalim, so this is not a case of a physical prison, but rather a mental one I would argue.

In several respects, the prison must be an exhaustive disciplinary apparatus: it must assume responsibility for all aspects of the everyday individual, his physical training, his aptitude to work, his conduct, his moral attitude, his state of mind; the prison, much more a than the school, the or the army, which always involved workshop certain specialization, is 'omni-disciplinary'. Moreover, the prison has neither exterior nor gap; it cannot be interrupted, except when its task is totally completed; its action on the individual must be uninterrupted: an unceasing discipline. Lastly, it gives almost total power over the prisoners; it has its internal mechanisms of repression and punishment: a despotic discipline. It carries to their greatest intensity all the procedures to be found in the other disciplinary mechanisms. (Foucault 235-236)

Foucault’s Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison is an interesting look into the social and theoretical mechanisms employed by prisons in order to ‘reform’ convicts. The end goal of these institutions is to reintegrate the individual into society and to achieve such a thing it is not necessary just to punish and torment them, but to discipline them. By this Foucault understood as allowing one’s life to be entirely dictated by “a disciplinary apparatus” decided by those within power. It’s main aim was to restructure one into a “docile body” beneficial for the economical and political necessities of that specific age, which in many cases referred to the idea of one being content to pursue the interests of the state and those that governed it.

I bring this up because I can see the same ideas reflected in Jamil’s character arc as well. Foucault mentions that the prison is a space in which discipline is uninterrupted and unceasing. In other words it is a space which constantly reinforces the ideals that are considered desirable, and we can see that Scarabia unintentionally functions the same way. It is a space in which Jamil is cast as inferior to Kalim once again, trapped into the position of Vice Prefect, despite the fact that he embodies the ideals of the dorm more than he does. Though this is a different place, his routine has remained unchanged: he must still cater to Kalim’s wishes and perform the role of the servant, despite the fact that in theory the two of them should be equal now.

Scarabia Student B: Our family standing and status shouldn’t matter inside the school! We’re all equal here, right? (4-18)

Under normal circumstances, Night Raven College is supposed to be a neutral space in terms of social standing. Leona and Malleus are recognized as princes, but are not given any particular attention in terms of political and social superiority, and rather scrutinized due to their peculiar attitudes and personalities. They are, in theory, equal to the other students at the academy and the same should apply to the relationship between Kalim and Jamil as well. But things are not so.

During episode 4 we find an interesting detail about Scarabia: it seems that the building had been renovated once Kalim was accepted into the dorm. This is not usually a detail that would require any particular attention, but it reveals something about the environment in which Jamil resides: it is representative of the Asims. The ostentatiousness and extravagance are the result of their direct influence and thus molded by their own desires. By remodeling the building they have reforged it into an image of their social position and installed a member of its own family as leader. Its neutrality has been compromised and so has Jamil’s attempted escape. Attending Night Raven College is not merely a case of attending one of the best magic schools in the world, but also one of asserting one’s independence. Jamil was given the chance to finally break free from the system that has had him ensnared for all his life, only to have his hopes be dashed by being reminded that in the end the influence of his masters is much greater than he could have anticipated. Thus, Scarabia was turned into a space of imprisonment which perfectly replicates the dynamics of the Asim household and thus denies Jamil any possible form of freedom. Much like Genie and Jafar at the end of the movie, he is unable to escape his prison without the approval of his superiors.

Jamil is aware, however, that he is not and will most likely not ever be able to receive such freedom from the Asims. And consciously he knows he cannot attempt to break free on his own either.

Jamil: My family, the Viper Household, has been serving the Asim Family since olden times. A retainer drawing his sword against his master is unforgivable. Even more so, if Kalim’s father found out about it, my family will end up being punished. I’m sorry, but I cannot put my family in danger just because of a selfish request. (4-18)

Jamil’s sense of filial duty is one of the driving forces behind his character. It’s not only that he himself wants to be free, but wants his family to be released from their bonds as well. Because the system in which he has been raised permits a master to punish an entire family for the disobedience of one member it becomes understandable why Jamil is such a guarded person. It is not merely his own person that is at stake, but the lives of those he cares about also. It is a thought that has weighed heavily upon his head since young childhood most likely, once he became aware of how exactly the social system set in place works. To go against it would not be an act of brave rebellion, but that of sentencing others to punishment to fulfill his own ambitions. Which for a character twisted from Jafar seems contradictory. Yet we must remember that he has certain traits of Genie as well. Unlike him whose loyalty lies to his Master, Aladdin, Jamil’s loyalty lies to his family. He’s only willing to endure things as they are now due to the fact that rebelling would mean having them suffer the consequences. And Jamil is aware of that.

Yet, it is also necessary to ask the following question: Why does he end up rebelling in the end?

The most obvious answer: accumulated frustration.

As I stated before, Jamil does not hate Kalim. However, it is also obvious that his Overblot had very much to do with the fact that he had become increasingly irked by the latter’s attitude to life. His critique of Kalim’s character, though harsh, was entirely accurate. Kalim is indeed spoiled and naive to an almost ridiculous degree, even though it is not entirely due to his own fault. Moreover, it is not necessarily these particular traits that Jamil takes issue with, but rather his predilection towards inaction. To briefly reference a previously discussed shot: though Kalim is content in his passivity, Jamil cannot abide by the current system. He desires change, but he knows he is in no position to enact it and is thus frustrated that the one who would be able to perform this task is oblivious to the struggles of those around him. Jamil does not hate Kalim as a person, but rather that which he represents: the power of the system itself. As the CM shows Kalim is able to move forwards, uncaring of limits and boundaries, but uninterested in change (initially) while Jamil, though he desires to advance, is stuck in one spot.

The brief image of Kalim reflected in the surface of running water captures this concept perfectly. Jamil is not looking at Kalim as he is, but rather as perceives him to be: an unclear image. Water has the same reflective properties of mirrors, but due to their unstable state they cannot portray accurate images. Jamil attributes maliciousness to Kalim’s denseness as not only a means of explaining his actions, but as a way to excuse his own eventual betrayal of him. If Jamil considers Kalim as a representative of the system, he feels justified in his actions and thus more willing to go through with them, since he can project his frustrations upon a material, solid person rather than an abstract entity. Kalim is in a sense a scapegoat for Jamil’s anger.

The snake is laden with multiple meanings being both a manifestation of evil (Satan taking the form of a serpent to trick Eve into sinning) as well as a symbol of rebirth and transformation. In keeping with the colour motif of the movie the serpent staff that Jafar carries with him has eyes which glow red when he’s using it to hypnotize the Sultan to indicate his evil influence upon him. In the CM we have the image of a red snake coiling around Jamil’s feet which is the physical manifestation of all his feelings of dissatisfaction regarding his position as a servant finally bursting apart. But before he is overtaken by those negative feelings we notice interestingly enough that the snake takes the form of an ouroboros: a snake which eats its own tail. A symbol of eternity.

Jamil: I’ve been raised as a retainer to serve his family, so I really can’t understand. A master is a master and a servant will be a servant. Most probably for as long as we’re alive. (4-26)

When discussing Jamil’s character we must admit to a certain cyclicity. Not one he engages in, but rather one in which he is stuck. He is the son of a family that has served the Asims for generations, creating a chain of servants and masters that is currently supposed to be replicated by him and Kalim. His sense of autonomy is constantly denied due to the intervention of forces beyond his control. Moreover, in chapter 4 itself his plans get constantly ruined by either Grim or the Octavinelle Trio, creating a sense that the universe itself has aligned itself in opposition to him.

But there is more to it still. Jamil is a highly ambitious person, who desires to establish himself through his talent and skill, thus giving him the perfect reason to despise a system that requires some individuals to be subservient to others for arbitrary reasons. However, by his own admission he cannot envision a life outside the system either. This is in essence the insidiousness of such phenomena: they entrap not only the person physically but psychologically as well. Once one’s identity is dependent upon a certain ideology and philosophy of life it is extremely difficult to extract themselves from that mindset. Much like Foucault said, once the mind is disciplined and the individual turns into a ‘docile body’ they become reliant on that particular system in order to form a coherent identity.

Though Kalim can step outside the bounds and limits imposed upon him, by virtue of his social position, Jamil is only allowed to operate within those boundaries. It is precisely why he stops advancing further once he reaches the end of the round court. Though physically he should be able to overcome such obstacles, mentally he is unable to not. Not as long as he remains under the governance of the Asim family, at the very least. It is obvious however that he cannot simply rise against them, and this realization is what causes him to hit the limit in terms of patience. He finally realizes that he has been robbed of his independence even before he was born.

Jamil: But if I have, it’s better you don’t know what I really think of you. If everything goes to plan… I’ll finally be free. (Scarabia CM)

Sight is an important theme to Jamil’s character as he, much more than any other character perhaps, actively attempts to manipulate the perception of others about him. He is not what he appears as Azul remarks in many of their interactions, and that is because to Jamil allowing himself to be genuine would come with a price: revealing his true feelings regarding his social position. And that, as previously stated, is not something he can afford.

Eyes are often called the ‘windows of the soul’ in the sense that they reflect a person’s true intentions and thoughts. Moreover, the notion of sight is one that literary authors often like to explore in their works. Out of all the senses, sight seems to be considered the most unreliable, since it often fails to discern that which exists in obscurity. The notion is explored in Aladdin (1992) too to a certain degree. Everybody sees only what they desire to see, and because the images they form are so contradictory that it creates misunderstandings and unnecessary conflict. Jafar’s power of hypnotism is even more interesting in this context since by definition it allows him to influence a person’s perception of reality and thus a part of their identity and how they relate to their environment.

The end of the CM hints towards this notion as well, as we see that the Overblot first manifests itself is his eyes, obscuring his sight from the reality around him. He’s chosen to throw himself into the negative emotions that have finally overtaken him, and as a result given him the power to recreate reality to his discretion. We see the parallel with Genie and Jafar in his Unique Magic as well, since though he possesses one of the most potent powers, he’s still considered an inferior. Jamil’s Overblot is thus one formed by the depressing realization that for as long as he exists within the system, he’ll be forced to endure the continuous cycle of subservience forced upon him since before his birth. His transformation moreover is the result of a desperate yearning for freedom which has driven him to extreme actions. The appearance of the red eyes behind him symbolize more than the eyes of the serpent staff. They are a stark reminder that he is consumed entirely by the realization of his own powerlessness and over-dependence upon the Asims, even if it’s against his desire.

To note is also the fact that out of all the Overblot victims, Jamil’s expression is the only one that is peaceful. If we take a look at the Heartslaybyul, Savanaclaw and Octavinelle CMs all of the Prefects display either rage or shock during their transformations. It is clear that this process is a horrific one, which explains their reactions, yet strangely enough Jamil seems serene and accepting as if he has come to terms with this course of action. Unlike the Overblot victims before him, his transformation is liberating to a certain degree, because it allows him to finally achieve his goal: get rid of Kalim and instate himself as leader of the dorm. Not because he covets the position itself, but rather because through it he manages to finally become free and unburdened by his social position. In a way, the dark appeal of Overbloting is just that: unlimited power, and for a character like Jamil, who very much lacks this, it is especially hypnotic.

Out of all the Overblots so far, I consider Jamil’s the most tragic because in the end there seems to be no obvious escape for him, perhaps except in the case of Kalim setting him free. But this is still an event that will happen in a few years at best. It does not answer his current need for autonomy. Yet, despite this we see in chapter 5 that there is indeed some improvement. Though he has refused Kalim’s offer of being friends, he nevertheless has begun acting more like his equal within school grounds and their relationship overall seems less hostile on his end. The fact that much of the action of chapter 5 takes place in Ramshackle Dorm is also an important thing to note as it manages to create a neutral space, untainted by the Asim’s interference. In Vil’s system of meritocracy Jamil is finally able to act as himself and stop performing a role for others, thus he is finally able to assert a degree of autonomy over his own person, which he was not capable of doing before.

Coming now to the ends of this post I think it goes without saying that in terms of narrative cinematography the Scarabia CM is currently unmatched. Though short it manages to give a perfect summary of the themes explored in episode 4, the relationship between Kalim and Jamil and a brief but insightful look into the latter’s psychology and reasons for Overbloting.

So, there’s really nothing else to do but thank Yana for giving us such a wonderful CM for what I consider the best dorm and best boys in the whole game.

Additional Links

Indentured Servitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt--B1Y-u6Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti7Kbd6gSIo

Twisted Wonderland, Episode 4: https://kanadesmusingsblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/01/masterpost-twisted-wonderland-episode-4-translations/

Jamil Chats, Personal Stories: https://twisted-wonderland.fandom.com/wiki/Jamil_Viper/Personal_Story

https://twisted-wonderland.fandom.com/wiki/Jamil_Viper/Chat

Scarabia CM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSx_BvTlmQ

Aladdin (1992) commentary: https://filmschoolrejects.com/38-things-we-learned-from-the-aladdin-commentary-fd9f1d8573b3/

--------------

The peeps over in the Twisted Writings discord know this has been brewing for a while, but I’ve finally managed to sit down, write and edit this monster. It bears witness to the fact that I adore Scarabia more it is healthy (lol).

Also wanted to thank fellow Scarabia stan buddy @chillableu for proofreading and brainroting with me about these boys. You’ve been such a great help and I’m so thankful to you! ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

All the translation sources have been linked in the last section of the commentary.

259 notes · View notes

lindbergh-baby · 6 years

Text

TRUISMS (1978-1983) JENNY HOLZER

A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE CAN GO A LONG WAY A LOT OF PROFESSIONALS ARE CRACKPOTS A MAN CAN'T KNOW WHAT IT IS TO BE A MOTHER A NAME MEANS A LOT JUST BY ITSELF A POSITIVE ATTITUDE MEANS ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD A RELAXED MAN IS NOT NECESSARILY A BETTER MAN A SENSE OF TIMING IS THE MARK OF GENIUS A SINCERE EFFORT IS ALL YOU CAN ASK A SINGLE EVENT CAN HAVE INFINITELY MANY INTERPRETATIONS A SOLID HOME BASE BUILDS A SENSE OF SELF A STRONG SENSE OF DUTY IMPRISONS YOU ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION CAN BE A FORM OF FREEDOM ABSTRACTION IS A TYPE OF DECADENCE ABUSE OF POWER COMES AS NO SURPRISE ACTION CAUSES MORE TROUBLE THAN THOUGHT ALIENATION PRODUCES ECCENTRICS OR REVOLUTIONARIES ALL THINGS ARE DELICATELY INTERCONNECTED AMBITION IS JUST AS DANGEROUS AS COMPLACENCY AMBIVALENCE CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE AN ELITE IS INEVITABLE ANGER OR HATE CAN BE A USEFUL MOTIVATING FORCE ANIMALISM IS PERFECTLY HEALTHY ANY SURPLUS IS IMMORAL ANYTHING IS A LEGITIMATE AREA OF INVESTIGATION ARTIFICIAL DESIRES ARE DESPOILING THE EARTH AT TIMES INACTIVITY IS PREFERABLE TO MINDLESS FUNCTIONING AT TIMES YOUR UNCONSCIOUSNESS IS TRUER THAN YOUR CONSCIOUS MIND AUTOMATION IS DEADLY AWFUL PUNISHMENT AWAITS REALLY BAD PEOPLE BAD INTENTIONS CAN YIELD GOOD RESULTS BEING ALONE WITH YOURSELF IS INCREASINGLY UNPOPULAR BEING HAPPY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE BEING JUDGMENTAL IS A SIGN OF LIFE BEING SURE OF YOURSELF MEANS YOU'RE A FOOL BELIEVING IN REBIRTH IS THE SAME AS ADMITTING DEFEAT BOREDOM MAKES YOU DO CRAZY THINGS CALM IS MORE CONDUCTIVE TO CREATIVITY THAN IS ANXIETY CATEGORIZING FEAR IS CALMING CHANGE IS VALUABLE WHEN THE OPPRESSED BECOME TYRANTS CHASING THE NEW IS DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY CHILDREN ARE THE MOST CRUEL OF ALL CHILDREN ARE THE HOPE OF THE FUTURE CLASS ACTION IS A NICE IDEA WITH NO SUBSTANCE CLASS STRUCTURE IS AS ARTIFICIAL AS PLASTIC CONFUSING YOURSELF IS A WAY TO STAY HONEST CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT DECADENCE CAN BE AN END IN ITSELF DECENCY IS A RELATIVE THING DEPENDENCE CAN BE A MEAL TICKET DESCRIPTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN METAPHOR DEVIANTS ARE SACRIFICED TO INCREASE GROUP SOLIDARITY DISGUST IS THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO MOST SITUATIONS DISORGANIZATION IS A KIND OF ANESTHESIA DON'T PLACE TO MUCH TRUST IN EXPERTS DRAMA OFTEN OBSCURES THE REAL ISSUES DREAMING WHILE AWAKE IS A FRIGHTENING CONTRADICTION DYING AND COMING BACK GIVES YOU CONSIDERABLE PERSPECTIVE DYING SHOULD BE AS EASY AS FALLING OFF A LOG EATING TOO MUCH IS CRIMINAL ELABORATION IS A FORM OF POLLUTION EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AR AS VALUABLE AS INTELLECTUAL RESPONSES ENJOY YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ANYWAY ENSURE THAT YOUR LIFE STAYS IN FLUX EVEN YOUR FAMILY CAN BETRAY YOU EVERY ACHIEVEMENT REQUIRES A SACRIFICE EVERYONE'S WORK IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT EVERYTHING THAT'S INTERESTING IS NEW EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE DESERVE SPECIAL CONCESSIONS EXPIRING FOR LOVE IS BEAUTIFUL BUT STUPID EXPRESSING ANGER IS NECESSARY EXTREME BEHAVIOR HAS ITS BASIS IN PATHOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY EXTREME SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS LEADS TO PERVERSION FAITHFULNESS IS A SOCIAL NOT A BIOLOGICAL LAW FAKE OR REAL INDIFFERENCE IS A POWERFUL PERSONAL WEAPON FATHERS OFTEN USE TOO MUCH FORCE FEAR IS THE GREATEST INCAPACITATOR FREEDOM IS A LUXURY NOT A NECESSITY GIVING FREE REIN TO YOUR EMOTIONS IS AN HONEST WAY TO LIVE GO ALL OUT IN ROMANCE AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY GOING WITH THE FLOW IS SOOTHING BUT RISKY GOOD DEEDS EVENTUALLY ARE REWARDED GOVERNMENT IS A BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE GRASS ROOTS AGITATION IS THE ONLY HOPE GUILT AND SELF-LACERATION ARE INDULGENCES HABITUAL CONTEMPT DOESN'T REFLECT A FINER SENSIBILITY HIDING YOUR EMOTIONS IS DESPICABLE HOLDING BACK PROTECTS YOUR VITAL ENERGIES HUMANISM IS OBSOLETE HUMOR IS A RELEASE IDEALS ARE REPLACED BY CONVENTIONAL GOALS AT A CERTAIN AGE IF YOU AREN'T POLITICAL YOUR PERSONAL LIFE SHOULD BE EXEMPLARY IF YOU CAN'T LEAVE YOUR MARK GIVE UP IF YOU HAVE MANY DESIRES YOUR LIFE WILL BE INTERESTING IF YOU LIVE SIMPLY THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT IGNORING ENEMIES IS THE BEST WAY TO FIGHT ILLNESS IS A STATE OF MIND IMPOSING ORDER IS MAN'S VOCATION FOR CHAOS IS HELL IN SOME INSTANCES IT'S BETTER TO DIE THAN TO CONTINUE INHERITANCE MUST BE ABOLISHED IT CAN BE HELPFUL TO KEEP GOING NO MATTER WHAT IT IS HEROIC TO TRY TO STOP TIME IT IS MAN'S FATE TO OUTSMART HIMSELF IT IS A GIFT TO THE WORLD NOT TO HAVE BABIES IT'S BETTER TO BE A GOOD PERSON THAN A FAMOUS PERSON IT'S BETTER TO BE LONELY THAN TO BE WITH INFERIOR PEOPLE IT'S BETTER TO BE NAIVE THAN JADED IT'S BETTER TO STUDY THE LIVING FACT THAN TO ANALYZE HISTORY IT'S CRUCIAL TO HAVE AN ACTIVE FANTASY LIFE IT'S GOOD TO GIVE EXTRA MONEY TO CHARITY IT'S IMPORTANT TO STAY CLEAN ON ALL LEVELS IT'S JUST AN ACCIDENT THAT YOUR PARENTS ARE YOUR PARENTS IT'S NOT GOOD TO HOLD TOO MANY ABSOLUTES IT'S NOT GOOD TO OPERATE ON CREDIT IT'S VITAL TO LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE JUST BELIEVING SOMETHING CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN KEEP SOMETHING IN RESERVE FOR EMERGENCIES KILLING IS UNAVOIDABLE BUT NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF KNOWING YOURSELF LETS YOU UNDERSTAND OTHERS KNOWLEDGE SHOULD BE ADVANCED AT ALL COSTS LABOR IS A LIFE-DESTROYING ACTIVITY LACK OF CHARISMA CAN BE FATAL LEISURE TIME IS A GIGANTIC SMOKE SCREEN LISTEN WHEN YOUR BODY TALKS LOOKING BACK IS THE FIRST SIGN OF AGING AND DECAY LOVING ANIMALS IS A SUBSTITUTE ACTIVITY LOW EXPECTATIONS ARE GOOD PROTECTION MANUAL LABOR CAN BE REFRESHING AND WHOLESOME MEN ARE NOT MONOGAMOUS BY NATURE MODERATION KILLS THE SPIRIT MONEY CREATES TASTE MONOMANIA IS A PREREQUISITE OF SUCCESS MORALS ARE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT FIT TO RULE THEMSELVES MOSTLY YOU SHOULD MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS MOTHERS SHOULDN'T MAKE TOO MANY SACRIFICES MUCH WAS DECIDED BEFORE YOU WERE BORN MURDER HAS ITS SEXUAL SIDE MYTH CAN MAKE REALITY MORE INTELLIGIBLE NOISE CAN BE HOSTILE NOTHING UPSETS THE BALANCE OF GOOD AND EVIL OCCASIONALLY PRINCIPLES ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN PEOPLE OFFER VERY LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF OFTEN YOU SHOULD ACT LIKE YOU ARE SEXLESS OLD FRIENDS ARE BETTER LEFT IN THE PAST OPACITY IS AN IRRESISTIBLE CHALLENGE PAIN CAN BE A VERY POSITIVE THING PEOPLE ARE BORING UNLESS THEY ARE EXTREMISTS PEOPLE ARE NUTS IF THEY THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY DO UNLESS THEY ARE INSANE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK WITH THEIR HANDS ARE PARASITES PEOPLE WHO GO CRAZY ARE TOO SENSITIVE PEOPLE WON'T BEHAVE IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE PHYSICAL CULTURE IS SECOND BEST PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE IS ESCAPISM PLAYING IT SAFE CAN CAUSE A LOT OF DAMAGE IN THE LONG RUN POLITICS IS USED FOR PERSONAL GAIN POTENTIAL COUNTS FOR NOTHING UNTIL IT'S REALIZED PRIVATE PROPERTY CREATED CRIME PURSUING PLEASURE FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASURE WILL RUIN YOU PUSH YOURSELF TO THE LIMIT AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE RAISE BOYS AND GIRLS THE SAME WAY RANDOM MATING IS GOOD FOR DEBUNKING SEX MYTHS RECHANNELING DESTRUCTIVE IMPULSES IS A SIGN OF MATURITY RECLUSES ALWAYS GET WEAK REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH IS IMPERATIVE RELATIVITY IS NO BOON TO MANKIND RELIGION CAUSES AS MANY PROBLEMS AS IT SOLVES REMEMBER YOU ALWAYS HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE REPETITION IS THE BEST WAY TO LEARN RESOLUTIONS SERVE TO EASE OUR CONSCIENCE REVOLUTION BEGINS WITH CHANGES IN THE INDIVIDUAL ROMANTIC LOVE WAS INVENTED TO MANIPULATE WOMEN ROUTINE IS A LINK WITH THE PAST ROUTINE SMALL EXCESSES ARE WORSE THAN THEN THE OCCASIONAL DEBAUCH SACRIFICING YOURSELF FOR A BAD CAUSE IS NOT A MORAL ACT SALVATION CAN'T BE BOUGHT AND SOLD SELF-AWARENESS CAN BE CRIPPLING SELF-CONTEMPT CAN DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD SELFISHNESS IS THE MOST BASIC MOTIVATION SELFLESSNESS IS THE HIGHEST ACHIEVEMENT SEPARATISM IS THE WAY TO A NEW BEGINNING SEX DIFFERENCES ARE HERE TO STAY SIN IS A MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL SLIPPING INTO MADNESS IS GOOD FOR THE SAKE OF COMPARISON SLOPPY THINKING GETS WORSE OVER TIME SOLITUDE IS ENRICHING SOMETIMES SCIENCE ADVANCES FASTER THAN IT SHOULD SOMETIMES THINGS SEEM TO HAPPEN OF THEIR OWN ACCORD SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON SELF-IMPROVEMENT IS ANTISOCIAL STARVATION IS NATURE'S WAY STASIS IS A DREAM STATE STERILIZATION IS A WEAPON OF THE RULERS STRONG EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT STEMS FROM BASIC INSECURITY STUPID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BREED SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST APPLIES TO MEN AND ANIMALS SYMBOLS ARE MORE MEANINGFUL THAN THINGS THEMSELVES TAKING A STRONG STAND PUBLICIZES THE OPPOSITE POSITION TALKING IS USED TO HIDE ONE'S INABILITY TO ACT TEASING PEOPLE SEXUALLY CAN HAVE UGLY CONSEQUENCES TECHNOLOGY WILL MAKE OR BREAK US THE CRUELEST DISAPPOINTMENT IS WHEN YOU LET YOURSELF DOWN THE DESIRE TO REPRODUCE IS A DEATH WISH THE FAMILY IS LIVING ON BORROWED TIME THE IDEA OF REVOLUTION IS AN ADOLESCENT FANTASY THE IDEA OF TRANSCENDENCE IS USED TO OBSCURE OPPRESSION THE IDIOSYNCRATIC HAS LOST ITS AUTHORITY THE MOST PROFOUND THINGS ARE INEXPRESSIBLE THE MUNDANE IS TO BE CHERISHED THE NEW IS NOTHING BUT A RESTATEMENT OF THE OLD THE ONLY WAY TO BE PURE IS TO STAY BY YOURSELF THE SUM OF YOUR ACTIONS DETERMINES WHAT YOU ARE THE UNATTAINABLE IS INVARIABLE ATTRACTIVE THE WORLD OPERATES ACCORDING TO DISCOVERABLE LAWS THERE ARE TOO FEW IMMUTABLE TRUTHS TODAY THERE'S NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT YOU SENSE THERE'S NOTHING REDEEMING IN TOIL THINKING TOO MUCH CAN ONLY CAUSE PROBLEMS THREATENING SOMEONE SEXUALLY IS A HORRIBLE ACT TIMIDITY IS LAUGHABLE TO DISAGREE PRESUPPOSES MORAL INTEGRITY TO VOLUNTEER IS REACTIONARY TORTURE IS BARBARIC TRADING A LIFE FOR A LIFE IS FAIR ENOUGH TRUE FREEDOM IS FRIGHTFUL UNIQUE THINGS MUST BE THE MOST VALUABLE UNQUESTIONING LOVE DEMONSTRATES LARGESSE OF SPIRIT USING FORCE TO STOP FORCE IS ABSURD VIOLENCE IS PERMISSIBLE EVEN DESIRABLE OCCASIONALLY WAR IS A PURIFICATION RITE WE MUST MAKE SACRIFICES TO MAINTAIN OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WHEN SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENS PEOPLE WAKE UP WISHING THINGS AWAY IS NOT EFFECTIVE WITH PERSEVERANCE YOU CAN DISCOVER ANY TRUTH WORDS TEND TO BE INADEQUATE WORRYING CAN HELP YOU PREPARE YOU ARE A VICTIM OF THE RULES YOU LIVE BY YOU ARE GUILELESS IN YOUR DREAMS YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTITUTING THE MEANING OF THINGS YOU ARE THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE YOU CAN LIVE ON THROUGH YOUR DESCENDANTS YOU CAN'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE SOMETHING THEY'RE NOT YOU CAN'T FOOL OTHERS IF YOU'RE FOOLING YOURSELF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WHAT UNTIL YOU SUPPORT YOURSELF YOU HAVE TO HURT OTHERS TO BE EXTRAORDINARY YOU MUST BE INTIMATE WITH A TOKEN FEW YOU MUST DISAGREE WITH AUTHORITY FIGURES YOU MUST HAVE ONE GRAND PASSION YOU MUST KNOW WHERE YOU STOP AND THE WORLD BEGINS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND SOMEONE OF YOUR SEX ONLY YOU OWE THE WORLD NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND YOU SHOULD STUDY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE YOUR ACTIONS AE POINTLESS IF NO ONE NOTICES YOUR OLDEST FEARS ARE THE WORST ONES

#jenny holzer #truisms #poetry #art

11 notes · View notes

vincentcheungteam · 3 years

Text

SAMSON AND HIS FAITH

PREFACE TO 2003 EDITION

When people refer to Samson, we often hear Delilah mentioned in the same breath, much like how Bathsheba is often associated with David. Nevertheless, many people are aware that the biblical record of David is not limited to his affair with Bathsheba, and that in the final analysis, he was "a man after [God's] own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14). But the same is not true concerning Samson. In many people's thinking, Samson is inseparably connected to Delilah, and they seem to think that the entirety of his life as recorded in Scripture has to do with his moral weaknesses and sexual lusts. Thus they say that he is the classic case of one who has "charisma without character."

However, that is an incomplete and inaccurate portrayal of his life. The Scripture's own commentary on Samson is that he was a man of faith, one of whom "the world was not worthy" (Hebrews 11:38). Given this biblical perspective, if you read the biblical record about Samson with the presupposition that his life had consisted of only his moral failures and ultimate downfall, then you are bound to miss his significance.

In this book, we will begin not with the usual distorted view, but with the Scripture's own perspective toward Samson – that is, no matter what flaws he had, he had "gained approval" (Hebrews 11:2, NASB) from God through faith. Therefore, instead of reading sins and lusts into all the passages about Samson, we will read them with the intention of learning from his faith. When we read his life's story with this scriptural presupposition, the biblical record concerning him will be better understood, and what the story of his life has to teach us will be more apparent.

1. SAMSON'S FAITH

We will not begin from Judges 13, where the biblical narrative about Samson's life actually starts. Rather, since most people read his story with false presuppositions in mind, we will first correct them by examining the Bible's own commentary on the life of Samson. Having done that, we will be able to study him from the correct perspective.

Hebrews 11:1-2, 6, 32-38 says:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for….

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him….

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated – the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

According to verses 1-2, the men and women listed in Hebrews 11 – including Samson – were commended for their faith, that they had "gained approval" (NASB) from God by their faith.

God does not grant his approval to things for which many people think they should get credit. God does not approve or disapprove of us because of our race, gender, or social standing, nor does he accept us because of our good works. He cares about whether or not we have faith, granted by his sovereign grace. Jesus asks in Luke 18:8, "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Is there true faith in your heart, or is there only unbelief and rebellion?

Then, Hebrews 11:6 says, "without faith it is impossible to please God." Those who approach God must believe that he exists, and that he "rewards those who earnestly seek him." The people listed in Hebrews 11 were imperfect. The list includes great men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. These were not weak believers, but they were people who had committed sins.

Moses sinned by disobeying God in the wilderness. As God says to him in Deuteronomy 32:49-52,

Go up into the Abarim Range to Mount Nebo in Moab, across from Jericho, and view Canaan, the land I am giving the Israelites as their own possession. There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel.

David also sinned. He first committed adultery with Bathsheba. When she became pregnant, David murdered her husband. God sent the prophet Nathan to confront David, saying, "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites" (2 Samuel 12:9).

So these were imperfect people, but they are included here in Hebrews 11. This is because they did not please God by their good works, but by their faith. God was satisfied with them because of their faith, but even this faith came to them by the sovereign will of God, and did not originate from their own decisions, so that there was no room for boasting. As Psalm 130:3-4 says, "If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared." God gave them the gift of faith, and sovereignly forgave them of their sins.

After citing a number of examples on how various characters were justified before God by faith, verse 38 says that "the world was not worthy of them." In all its rebellion and wickedness, the world is unworthy of those who have faith in God. Many people claim to be Christians, but most of them do not regard "disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt" (Hebrews 11:26). Thus their faith is false, and they are in fact non-Christians, and will suffer endless torment in hell. If you really have the faith that God sovereignly gives to his chosen ones, then you will manifest the signs of faith like these people listed in Hebrews 11.

Some people may be surprised to find Samson listed along with the great fathers of the faith such as Abraham and Moses. They may protest, "What about Delilah?" Well, what about her? The story of Samson is not about Delilah. Those who think that his story is mainly about his immorality and lack of self-control are sorely misinformed. Here in Hebrews 11, he is commended for his faith.

Thus when we study the life of Samson, we should not focus all our attention on Delilah, nor should we look for indications of sexual lust where there is none. Rather, we should try to find his faith. What made him so great? What did God cause Samson to believe so strongly that Samson was able to delight the heart of God? We will truly understand the story of Samson as told in the Bible when we look into the nature of his faith.

The story of Samson is not only about his relationship with Delilah. Samson faces two similar situations in Judges 16:4-20, where Delilah appears, and in Judges 14:12-18. In each instance, information is coerced out of Samson through psychological manipulation by a woman – that is, through crying, nagging, and words such as, "You don't really love me." Although sexual issues may have had something to do with it, the direct cause for Samson's downfall was not his sexual lust, but his vulnerability to manipulation by women.

Contrary to the Bible's own perspective in Hebrews 11, not many books and commentaries portray Samson in a positive light. Although his life may warn us about sexual sins, it has more to teach us than that. Most professing Christians nowadays lack Samson's faith, partly because most who claim to be Christians are not true Christians. One of our main concerns should be to discover and imitate his faith.

Make no mistake about it – Samson had his weaknesses, and they ultimately cost him his life. The point is that his problems were not what most people think they were, and that overall, the Scripture acknowledges him as a person of faith.

2. HIS HISTORY

The Book of Judges records a recurring cycle of sin and idolatry in Israel's history. Whenever a godly leader died, the people would plunge themselves far into idolatrous worship. God would then allow them to be conquered by their enemies. After some time, when they began to groan in repentance, God would send them a deliverer to release them from bondage. But the people refused to learn their lesson, and they returned to sin and idolatry after the deliverer died. Thus the whole cycle would begin again. The story of Samson begins at the outset of such a cycle: "Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, so the LORD delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years" (Judges 13:1).

In this chapter, instead of going straight into the story of Samson, we will first study this recurring pattern, since this will give us some background about the circumstances surrounding his birth and his work. In addition, Christians can learn some valuable lessons from this destructive cycle in which the Israelites remained.

So, we will deal with Judges 13 later. For now, we will turn to Judges 2 to see how these sinful cycles started. The Bible says in Judges 2:7-9:

The people served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had seen all the great things the LORD had done for Israel. Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died at the age of a hundred and ten. And they buried him in the land of his inheritance, at Timnath Heres in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.

Joshua was a close follower of Moses, and he became the leader of Israel after the death of his mentor. Joshua led the people well. Verse 7 says, "The people served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had seen all the great things the LORD had done for Israel."

Many miracles happened when Moses led Israel. The nation witnessed the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud, and other spectacular wonders. God also demonstrated his power when Joshua led Israel. During one battle, in response to Joshua's words, God's power was so evident such that even "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day" (Joshua 10:13). The fall of Jericho is another example of the great victories that God granted to Israel under Joshua's leadership.

The Scripture says that while Joshua and the elders of his generation were alive, the people of Israel served God. But "after that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what he had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10). The implication is that the previous generation had failed to teach this new generation about God's mercy and power in their deliverance from Egypt and their conquest of Canaan. However, when God gave his laws to Israel and worked wonders among them, he intended for the record of his words and works to be taught to future generations so that they may also learn to fear and worship him.

When God instituted the Passover, he said,

Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. And when your children ask you, "What does this ceremony mean to you?" then tell them, "It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians." (Exodus 12:24-27)

If the previous generation had faithfully observed the Passover and explained it to the next generation, how was it that the latter "knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel"? The previous generation must have failed to perform their duty.

After parting the river of Jordan to let the people of Israel cross over to Canaan, God commanded them to construct a monument of stones:

…to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, "What do these stones mean?" tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever. (Joshua 4:6-7)

To illustrate the point further, Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 20-25 reads as follows:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates….

In the future, when your son asks you, "What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?" tell him: "We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Before our eyes the LORD sent miraculous signs and wonders – great and terrible – upon Egypt and Pharaoh and his whole household. But he brought us out from there to bring us in and give us the land that he promised on oath to our forefathers. The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness."

God was very explicit when he commanded the people of Israel to obey his laws, and to teach them to future generations. Therefore, the answer to why the next generation "knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel" must rest in that the generation led by Joshua failed to teach their children about God's works and to train them to obey God's laws.

Today's "Christian" parents are not doing any better – they do not teach their children to worship and obey God, to study and affirm Christian doctrines, and to reject and refute all non-Christian beliefs and religions.

Some parents say, "Let the children decide what they want to believe, or what religions they wish to adopt." Now, they tell their children to refuse gifts and rides from strangers, to avoid touching a hot stove, and to stay away from sharp objects. They tell them to look when crossing the streets, to study hard at school, and to choose their friends with care. But when it comes to the most important matter in life they suddenly "let them decide," and avoid giving them strict and thorough admonitions about the truth. Why not "let them decide" on whether or not they will attend school? Why not "let them decide" on whether or not they will use drugs? Why not "let them decide" on whether or not they will steal and murder?

When it comes to religion, these parents let their children select from hundreds of options. They claim to be Christians, so they supposedly believe that there is only one way that leads to life, and that all the non-Christian beliefs and religions inevitably lead all of their adherents to endless conscious torment in hell. But still, these parents think that they should let their children decide by not teaching them biblical doctrines and not raising them according to biblical principles. We expect non-Christian parents to be like this, but even some parents who claim to be Christians believe the same way. Then, they have the audacity to say that they love their children!

If you follow any form of this unbiblical "let them decide" approach, then you have nothing but hate for your children. You have committed a great sin against God, and you are a very wicked person. Scripture commands you to teach your children the Christian faith as truth, and to teach your children that all non-Christian beliefs and religions are false. If you refuse to do this, it may be that you are not a Christian yourself, and that your destiny is endless conscious torment in hell.

Although only God can sovereignly grant faith to those whom he has chosen, it is your duty to teach your children the Christian faith, and to teach them that it is the only true faith. If you are truly convinced that your God is the only true God, that Jesus Christ is the only savior, and that the Bible is the only divine verbal revelation, then should you not at least "train a child in the way he should go" (Proverbs 22:6)? No loving and devout parent would do otherwise.

If you have been neglecting this important and sacred duty, as most parents do, then you must immediately repent of your great wickedness and begin to obey the Bible in your parenting. Tell your children about Christianity, and explain to them why it is the only true and rational system of belief.[1] Take them to church, read them the Bible, and train them in theology and apologetics. The Scripture commands you to constantly be teaching your children the laws of God: "Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates" (Deuteronomy 6:7-9).

In addition, tell your children about the other systems of thoughts that they will encounter at school and from friends, and explain to them why their non-Christian beliefs are all false and wicked. Demonstrate to them how all non-Christian thoughts and religions can be conclusively refuted. Training in theology and apologetics is the most important part of your parenting.

Similar to many people who claim to be Christians in our time, Joshua's generation neglected the spiritual development of their children, and an entire generation grew up that did not know the ways and the works of God: "Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals. They forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They provoked the LORD to anger because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths" (Judges 2:11-13).

This new generation began to follow the "various gods of the peoples around them." They were not taught by their parents to serve the God who brought them out of Egypt, so they were instead influenced by those who were around them, and eventually began to serve their gods. Likewise, if you do not teach and influence your children, other people probably will. There are many people who are eager to tell your children what to do and what to believe.

Because of Israel's unfaithfulness, "In his anger against Israel the LORD handed them over to raiders who plundered them. He sold them to their enemies all around, whom they were no longer able to resist. Whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of the LORD was against them to defeat them, just as he had sworn to them. They were in great distress" (Judges 2:14-15).

This is how each cycle of sin and idolatry occurred. When a strong leader was presiding over the affairs of Israel, the people would serve God. But when the leader died and the people had failed to instruct their children about the things of God, the next generation would grow up without knowledge of the ways and the works of God. Instead, they were influenced to serve false gods by the nations surrounding them. As a result, they "provoked the Lord to anger," and God would hand them over to their enemies.

We see an analogous pattern in our society. "Christian" parents are failing to instill biblical ideas and habits into their children, and as a result, these children are being influenced by unbelievers to adopt unbiblical ideas and habits. Many of these children end up becoming detestable idolaters, worshiping celebrities, money, and false gods, instead of worshipping Jesus Christ. Then comes judgment and captivity, and they become slaves to sin, being entangled in a web of filth and wickedness.

In his sovereign grace and mercy, God did not leave the people of Israel in their pitiful condition: "Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hands of these raiders" (Judges 2:16). Likewise, God has been raising up ministers who are knowledgeable of the Scripture and bold in their speech. They are as deliverers who would lead the people of God out of spiritual blindness and captivity, and back into the true worship of God. Those who listen and respond because of God's sovereign work in their minds will escape this destructive cycle of sin. But many people will refuse to listen, and they will continue in that destructive cycle. Their lives will continue to be meaningless, and their minds full of darkness.

These deliverers whom God sent to Israel were called "judges," and they managed to obtain relief for the people of Israel from their enemies. But after that, the people would return to idolatry again:

They did not listen to their judges, for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly from the way in which their fathers had walked in obeying the commandments of the Lord; they did not do as their fathers. When the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them. But it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways. (Judges 2:17-19)

God was merciful to the people, and sent them strong leaders to rescue them out of captivity and destruction. However, their hearts were never sincerely devoted to God, so that "it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them." This happened generation after generation – when a strong leader passed from the scene, the people would return to idolatry.

Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and said, "Because this nation has violated the covenant that I laid down for their forefathers and has not listened to me, I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the LORD and walk in it as their forefathers did." The LORD had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua. (Judges 2:20-23)

Although God had shown them mercy, the people of Israel continued to sin against God, and so God determined not to completely destroy their enemies. The surrounding nations would become a bothersome reminder to them, and under God's sovereign control they will persecute the people of Israel whenever they fail to rightly worship and obey God. Thus the people of Israel were never able to fully overcome their adversaries in battle. When their apostasy had become great, God even allowed them to be captured by their enemies.

Now, all the words of Scripture were written for our instruction. As Paul explains, "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Corinthians 10:11). The life of Samson contains lessons for us to learn how to rightly worship and obey God, and this is the purpose of the present study.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ [1] See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, and Presuppositional Confrontations.

3. HIS DESTINY

Coming now to Judges 13:1, where the record of Samson's life begins, we read, "Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, so the LORD delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years." Samson's story begins during another cycle of Israel's apostasy and captivity. God would then raise him up to deliver the people.

Judges 13 continues:

A certain man of Zorah, named Manoah, from the clan of the Danites, had a wife who was sterile and remained childless. The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, "You are sterile and childless, but you are going to conceive and have a son. Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean, because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines."

Then the woman went to her husband and told him, "A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn't ask him where he came from, and he didn't tell me his name. But he said to me, 'You will conceive and give birth to a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from birth until the day of his death.'" (v. 2-7)

Samson was to be a Nazirite. As the Holman Bible Dictionary explains:

[A Nazirite is] a member of a class of individuals especially devoted to God. The Hebrew term means consecration, devotion, and separation. Two traditional forms of the Nazirite are found. One was based on a vow by the individual for a specific period; the other was a lifelong devotion following the revelatory experience of a parent which announced the impending birth of a child. The Nazirite's outward signs – the growth of hair, abstention from wine and other alcoholic products, the avoidance of contact with the dead – are illustrative of devotion to God.[2]

Because Samson was to be a Nazirite, his mother was commanded not to drink any wine or to eat any unclean thing. Samson himself was also required to observe the conditions imposed upon the Nazirite, including not cutting his hair.[3] As he explains to Delilah later, he was "a Nazirite set apart to God since birth" (Judges 16:17).

Samson had a destiny, and "the angel of the Lord" came to tell his mother of God's plan for him. His calling was unique – he was called to a specific task at a specific point in history, and God gave him certain unique abilities to fulfill his task. His strength was supernatural – it was available to him through the Holy Spirit, and not because of any unusual strength inherent in his body. To fulfill God's plan in the way that God had foreordained for it to be done, Samson required the superhuman strength demonstrated in his ministry, which implies that God had called him to a humanly impossible task, and it was only by God's supernatural power that Samson was able to fulfill what God had called him to do.

Since the sovereign God predetermines all things, he has a plan for each of his elect. Although his command for all believers to attain knowledge and holiness applies to every Christian, he indeed assigns different tasks to different Christians, and gives them the corresponding resources by which they must complete their tasks.

Parents must have this in mind, so that they may prepare their children to worship and obey God, and to fulfill the specific tasks that God has for them as outlined in Scripture and arranged by divine providence. To do this, parents must be highly knowledgeable in the word of God. The Bible says that it is by renewing our minds that we will be "able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2). When we desire to know God's will for our lives and for our children we must not look first to extra-biblical sources – visions, dreams, prophecies, or impressions. Rather, we must look to the Scripture.

The Bible continues:

Then Manoah prayed to the LORD: "O Lord, I beg you, let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born." God heard Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman while she was out in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. The woman hurried to tell her husband, "He's here! The man who appeared to me the other day!" Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he said, "Are you the one who talked to my wife?" "I am," he said. So Manoah asked him, "When your words are fulfilled, what is to be the rule for the boy's life and work?" The angel of the LORD answered, "Your wife must do all that I have told her. She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her." (Judges 13:8-14)

Manoah prayed and asked God to show him how to bring up Samson, that is, to let him know what was to be "the rule for the boy's life and work." Many parents, even those who claim to be Christians, do not take the time to read the Bible and pray to God for instructions on how to raise their children. They often raise their children as the unbelievers do, and often even teach them the unbelievers' values and priorities. Are these parents real Christians in the first place?

Of course, the negligence of the parents does not imply that their children will fail to come to Christ or to fulfill God's plan, "for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). By God's sovereign grace, his purposes for the elect will stand and succeed. Nevertheless, God commands parents to bring up their children to worship and obey God.

Then, Judges 13:15-22 continues:

Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, "We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you." The angel of the LORD replied, "Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the LORD." (Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.) Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?" He replied, "Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding."

Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the LORD. And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"

The angel may have been the pre-incarnate Son of God. More than a few scholars agree that "the angel of the Lord" refers to the person of Jesus Christ before he took on human form. In addition, this "angel" seemed to have accepted worship, having "ascended in the flame" of the sacrifice. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary explains as follows:

A mysterious messenger of God, sometimes described as the Lord Himself (Gen. 16:10-13; Ex. 3:2-6; 23:20; Judg. 6:11-8), but at other times as one sent by God. The Lord used this messenger to appear to human beings who otherwise would not be able to see Him and live (Ex. 33:20). The Angel of the Lord performed actions associated with God, such as revelation, deliverance, and destruction; but he can be spoken of as distinct from God (2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12). This special relationship is a mystery similar to that between Jesus and God in the New Testament.[4]

People believed that if a person ever saw God, he would die. Thus in verse 22, Manoah exclaimed, "We are doomed to die! We have seen God!" But his wife reasoned, "If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this" (v. 23).

Manoah's wife soon "gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and the Lord blessed him" (v. 24). God performed a miracle in Samson's mother, causing her barren womb to conceive and enabled her to give birth (Judges 13:2-3).

Soon after, "the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol" (v. 25), showing the reader that the Spirit of God would sovereignly demonstrate his power in Samson's life and work. It was the Holy Spirit who enabled Samson to do what God had called him to do. Later, Samson would betray the anointing by violating the conditions imposed upon him by God, and the power of his ministry left him – until he was restored.

When God calls you to perform a certain task, he also empowers you by his Holy Spirit. Any degree of success that we attain comes only because of God's sovereign foreordination and the Spirit's empowerment. God sees to it that no one may boast in his presence. Our dependence should not rest on human credentials and resources such as academic degrees, financial support, or strategic relationships.

No one can accomplish what God has called him to do without the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Even those who produced the furniture of the Old Covenant tabernacle were especially anointed by God's Spirit:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts – to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship. Moreover, I have appointed Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, to help him. Also I have given skill to all the craftsmen to make everything I have commanded you." (Exodus 31:1-6)

God has called us to "take captive every thought" (2 Corinthians 10:5). As Paul writes, "Who is equal to such a task?" (2 Corinthians 2:16), but then he adds, "but our competence comes from God" (3:5). Thus although we are powerless in ourselves (John 15:5), by the power of the Holy Spirit mere human beings like us can preach and write words that God will use as the means by which he will sovereignly enlighten and transform others.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ [2] Holman Bible Dictionary; Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991; p. 1011. [3] See Numbers 6:1-22 for the detailed instructions God gave to Moses about the Nazirite. Whereas one usually volunteered to be a Nazirite, God sovereignly imposed the vow upon Samson before he was born. [4] Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986; "Angel of the Lord."

4. HIS STRENGTH

By Judges 14, Samson had grown to an age suitable for marriage, and he told his parents that he would like to marry a Philistine woman:

Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife." His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me." (His parents did not know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.) (Judges 14:1-4)

This passage reflects God's absolute and exhaustive sovereignty – his total control over people and circumstances.

Israel was under the control of the Philistines, and God had chosen and enabled Samson to attack the Philistines and to deliver the Israelites. As the angel said, he would "begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines" (Judges 13:5). When Samson wanted to marry a Philistine woman, his parents were surprised and dismayed. But verse 4 says, "His parents did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines."

God had constructed in Samson a destructive weapon against Israel's enemy, and this was his way of deploying it. Samson's desire to marry a Philistine woman was from God. He was sovereign not only deciding the purpose of Samson's life, but also in how he was to accomplish this purpose. By choosing a Philistine woman to be his wife, there would arise an occasion, or opportunity, to "confront the Philistines." The marriage would create an opportunity and a reason for Samson to fight against Israel's enemies.

Nevertheless, since it was against God's preceptive will to marry an unbeliever, it was a sin for Samson to marry this Philistine woman. God was sovereign over Samson, and could cause him to perform righteousness or wickedness according to his own divine will. "Free will" is such a popular and desirable concept for many Christians that they are blind to the Bible's absolute rejection of free will. Rather, Scripture teaches that God controls everything, including all human decisions.

In this case, God's decretive will caused Samson to commit this sin of marrying an unbeliever, having decided that Samson would accomplish the divine purpose in such a manner. Nevertheless, it was still a sin, and Samson was still responsible for his action, since responsibility is based on whether God holds someone accountable, and not on whether the person was able to do otherwise.

One commentator writes, "While Samson's desire was sinful, God sovereignly used it for his own purposes to bring judgment on the Philistines. Although God's providence incorporates evil and moral ambiguities, it does not justify wrongdoing."[5] God's decree for a person to sin does not justify his sin because God himself will count or judge that sin as wicked. However, this does not mean that God is unjust, since it is God himself who decides what is just and what is unjust, and he says that he is always just. Therefore, it is just for God to judge a person for his sins, even though this person committed those sins only because God had decreed that he would do so.

Of course, as a parent you should never allow your child to do anything that is against God's preceptive will – that is, his commands as revealed by Scripture. In this case, Samson's parents resisted, but eventually capitulated to his demand. Children may often demand something that goes against God's precepts, and it is up to the parents to insist on obedience to Scripture.

But sometimes the reverse may be true. The child may find himself having to insist on obeying God contrary to the wishes and demands of his parents. This may be especially true when one is called by God to the ministry. Today's parents, even those who claim to be Christians, are often disappointed when God chooses their child to be a preacher. As Jesus states, "No prophet is accepted in his hometown" (Luke 4:24). This demonstrates how far their minds have wandered from God.

Rather than being disappointed or even horrified, parents ought to be most thankful to God that he has chosen their child to be a minister – to hold the highest office available to a man. A lack of gratitude toward God for calling the child is not only tragic for the parent and child relationship, but it is sinful and wicked, seeing that they despise the gift and calling of God. They would prefer that their child become a slave to money rather than a slave to Jesus Christ. They may claim to be Christians, but it is likely that their faith is not genuine and that they have never been regenerated in the first place.

Those who are called to the ministry must not be too eager for the approval of relatives and friends, lest they compromise God's commission toward them. Jesus had predicted that his coming would destroy many human relationships: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man's enemies will be the members of his own household'" (Matthew 10:34-36).

But Jesus also promised to reward those who would remain loyal to him and prefer him in all things regardless of family opposition: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life" (Matthew 19:29). He also warns, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:37-39).

Some people claim that true religion would never divide relatives or friends, and if your faith damages your relationship with relatives and friends, then your faith must be false or distorted. However, Scripture teaches that true faith will often divide relatives and friends, probably depending on whether they share your faith. Of course, if accurately affirming the Christian faith divides you from your relatives and friends who do not share this faith, and if you are not bringing this division about by any unbiblical aggravation, then such division is their fault and not yours. Since Christianity is the only true religion, they ought to be affirming the same things that you now affirm.

The family of Jesus had not always understood or supported him. For example, we read the following in Luke 2:42-50:

When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Other passages imply that his family did not endorse his work. Matthew 12:46-50 is one example:

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Matthew Henry writes as follows:

Christ was interrupted in his preaching by his mother and his brethren…perhaps it was only designed to oblige him to break off…His mother and brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him, when they should have been standing within, desiring to hear him…Frequently those who are nearest to the means of knowledge and grace, are most negligent. Familiarity and easiness of access breed some degree of contempt…They not only would not hear him themselves, but they interrupted others that heard him gladly. The devil was a sworn enemy to our Saviour's preaching. He had sought to baffle his discourse by the unreasonable cavils of the scribes and Pharisees, and when he could not gain his point that way, he endeavoured to break it off by the unseasonable visits of relations…We often meet with hindrances and obstructions in our work, by our friends that are about us, and are taken off by civil respects from our spiritual concerns.[6]

John 7:3-5 makes explicit the resistance of Jesus' brothers toward his ministry: "Jesus' brothers said to him, 'You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his own brothers did not believe in him." Some of Jesus' brothers believed on him later, but at first they did not.

Your commitment toward Christ must be such that there would not be any struggle or anguish to put him first if your loyalty to him conflicts with your loyalty to family and friends. Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). If you cannot do this, you are not even a Christian, and you are still unconverted.

Then, the Bible continues in Judges 14:5-6:

Samson went down to Timnah together with his father and mother. As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.

Back in Judges 13:25, we came across the words, "the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him," but the verse does not tell us what the Spirit would do through him. Thus the above passage shows for the first time what special gift God gave to Samson, and in what special way the Spirit would manifest through him. "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:4) – the Spirit illuminated Joseph about dreams, caused Samuel to prophesy, and enabled David to rule as king. By the same Spirit, God gave to Samson the gift of supernatural strength.

God called Samson to deliver Israel from the Philistines, but he did not give Samson a gift of military leadership. Indeed, Samson had no army and he did not need one. God could have given Samson the wisdom and ability of a military leader, as he did to Joshua and Gideon, who led the people of Israel to fight against their enemies, at times against tremendous odds, and were victorious by the power of God. But God had given Samson the strength of an entire army.

After killing the lion, Samson "told neither his father nor his mother what he had done" (Judges 14:6). Most people would tell everyone they know if they were to accomplish such a feat of strength, but Samson did not tell his parents. It appears that Samson did not think that killing a lion with his bare hands was some great feat to boast about. This was not because he was especially humble, but probably because something like this was not too unusual or surprising to him. When we see his reactions to his future feats of strength, we will see that this inference is probably correct.

Judges 14:7-9 continues to say:

Then he went down and talked with the woman, and he liked her. Some time later, when he went back to marry her, he turned aside to look at the lion's carcass. In it was a swarm of bees and some honey, which he scooped out with his hands and ate as he went along. When he rejoined his parents, he gave them some, and they too ate it. But he did not tell them that he had taken the honey from the lion's carcass.

Samson went to the Philistine woman and talked with her. As he was returning to her after a time to marry her, he remembered the lion's carcass and so went to look. There he found a swarm of bees and some honey.

No sooner had we witnessed the divine gift in Samson do we see him betraying it. Samson was a Nazirite and was not supposed to touch the dead: "Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head" (Numbers 6:6-7). But Samson touched the lion carcass and even ate from its corpse.

The fact that Samson was able to tear a lion apart with his bare hands, and that he did not think it was a big deal, implies that he had great faith in God's power. However, this passage shows that he did not take his Nazirite vow seriously enough. Although he appeared to have faith in the Lord, his faith was severely marred because he lacked the fear of the Lord. One who does not fear the Lord can do some foolish things. Since "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10), all who do not fear him have not even started to become wise. This lack of godly fear ultimately led to Samson's downfall. His greatest problem was not Delilah.

Jesus said, "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him" (Luke 12:4-5). Fearing God was what Samson failed to do. Perhaps his view of God was distorted so that he had some confidence in God's power but failed to recognize God's holiness, and the seriousness of his Nazirite commitment. He demonstrated no fear that he might have done something to offend God. This attitude would prove to be fatal, but not before God changed him and accomplished his sovereign decree through him.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ [5] Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible; Zondervan, 2003; p. 369. See also Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology. [6] Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991; p. 1676.

5. HIS WEAKNESS

One of Samson's character flaws was that he lacked the fear of God, and this was the ultimate cause of his downfall. This chapter brings us to another of his character flaws that turned out to be the immediate cause of his downfall.

We will begin by reading from Judges 14:10-14:

Now his father went down to see the woman. And Samson made a feast there, as was customary for bridegrooms. When he appeared, he was given thirty companions. "Let me tell you a riddle," Samson said to them. "If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast, I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes. If you can't tell me the answer, you must give me thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes." "Tell us your riddle," they said. "Let's hear it." He replied, "Out of the eater, something to eat; out of the strong, something sweet." For three days they could not give the answer.

The passage refers to Samson's wedding. We noted earlier that although Samson sinned by marrying a Philistine woman, God had sovereignly decreed Samson to commit such a sin so that Samson would gain the opportunity and reason to attack the Philistines.

Verses 10 and 11 say, "And Samson made a feast there, as was customary for bridegrooms. When he appeared, he was given thirty companions." According to the custom of that time, Samson gave a wedding feast, and while the bridegroom had "companions," the bride had "virgins" with her.

During the feast, Samson challenged the Philistines to solve a riddle within seven days. Orientals were fond of riddles as a form of entertainment, especially on such occasions. Here the loser was to give the winner "thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes." The "linen garments" were worn next to the body, often by people of rank and wealth, and the "clothes" refers to outer woolen clothing. Since these were expensive items, there was much at stake.

The Philistines still had not come up with the answer by the third day, and so they threatened Samson's wife:

For three days they could not give the answer. On the fourth day, they said to Samson's wife, "Coax your husband into explaining the riddle for us, or we will burn you and your father's household to death. Did you invite us here to rob us?" Then Samson's wife threw herself on him, sobbing, "You hate me! You don't really love me. You've given my people a riddle, but you haven't told me the answer." "I haven't even explained it to my father or mother," he replied, "so why should I explain it to you?" She cried the whole seven days of the feast. So on the seventh day he finally told her, because she continued to press him. She in turn explained the riddle to her people. Before sunset on the seventh day the men of the town said to him, "What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?" Samson said to them, "If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have solved my riddle." (Judges 14:14-18)

The riddle was really about the lion Samson killed and the honey he later found in its carcass (Judges 14:5-9). No one really knew the answer to it except Samson – he had not even told his parents what happened on the road to Timnah, and when his wife asked him for the answer, he said, "I haven't even explained it to my father and mother, so why should I explain it to you?" It was important for the Philistines to solve the riddle, because both money and pride were at stake. They were not about to be outwitted by an Israelite! So in verse 15, they threatened Samson's wife to get the answer from her husband.

Thus Samson's wife pressed her husband for the answer to the riddle and would not relent: Then Samson's wife threw herself on him, sobbing, "You hate me! You don't really love me. You've given my people a riddle, but you haven't told me the answer." "I haven't even explained it to my father or mother," he replied, "so why should I explain it to you?" She cried the whole seven days of the feast. So on the seventh day he finally told her, because she continued to press him. She in turn explained the riddle to her people. (Judges 14:16-17)

This brings us to Samson's other major weakness. We are not referring to sexual lust, since even if one can show that lust was one of his problems, it was never the immediate cause of his downfall. Rather, we are referring to his vulnerability to manipulative women.

Every unregenerate person has the inclination to manipulate others for selfish purposes. This evil tendency comes naturally to all non-Christians and should not surprise us. It is only by God's sovereign work of regeneration and sanctification in us that it may be changed. It does not matter if you claim to be a Christian, or if your lips call Jesus as "Lord" – if your basic motivation is self-preservation, then you are not a Christian, and you have never been a Christian. You may call him "Lord," but you do not believe it, and you have never meant it:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple….In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26-27, 33)

In this case, we are referring to psychological manipulation coming from a woman. She "cried the whole seven days of the feast" (v. 17), and said to Samson such things as, "You hate me! You don't really love me. You've given my people a riddle, but you haven't told me the answer" (v. 16). This kind of manipulation is demonic. Christian women should never try to manipulate men like this, and Christian men should become immune to such manipulation, but rather disallow it altogether.

Of course, although psychological manipulation is sinful, not every type of control is wrong. God places people in positions of authority to exercise legitimate control over others according to his purposes. For example, he has instituted positions of authority in the family, the government, and the church:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13:1)

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

Although human beings often abuse what God has ordained, this does not negate the fact that he has placed certain people in positions of authority.

Samson's wife was trying to get the answer out of Samson by psychological pressure and manipulation. His specific weakness in this instance was not sexual, but it was his failure to endure or confront manipulation by a woman. It is true that his illegitimate desire for and sinful marriage to this woman placed him in this situation, but he finally gave her the answer to the riddle not because of any sexual urges he had, but it was only because he could no longer endure her constant nagging: "So on the seventh day he finally told her, because she continued to press him" (v. 17).

It seems popular to think that Samson got himself into all his problems because of his allegedly insatiable sexual appetite. However, his weakness in this case was plainly not sexual but psychological. He could not be firm with his wife and tell her to be silent. He could not maintain a decision he had made against a woman's prolonged nagging. Later, Samson would compromise his Nazirite vow for the same reason.

Do you try to get your way with your husband by nagging him? Stop it! It is an evil thing to do, especially if you are badgering him to do something against his biblical agenda for the family, or a biblically permissible decision that he has already made. If you are in the habit of badgering your husband or arguing with him, then you are an annoying and wicked woman:

A foolish son is his father's ruin, and a quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping. (Proverbs 19:13)

Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife. (Proverbs 21:9)

Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. (Proverbs 25:24)

A quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping on a rainy day; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand. (Proverbs 27:15-16)

Even before Samson surrendered to his wife's manipulation, she had already betrayed her husband by submitting to external threats. Although a woman may badger her husband about various things, one common theme is that the woman may want her husband to conform or measure up to some worldly and non-Christian standard. A wicked woman may become dissatisfied and ashamed when God calls her husband to do something that is not respectable or important according to the world. Instead of placing her trust in God and her husband's spiritual gifts she may attempt to influence him so that he may conform to the worldly standard of what is respectable or important. Instead of taking Samson's side and trusting in him, Samson's wife surrendered to the Philistines' demand so that she manipulated and betrayed her husband. But what she compromised to keep, she later lost anyway.

If your husband has been called to the ministry, you must not allow the values and standards of this world to control your thinking, so that you become of your husband's calling. The world may despise ministers of the gospel, and think that they are unimportant and irrelevant, if not altogether harmful to society. There is no greater calling for a human being than the calling to oversee the flock of God. Instead of pressuring your husband to conform to worldly standard, you should instead defend his calling and encourage him to pursue it with diligence and passion. Do not allow yourself to be the biggest hindrance in his determination to obey God.

On the other hand, if your husband has been called to a profession that even the world deems respectable, do not consider yourself fortunate, but rather be humbled by the fact that God has chosen to withhold the most honorable profession from your husband, and that he has not entrusted him with the most sacred task available to man. Likewise, the husband must never succumb to pressure from relatives and friends to compromise his calling. Jesus said, "No one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life" (Luke 18:29-30).

Samson had lost the challenge, and therefore he owed the Philistines "thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes." Judges 14:18-20 tells us how he managed to pay the debt:

Before sunset on the seventh day the men of the town said to him, "What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?" Samson said to them, "If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have solved my riddle." Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house. And Samson's wife was given to the friend who had attended him at his wedding.

The Philistines did not play fair, since they threatened Samson's wife to get the answer to the riddle. Now, God "was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines" (Judges 14:4), and perhaps in revenge for the way the Philistines solved his riddle, Samson went about thirty miles away from where he was, through the territory of the Philistines to a place called Ashkelon. There, Samson "struck down thirty of their men stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle." "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power" to pay the Philistines by robbing some of their own people!

God had called Samson to be a killing machine against the Philistines. As we examine his life, we will see that he slaughtered the Philistines over what appeared to be personal issues. In reality, God was arranging situations in which he would unleash Samson to bring judgment and destruction against the Philistines.

6. HIS VICTORIES

Samson had lost the challenge of the riddle, and after paying his debt to the Philistines (by robbing other Philistines), Judges 14:19 says, "Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house."

After some time, Samson desired to be reconciled with his wife, and so he went to her:

Later on, at the time of wheat harvest, Samson took a young goat and went to visit his wife. He said, "I'm going to my wife's room." But her father would not let him go in. "I was so sure you thoroughly hated her," he said, "that I gave her to your friend. Isn't her younger sister more attractive? Take her instead." Samson said to them, "This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them." So he went out and caught three hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs. He then fastened a torch to every pair of tails, lit the torches and let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines. He burned up the shocks and standing grain, together with the vineyards and olive groves. (Judges 15:1-5)

Samson was "burning with anger" at how the Philistines were able to solve the riddle and how his wife had betrayed him by giving them the answer. When his anger subsided and he wanted to be reconciled with her, and so he "took a young goat and went to visit his wife." But when he arrived, "her father would not let him go in," but explained, "I was so sure you thoroughly hated her that I gave her to your friend."

The father thought that Samson must have "thoroughly hated her" because of her betrayal. The word translated "hated" here may have been a technical word when used in the context of marriage, and implies the intention to divorce:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

The word translated "dislikes" here in verse 3 by the NIV is the same word translated "hated" in Judges 15:2, and it is correctly translated as such in the KJV. Thus the word "hated" in Judges 15:2 may suggest the idea of divorce, so that Samson's father-in-law may have meant, "I thought you must have divorced her (or wanted to divorce her) after what she did to you."

Samson responded, "This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them" (v. 3), and he exacted his revenge by burning down the Philistines' crops. The attack was again the result of a personal issue between Samson and the Philistines, but God was fulfilling his plans through all of this. God had apparently decided to have Samson fulfill his calling in this manner. He created Samson to be a killing machine, and he unleashed Samson against the Philistines by generating personal conflicts between them. Recall that the sinful marriage itself was initiated by God to create "an occasion to confront the Philistines" (Judges 14:4).

God is sovereign to do whatever he wants, and to use whatever means he wants to do it. He arranged Samson's circumstances and his reactions so that even the personal details of his life served to fulfill God's plans. Likewise, God arranges our circumstances and our thoughts so that even the personal details of our lives serve to fulfill his plans. However, God is often pleased to have us fulfill his plans through our conscious involvement, but nevertheless a consciousness that is directed by God himself: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Proverbs 21:1).

Samson burned down the Philistines' crops by tying three hundred foxes together by their tails, fastened torches to them, and "let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines." This caused much damage. When the Philistines discovered that it was Samson who attacked them, and that he did it because his wife was given to another, they "went up and burned her and her father to death" (v. 6).

The Philistines had threatened Samson's wife that they would burn her to death if she had not manipulated the answer to the riddle out of her husband. Instead of being faithful and trusting to her husband, the woman betrayed Samson. But eventually she lost what she compromised to keep, so that she and her father were burned to death. If she had sided with her husband, he could have easily protected her against the Philistines.

Christians should never compromise biblical precepts to save themselves, and what you compromise to protect, you are likely to lose anyway. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matthew 16:24-25).

If you desire to have approval of God, but you are desperately seeking approval from your relatives, friends, and unbelievers, then it is likely that you will lose both. If you compromise to gain the approval of unbelievers, then your life no longer pleases God, because "Anyone who choose to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

At the same time, as a Christian, you will also fail to gain the world's respect, since "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" (John 15:19). The world will never truly love a Christian, and one who compromises God's approval to gain worldly approval will soon lose both. As long as he remains this way, he will live in misery. Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other" (Matthew 6:24), and Paul reasoned, "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs – he wants to please his commanding officer" (2 Timothy 2:4).

God's power is more than sufficient to protect us from the world's intimidation, so that we have no reason and no need to compromise. Some people compromise the message of the gospel to attract sinners, or to make themselves more acceptable to the world. But if we do that, do we still get to keep what we are seeking to preserve? No, we would have lost it already. We must come to the place where we can sincerely say with Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).

We do this not through an irrational commitment or "a leap of faith"; rather, by rigorous theological studies and by the assurance of the Spirit, we will realize that the Christian faith is the only true system of belief, and that it is not only rationally superior to all others, but that it is in fact the only possible religion and worldview. In an age when moral and intellectual cowardice and indecision are being disguised as "tolerance," even some who claim to be Christians abandon the uniqueness of our matchless gospel, as if God will be displeased with us for having too much confidence in the infallibility of Scripture and the atonement of Christ! Scripture makes it clear that those who affirm or preach another gospel are not Christians at all, and they will suffer endless conscious torment in hell.

Soon after Samson attacked the Philistines for the second time, he was again provoked against them. When Samson found out what the Philistines did to his wife and father-in- law, he said, "Since you've acted like this, I won't stop until I get my revenge on you." Therefore, "He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them. Then he went down and stayed in a cave in the rock of Etam" (Judges 15:8). This was the third attack against the Philistines.

The Bible then quickly leads us to Samson's fourth attack against the Philistines:

The Philistines went up and camped in Judah, spreading out near Lehi. The men of Judah asked, "Why have you come to fight us?" "We have come to take Samson prisoner," they answered, "to do to him as he did to us."

Then three thousand men from Judah went down to the cave in the rock of Etam and said to Samson, "Don't you realize that the Philistines are rulers over us? What have you done to us?" He answered, "I merely did to them what they did to me." They said to him, "We've come to tie you up and hand you over to the Philistines." Samson said, "Swear to me that you won't kill me yourselves." "Agreed," they answered. "We will only tie you up and hand you over to them. We will not kill you."

So they bound him with two new ropes and led him up from the rock. As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. Then Samson said, "With a donkey's jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With a donkey's jawbone I have killed a thousand men." When he finished speaking, he threw away the jawbone; and the place was called Ramath Lehi. (Judges 15:9-17)

After he "slaughtered many" Philistines, Samson "stayed in a cave in the rock of Etam." The Philistines went up to Judah and demanded that Samson be handed over to them. So the men of Judah came to Samson and said, "Don't you realize that the Philistines are rulers over us? What have you done to us?" In other words, they were saying, "What have you gotten us into? Don't you realize that the Philistines had conquered us, and our nation is currently under their rule? Why do you seek trouble with them?" And they told Samson that they were going to tie him up and surrender him to the Philistines.

Most crowds will yield to the greatest pressure without consideration of God's glory or his precepts. These men of Judah could have trusted in God's power in Samson's life, and recommended a full-scale insurrection, which would have also proved that they were cured from the sin and unbelief that resulted in their subjugation under the Philistines in the first place.

Samson was God's chosen deliverer for Israel. Thus to a great measure, their faith in his ability reflected their attitude toward God. If so, what can we infer from the fact that they abandoned Samson? They could have said, "Samson, we recognize that God has given you supernatural strength, and that he has called you to deliver Israel from the Philistines. We are grateful for God's provision and we have faith in his power, and therefore we also have confidence in you. Now, why don't we take this opportunity to declare war against the Philistine and be rid of them? Let us take this nation back for the glory of God!"

That is what they should have said, but instead, they complained against God's chosen one and said, "What have you gotten us into? Don't you realize that the Philistines are our rulers? We have come to surrender you to them so that they will leave us alone." They have decided to surrender to their enemies the man of God – their only chance for deliverance at that time.

Christian leaders should take a lesson from this. Most people cannot be trusted under pressure. This is true even concerning those who claim to be Christians. Of course, those who would betray God's chosen leaders are probably false converts in the first place. In any case, you would like to think that those who claim to be Christians would remain faithful to God and to you, but most of them are not nearly as committed as they present themselves to be. Most crowds are fickle and easily intimidated by pressure. In fact, most professing Christians are not willing even to sacrifice part of their income for God's kingdom, let alone for you. But is it really that bad? Well, the truth is that you might be like this also. You may make bold claims about your commitment and resolve, but when the pressure comes, you are probably one of those who turn and run.

When Jesus was about to be arrested, he said to his disciples, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered'" (Matthew 26:31). But Peter protested, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will" (v. 33). Then, Jesus predicted, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times," and it happened just like he said. The other disciples also misjudged their own commitment to Christ: "But Peter declared, 'Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.' And all the other disciples said the same" (v. 35). But later, "all the disciples deserted him and fled" (Matthew 26:56).

Since what appears to be faith can be false, and since it is possible to misjudge our commitment, a faith that has been tested is priceless. As Job said, "When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold" (Job 23:10), and Peter wrote, "In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith – of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire – may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed" (1 Peter 1:6-7). True faith is rare, but false converts abound. Even Jesus did not place his trust on his disciples, especially untested ones: "Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man" (John 2:23- 25).

Christian leaders who base their confidence in the number and the loyalty of their supporters are deceived. They do not really have the support that they think they have. Those who place their trust in the crowds may be disappointed when the group faces pressure, or when the organization suffers persecution. Of course, it is possible that some people will remain faithful. The point is that not all who say that they will remain faithful will in fact remain faithful. Ultimately, one can only trust in God, since only he is pure in intention and unlimited in ability: "This is what the LORD says: 'Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD'" (Jeremiah 17:5).

This is not to say that no professing Christian will remain faithful to God and to Christian leaders under pressure, but it remains that not all professing Christians are genuine Christians, and as people who have never undergone spiritual regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit, they can be extremely fickle. On the other hand, a mind regenerated by the Spirit and renewed by the Scripture is also one that is being transformed into the likeness of Christ, enabling one to be bold to stand for the truth in the midst of pressure and intimidation. Scripture teaches that you should never overestimate yourself, and that it is right to test yourself and examine your commitment. Employ the means that God has granted you to grow in faith, so that when tests and trials come, you will be ready for them.

Samson was aware of the people's weakness, but he had enough confidence in God's power working through him that he did not require their assistance. He only asked that they would not try to kill him themselves, but just hand him over to the Philistines:

They said to him, "We've come to tie you up and hand you over to the Philistines." Samson said, "Swear to me that you won't kill me yourselves." "Agreed," they answered. "We will only tie you up and hand you over to them. We will not kill you." So they bound him with two new ropes and led him up from the rock. (Judges 15:12- 13)

There has been much emphasis on "team work" in recent years, and this emphasis has influenced the thinking of many Christians, generating much hostility against the so-called "lone ranger" mentality. However, it really depends on the quality of the team, so that a greater number of people does not always translate into greater success. The effectiveness of any team has much to do with the competence and character of the team members, so that one "Samson" is better than an army of fools.

Now, it is true that God generally desires Christians to work together, and that each person has something meaningful to contribute: "As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you!' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you!' On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable" (1 Corinthians 12:20-22).

Nevertheless, it is unbiblical to say that one person is always insufficient. An insistence on "team work" without exception comes more from secular social and business theory than from valid biblical exegesis, and shows little confidence in God's sovereignty and the Spirit's power. David said, "You, O LORD, keep my lamp burning; my God turns my darkness into light. With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall" (Psalm 18:28-29). In another place, he wrote:

O LORD, how many are my foes! How many rise up against me! Many are saying of me, "God will not deliver him." But you are a shield around me, O LORD; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head. To the LORD I cry aloud, and he answers me from his holy hill. I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the LORD sustains me. I will not fear the tens of thousands drawn up against me on every side. Arise, O LORD! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. From the LORD comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people. (Psalm 3:1-8)

Although Jeremiah experienced much inner turmoil during his ministry, God had called him to face the rebellious nation alone, and God enabled him to fulfill his mission: "When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's delight, for I bear your name, O LORD God Almighty. I never sat in the company of revelers, never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation" (Jeremiah 15:16-17).

We should reject every secular theory that undermines the believer's individual potential in Christ, so that we may imitate the faith of Paul, who wrote:

At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (2 Timothy 4:16-18)

Although everyone left him, it was sufficient that God alone stood by him and strengthened him. He believed that God would deliver him "from every evil attack," and would bring him "safely to his heavenly kingdom."

Can we say with the apostle Paul, "I can do everything through him who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:13)? Or, do we say, "We can do all things only through team ministry?" It is better to have a small team made up of spiritual giants rather than to have a large group of spiritual cowards who are psychologically dependent on one another, and where no one individual is truly strong. Otherwise, one is probably better off working by himself.

Samson was depending on God's power, and anything else could not have saved him. Many preachers say that this was precisely his problem – Samson trusted in God and not in people! They say that Samson would have been better off if he had worked with other people. But God himself called Samson to work alone. Besides, those people whom he was supposed to work with were the very ones who had surrendered him to the Philistines. Some falsely infer from Samson's story that if you work alone and trust only in God, then you are going to fail because you are not working with other people. Rather, a more proper inference would be that if you work with people, then you better trust in God to protect you from those people. The point is not that "team ministry" is wrong, since some variations of the concept are biblical, but the point here is that many people make false inferences from the life of Samson to support their ideas on "team ministry."

Samson's willingness to face an army of Philistines by himself reflected his faith in the power of God, although his attitude toward God was far from perfect, as we will see below. Nevertheless, to the extent that he did trust in God's power, we must imitate his faith, and learn to trust in God's power at work in our ministries: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me" (Colossians 1:28-29).

Then, as the men of Judah handed Samson over to the Philistines, the power of God came upon Samson:

As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. (Judges 15:14-15)

Samson killed a thousand Philistines by himself, but earlier, three thousand men from Judah went to Samson just to surrender him to their enemies (Judges 15:11). It is better to have the cooperation of one "Samson," than three thousand "men of Judah" who would betray the man of God at the first sign of trouble.

After Samson "struck down a thousand men," he said, "With a donkey's jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With a donkey's jawbone I have killed a thousand men." In Hebrew, this is a rhymed couplet with a play on words. The NIV has translated it perhaps as fittingly as possible: "With a donkey's jawbone I have made donkeys of them"! Samson's confidence was such that he could make light of situations even like this one.

But then we see what may be another example of his lack of godly fear.

When he finished speaking, he threw away the jawbone; and the place was called Ramath Lehi. Because he was very thirsty, he cried out to the LORD, "You have given your servant this great victory. Must I now die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?" Then God opened up the hollow place in Lehi, and water came out of it. When Samson drank, his strength returned and he revived. So the spring was called En Hakkore, and it is still there in Lehi. (Judges 15:17-19)

He prayed, "You have given your servant this great victory. Must I now die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?" Although he had great confidence in God's power, he failed to address God with reverence. This made him spiritually careless and foolish. He took for granted God's deliverance, so that rather than giving thanks, he demanded God to meet another need. But Paul told us to pray "with thanksgiving" (Philippians 4:6).

7. HIS DOWNFALL

The premise of this book admits that Samson had problems with his character, but the problems that directly led him into trouble were not sexual, but spiritual and psychological. As a Nazirite, although he was supposed to exhibit a high level of devotion to God and to follow certain specific rules, Samson never lived an especially godly life. For example, besides marrying an unbeliever, he had violated his Nazirite vow by touching a lion's carcass and eating from it. Scripture seems to show him as one who had confidence in God's power, but who had very little godly fear.

At the beginning of Judges 16, we do see Samson going to a prostitute:

One day Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute. He went in to spend the night with her. The people of Gaza were told, "Samson is here!" So they surrounded the place and lay in wait for him all night at the city gate. They made no move during the night, saying, "At dawn we'll kill him." But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night. Then he got up and took hold of the doors of the city gate, together with the two posts, and tore them loose, bar and all. He lifted them to his shoulders and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron. (v. 1-3)

Base on this passage, you should not think that Samson's main problem was sexual after all, since although most people who go to prostitutes may do so to satisfy their sexual lusts, that is often not the sole reason they go. Many sexually promiscuous men are that way because they have spiritual and psychological issues besides sexual ones, such as loneliness and depression.

We have no reason to assume that all the women Samson had been with were only to satisfy him sexually instead of psychologically also. For example, Samson wanted to marry the Philistine woman at Timnah because "he liked her" (Judges 14:7), so that his interests were not only sexual, but he was fond of the woman as a person. Further, if his interests were indeed only of the flesh, then why did he tolerate all the psychological pressure from the woman? Surely, there were attractive women elsewhere.

Even his relationship with Delilah was not only sexual, since the Bible says that he "fell in love" (Judges 16:4) with her. The popular portrayal of this relationship as one of intense seduction and uncontrollable lust cannot be substantiated by the actual biblical account. Lust was likely a factor, but to make it the exclusive factor in that relationship, or even to use it as the main factor to explain the whole of Samson's life, would be an irresponsible distortion of the biblical text.

We must also remember what Samson had been through. He married the woman he loved, but she betrayed him even before the wedding feast was over. When his anger subsided and went to seek reconciliation, he discovered that she had been given away to someone else. Then, after seeking revenge on the Philistines, they burned her and her family to death. After exacting revenge on them again, his own countrymen surrendered him to the Philistines. His parents did not understand him, his wife betrayed him, his own countrymen failed him, and the entire nation of the Philistines was after him.

Men of lesser character may have already killed themselves by this point, let alone going to a prostitute for comfort. This is not to excuse Samson's sins, but to show that many popular presentations of his life tend to be unfair and inaccurate because they do not take into account all the information about him. Of course it was sinful for Samson to have gone to a prostitute, but I am inclined to believe that he was seeking company besides sexual gratification.

When the people of Gaza found out that Samson was there, they "surrounded the place and lay in wait for him all night at the city gate," and planned to kill him. However, Samson "got up and took hold of the doors of the city gate, together with the two posts…and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron." If the "hill that faces Hebron" (NIV) means the top of a hill from which one could see Hebron, then the distance between the gate of Gaza to that location was about one mile. However, if the phrase means a hill that was within Hebron (NASB: "the mountain which is opposite Hebron"), then the distance over which Samson had carried the gate becomes twenty to thirty-four miles. Either way, it was a long distance to have carried an entire city gate. This reminds us of the physical strength that God gave to Samson.

It is not until now that Delilah appeared:

Some time later, he fell in love with a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah. The rulers of the Philistines went to her and said, "See if you can lure him into showing you the secret of his great strength and how we can overpower him so we may tie him up and subdue him. Each one of us will give you eleven hundred shekels of silver." (Judges 16:4-5)

Delilah is first mentioned here in the Bible. We have already gone through Judges 13, 14, and 15, but not until now do we see Delilah mentioned, and we have already arrived at the final chapter in the Bible on Samson's life. As asserted earlier, Samson's story is not mainly, let alone wholly, about his relationship with Delilah.

Rather than saying that Samson's relationship with Delilah was wholly based on sexual lust, verse 4 says that he "fell in love" with her. Of course he fell in love with the wrong woman, but he fell in love nonetheless. Thus I reject the notion that Samson's sexual problem, assuming that he had one, could satisfactorily explain his behavior. Rather, we must take into account his spiritual and psychological problems, such as his lack of devotion to his Nazirite commitment (and therefore to God), his loneliness, and all that he had experienced. It seems that Samson was a passionate person, but he could not keep his feelings under control. He was intensely emotional over the people and events in his life. Rather than encouraging strong emotions, the Bible teaches self-control.

The Philistines said to Delilah, "See if you can lure him into showing you the secret of his great strength and how we can overpower him so we may tie him up and subdue him. Each one of us will give you eleven hundred shekels of silver" (v. 5). Samson was about to be betrayed again by another woman he loved, but this time it was not even for self- preservation, but for money.

Delilah wasted no time, but asked Samson outright, "Tell me the secret of your great strength and how you can be tied up and subdued" (v. 6). If you were Samson, would you not be alarmed? Then, Samson lied to Delilah: "If anyone ties me with seven fresh thongs that have not been dried, I'll become as weak as any other man" (v. 7). The Bible continues in verses 8-12:

Then the rulers of the Philistines brought her seven fresh thongs that had not been dried, and she tied him with them. With men hidden in the room, she called to him, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!" But he snapped the thongs as easily as a piece of string snaps when it comes close to a flame. So the secret of his strength was not discovered. Then Delilah said to Samson, "You have made a fool of me; you lied to me. Come now, tell me how you can be tied." He said, "If anyone ties me securely with new ropes that have never been used, I'll become as weak as any other man." So Delilah took new ropes and tied him with them. Then, with men hidden in the room, she called to him, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!" But he snapped the ropes off his arms as if they were threads.

If you were Samson, and someone asked you how he may subdue you, and then proceed to do precisely what you told him, what would you think? It would be clear that the person was trying to harm you. You would have either retaliated or left the relationship. It is unlikely that Samson did not sense the danger at all, or did not know something of Delilah's intentions, but he remained in the relationship, and kept playing with her by lying about the secret of his strength.

Delilah tried again, and said, "Until now, you have been making a fool of me and lying to me. Tell me how you can be tied." She was beginning to use manipulative tactics, but Samson did not surrender right away:

He replied, "If you weave the seven braids of my head into the fabric [on the loom] and tighten it with the pin, I'll become as weak as any other man." So while he was sleeping, Delilah took the seven braids of his head, wove them into the fabric and tightened it with the pin. Again she called to him, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!" He awoke from his sleep and pulled up the pin and the loom, with the fabric. (v. 13-14)

Then, Delilah escalated her effort, and applied even greater psychological pressure: "Then she said to him, 'How can you say, 'I love you,' when you won't confide in me? This is the third time you have made a fool of me and haven't told me the secret of your great strength'" (v. 15). Compare this to what Samson's wife said earlier: "You hate me! You don't really love me. You've given my people a riddle, but you haven't told me the answer" (Judges 14:16).

Delilah used the same strategy, but she was probably even more skillful. She said things like, "Until now, you have been making a fool of me and lying to me. Tell me how you can be tied," and "How can you say, 'I love you,' when you won't confide in me? This is the third time you have made a fool of me and haven't told me the secret of your great strength."

Samson could have handled it if she had only said these things several times, but he could not withstand relentless nagging: "With such nagging she prodded him day after day until he was tired to death" (v. 16)! Before this, Samson played with her by giving her false answers. He did not confront her about her manipulation, nor did he leave the relationship. By failing to firmly deal with Delilah's manipulation, Samson finally became "tired to death" of her "nagging," which she continued "day after day."

At last, he told her the secret of his strength: "'No razor has ever been used on my head,' he said, 'because I have been a Nazirite set apart to God since birth. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man'" (v. 17). The consequences were devastating:

When Delilah saw that he had told her everything, she sent word to the rulers of the Philistines, "Come back once more; he has told me everything." So the rulers of the Philistines returned with the silver in their hands. Having put him to sleep on her lap, she called a man to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him. And his strength left him. Then she called, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!" He awoke from his sleep and thought, "I'll go out as before and shake myself free." But he did not know that the LORD had left him. Then the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding in the prison. (v. 18-21)

Samson sealed his fate by allowing Delilah to take away all signs of his Nazirite commitment to God. Likewise, the devil is "looking for someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). He will use manipulation, intimidation, deception, and all kinds of distractions in the attempt to have you break your covenant commitment to God. Satan himself deceived Eve, and then used her to tempt Adam, who sinned even though he was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). One who does not yield to one type of pressure may yield to another kind. Adam, who was not deceived by the devil, sinned because of Eve. And Samson, who was not in the least afraid of the Philistines, fell because of manipulation from a woman.

Samson's behavior was indeed strange. It was unlikely that he was oblivious to Delilah's intention; otherwise, why did he not tell her the truth about his strength the first time? After the first or second time, he must have known that Delilah's plan was to discover his secret, exploit it, and then hand him over to the Philistines. Knowing this, he could have left Delilah at any time, but he chose to remain.

Again, I am not convinced that his sexual lust could adequately explain this behavior, since his sexual lust could have been satisfied by another woman, In addition, the Bible tells us that he had fallen in love with Delilah. Thus his decision to stay with her should probably be attributed more to psychological factors rather than sexual ones.

Christians must not become overconfident simply because they are strong in certain areas. We must prevent ourselves from stumbling in any way. But ultimately, it will be God who keeps his elect "blameless" to the end (see 1 Corinthians 1:8, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 5:23). Although we must "work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling," it is "God who works in [us] to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12-13), so that no one may boast in his presence. The enemy is after our spiritual commitment, and he will entice us to abandon or compromise our relationship with God. Although many are deceived into sin, others walk into trouble with their eyes wide open. Let us not be like Esau, "who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son" (Hebrews 12:16).

8. SAMSON'S COMEBACK

God exercises exhaustive control over all things, including all human thoughts and decisions. By his providence, the Philistines did not kill Samson, but they "seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding in the prison" (Judges 16:21). Although he had slaughtered more than a thousand Philistines and destroyed their crops, they did not execute Samson once they had captured him. Perhaps they thought they would make him an example, or maybe after all that Samson had done to them, they wished to humiliate and torture him for a while first. Having "gouged out his eyes" and bound him "with bronze shackles," maybe they thought he was no longer a threat. But God's providence was at work – taking Samson into the important city of Gaza, with or without his eyes, was like taking in a ticking time bomb. Although he was blinded, Samson was God's Trojan horse to the Philistines.

The Philistines "gouged out his eyes," which seemed to be a tragic event, but it was probably the best thing that had ever happened to Samson. He was a passionate, energetic, and outgoing person, but no one understood him. His commitment to God was weak, and he was seeking to satisfy himself by looking for love in all the wrong places. Losing his sight and freedom forced him, perhaps for the first time in his life, to turn inward – to reflect on his life and his commitment to God. Jesus said:

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell. (Mark 9:43-47)

Paul wrote, "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world" (1 Corinthians 11:31-32). By God's sovereign grace, if Samson had repented, then he probably would not have suffered as he did. But as it turned out, he needed divine discipline, so that he would "not be condemned with the world. God works out all things for the good of his elect: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).

God's purposes and plans can never be thwarted by man's disobedience, since man cannot even disobey his precepts without his active decree. Whether blind or seeing, bound or free, God placed Samson where he was supposed to be – right in the middle of the Philistines. God did this to destroy the Philistines, and to save Samson's soul at the same time. Now that Samson could not look outward, and now that he had no strength or freedom, he had to look inward, to examine himself, and to commune with God. We have no indication of him ever having done that. And this is the beginning of his turning back to God.

Many people are so busy today that they blaze forward in their careers without stopping to give priority to prayer, study, and meditation. Their minds are constantly thinking on earthly things and selfish ambitions. Some of them assume that because they are Christians, God will automatically bless them. But if they are not devoted to God, they may not be Christians at all. Some tend to think that material concerns are more urgent, and spiritual matters should be reserved for times when they are "free" – perhaps during vacations, church retreats, or when they retire.

But it is foolish to favor the earthly at the expense of the heavenly: "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36). There is a misleading saying, that one can be "so heavenly minded that he is no earthly good." If this refers to one who seems to be so focused on his spiritual life that he fails to obey God's commandments regarding his relationship with other human beings, then he is not even spiritual in the first place (James 1:27), or at least he has a spiritual defect in this area even though he may be doing well in others. On the other hand, there is no limit to how "spiritual" a person can or should be. Often, this misleading statement is used by those who wish to defend their carnal lifestyle and attitude, and therefore deride those who are genuinely more spiritual. Only if you are spiritual will you be of any earthly good.

Christians must daily take time for prayer and study, shutting out all distractions. Once when Jesus was teaching his disciples, Martha, who had "opened her home to him," "was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made," while her sister Mary "sat at the Lord's feet" and was "listening to what he said." When Martha complained about Mary, Jesus answered that Mary had "chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:38-42). Spending time alone in prayer and study is more important than all the outward things that we so often busy ourselves with, including ministry work.

"But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved" (Judges 16:22). God was not going to leave Samson in that prison forever. The power of the Spirit began to return to him. The Bible continues:

Now the rulers of the Philistines assembled to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to celebrate, saying, "Our god has delivered Samson, our enemy, into our hands." When the people saw him, they praised their god, saying, "Our god has delivered our enemy into our hands, the one who laid waste our land and multiplied our slain." While they were in high spirits, they shouted, "Bring out Samson to entertain us." So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them. When they stood him among the pillars, Samson said to the servant who held his hand, "Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them." Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. (v. 23-27)

Samson's failure brought reproach to the God of Israel, since the Philistines interpreted their capture of Samson as the victory of their pagan god, Dagon. Similarly, when Christians fail to properly represent Jesus Christ – when they fail to stand strong in doctrine and character, they bring reproach to his name. Contrary to many people's opinion, your religion is not a purely personal affair – your beliefs and actions will affect other people. At the least, the quality of your faith will affect your family, and if you are a pastor, it will affect your congregation.

Jesus said, You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men" (Matthew 5:13). As Christians, we are the salt of the earth – although sin causes decay, we are the ones who prevent total corruption from taking place. However, "if the salt loses its saltiness," then "it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." If the salt loses its flavor, it is no longer acting as a preservative. Being good for nothing, it is thrown out into the streets, to be stepped on by people who walk by.

Without true Christians, society would erode. Without the true church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), what is left of human morality and decency would crumble, purpose and dignity would disappear, godly fear would be not existent in society, and the earth would become the devil's paradise. Only Christians can prevent this from occurring, and whether or not they know it, all non-Christians are doing everything they can to stop us (Matthew 12:30).

However, when professing Christians lose their distinctiveness, or their Christian "flavor," then they become "no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." When professing Christians compromise their spiritual commitment and lose their flavor, they become overwhelmed by the world, even though the Bible says that they are the ones who should overcome the world because of their faith: "For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1 John 5:4-5). Of course, in many cases, it is likely that these people have never been truly converted in the first place.

Having compromised his spiritual commitment, Samson lost his sight and his freedom to the Philistines. And they mocked him, saying, "Bring out Samson to entertain us," "So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them" (v. 25). Samson was a spiritual hero – he was called by God to be a man of God, a great deliverer, but because of his negligence and his sins, the Philistines captured him, gouged out his eyes, and made him an object of ridicule and amusement.

Then, we come to the amazing conclusion of Samson's life:

Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. Then his brothers and his father's whole family went down to get him. They brought him back and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the tomb of Manoah his father. He had led Israel twenty years. (Judges 16:28-31)

After all Samson had done and been through, and when the situation looked so final, he still had faith to believe that God would work through him. What power must have been at work in Samson by God's sovereign grace, for him to have this kind of comeback faith! This kind of faith is rare even in professing Christians, who have the whole of Scripture to convince them of God's mercy. It is no wonder that although Samson is often negatively portrayed by people, God would instead honor him by placing his name alongside Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, and the other faithful men and women in Hebrews 11. The world is not worthy of one who understands and believes in God's sovereign grace.

If you look at Samson's life only in the context of his relationship with Delilah, you will not understand his greatness. But if you see him from the perspective of Hebrews 11 – as a man of faith – you will come to understand why God approved of him. God had mercy on Samson by granting him faith in God's sovereign grace despite Samson's flaws and failures.

The Bible says, "God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). His promises toward the elect will always remain. On the other hand, he has promised nothing but damnation for the reprobates. This is not to say that one who has faith in God's goodness may go on sinning, since true faith believes in Scripture, which permits no such thing. As John explains, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). Christians are not encouraged to follow Samson in his sin, but they are rather encouraged to follow his faith in God's kindness. It is faith in God's mercy, not our good works, that enables the kingdom of God to advance. It is by faith that we will overcome the world (1 John 5:4-5). And even this faith comes only from God's sovereign decree, so that no one may boast.

In addition, it seems that Samson had finally learned to fear God, as evidenced in his prayer: "Then Samson prayed to the LORD, 'O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes'" (v. 28). This may not sound too special to you, but compare this to how he used to pray: "Because he was very thirsty, he cried out to the LORD, 'You have given your servant this great victory. Must I now die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?'" (Judges 15:18).

He was formerly irreverent and demanding toward God. But by Judges 16:28, he was humble and submissive, taking nothing for granted, and addressing God as "Sovereign LORD" (or, the "Lord God"; NASB). He now realized that God did not owe him his grace and mercy, and neither did God owe him the water that came out of the donkey's jawbone in Judges 15. God answered him, and he answers us, because of his sovereign kindness, and not because he owes us what we ask from him. We must never mistake arrogance and irreverence for faith, although I have heard preachers make exactly this mistake in their sermons, teaching people to demand things from God in a way that borders on blasphemy.

Jesus told the following parable in Luke 18:9-14:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Samson learned this lesson the hard way. It cost him his sight, his freedom, and then his life. This is the price and the folly of "learning by doing" instead of heeding the teaching of Scripture without having to experience the consequences of sin. Nevertheless, by the end of his life, Samson had truly learned his lesson and realized that all good things proceeded from God's mercy alone, and it is on his mercy that we must rely: "God have mercy on me, a sinner."

With his last breath, Samson performed what God had called him to do: "Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived" (v. 30). Some people teach that, because of his sins, Samson's death was premature, and he never accomplished what God had intended for him. I strongly disagree for at least two reasons.

First, when the angel announced Samson's birth to his mother, he only said that Samson would "begin" to deliver Israel from the Philistines (Judges 13:5), and not that he would completely and permanently destroy them. Second, Samson's capture caused the "rulers of the Philistines" (Judges 16:23) to gather in one place. In fact, the Bible says that, "all the rulers of the Philistines were there" (Judges 16:27). Samson killed them all "with one blow" (v. 28).

According to his sovereign will, God gathered all the leaders of the Philistines in one place, and Samson was right there where he was supposed to be, and with his last breath, he did what he was supposed to do. Indeed, "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'" (Daniel 4:35). Thus it seems that, by the sovereign grace of God, Samson accomplished exactly what God had intended for him to do. "For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:27).

Hebrews is justified in including Samson as an example of great faith. God wants us to learn from his example, that we should imitate Samson in his faith in God's mercy and power. He wants us to believe that his mercy endures forever and that his calling and gifts are irrevocable. But at the same time, God's grace must not be abused: "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:1-2).

━━━━━━━━━━ × ━━━━━━━━━━

Vincent Cheung. Samson and His Faith (2003).

Previous edition published in 2001.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

0 notes

tinamorwani · 9 years

Text

Do you owe your abusive parents anything?

What do we owe our tormentors? It’s a question that haunts those who had childhoods marked by years of neglect and deprivation, or of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse at the hands of one or both parents. Despite this terrible beginning, many people make it out successfully and go on to build satisfying lives. With a sense of guilt and dread, these adults are grappling with whether and how to care of those who didn’t care for them.

One hallmark of growing up in a frightening home is for the children to think they are the only ones in such circumstances. Even when they reach adulthood and come to understand that many others have had dire childhoods, they might not reveal the details of their abuse to anyone. “The profound isolation that’s imposed on people is a very painful and destructive thing,” says Dr. Vincent Felitti, co-principal investigator of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3.3 million cases of abuse or neglect were reported to child protective service agencies in 2010. This vastly undercounts the actual number of horrific and painful childhoods, as most never make it into any official record. The CDC notes that some studies estimate that 20 percent of children will be the victims of such maltreatment. That means a lot of people are wrestling with this legacy. Loved ones and friends—sometimes even therapists—who urge reconnecting with a parent often speak as if forgiveness will be a psychic aloe vera, a balm that will heal the wounds of the past. They warn of the guilt that will dog the victim if the perpetrator dies estranged. What these people fail to take into account is the potential psychological cost of reconnecting, of dredging up painful memories and reviving destructive patterns.

Eleanor Payson, a marital and family therapist in Michigan and the author of The Wizard of Oz and Other Narcissists, sees some clients who feel it would be immoral to abandon a now-feeble parent, no matter how destructive that person was. Payson says she advises them to find ways to be caring while protecting themselves from further abuse. “One of my missions is helping people not be tyrannized by false guilt or ignore their own pain and needs,” she says. Setting limits is crucial: “You may need to keep yourself in a shark cage with no opportunity to let that person take a bite out of you.” It’s also OK for the conversation to be anodyne. “You can say something respectful, something good-faith-oriented. ‘I wish you well’; ‘I continue to work on my own forgiveness.’ ”

There is no formula for defining one’s obligations to the parents who didn’t fulfill their own. We all accept that there is an enduring bond between parent and child. Yet the loyalty of children to even the worst of parents makes perfect biological sense. From an evolutionary perspective, parents, even poor ones, are a child’s best chance for food, shelter, and survival. Maybe that is the reason we still seek for their approval, even when we've reached adulthood. Maybe that is why a part of me still has hope.

Regina Sullivan is a research professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the NYU Langone School of Medicine who studies emotional attachment in rats. In experiments with rats raised by mothers who neglect or physically hurt their pups, Sullivan has teased out that, when in the presence of the caregiver, the infant brain’s fear and avoidance circuits are suppressed. Attachment “programs the brain,” she says. “The ability of an adult who can say to you, I had a horrible childhood, I don’t like my parents, but then do things to continue to get the parents’ approval, is an example of the strength of human attachment in early life.” One doesn’t just leave such childhoods behind, like outgrowing a fear of the dark. Study after study has found that just as an emotionally warm, intellectually stimulating childhood is typically a springboard for a happy, healthy life, an abusive one can cause a litany of problems. Abuse victims are more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, broken relationships, and chronic diseases.

In his New York Times essay, Richard Friedman acknowledges that some parent-child relationships are so toxic that they must be severed. But he adds, “Of course, relationships are rarely all good or bad; even the most abusive parents can sometimes be loving, which is why severing a bond should be a tough, and rare decision.” But substitute “husband” for “parents,” and surely Friedman would not advise a woman in such a relationship to carry on because her battering spouse had a few redeeming qualities.

Dr. Ronald Rohner, an emeritus professor of family studies and anthropology at the University of Connecticut, has devoted much of his career to studying parental rejection and its effects. He says there’s little research on adult role reversal—that is, what happens when the parent is vulnerable and wants support from the child. But he says the studies that do exist demonstrate that “it really truly is as you sow, so shall you reap. Those parents who raised children less than lovingly are putting their own dependent old age at risk for being well and lovingly cared for themselves.”

In a 2008 essay in the journal In Character, history professor Wilfred McClay writes that as a society we have twisted the meaning of forgiveness into a therapeutic act for the victim: “[F]orgiveness is in danger of being debased into a kind of cheap grace, a waiving of standards of justice without which such transactions have no meaning.” Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School writes that, “There is a watered-down but widespread form of ‘forgiveness’ best tagged preemptory or exculpatory forgiveness. That is, without any indication of regret or remorse from perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes, we are enjoined by many not to harden our hearts but rather to ‘forgive.’ ”

I agree with these more bracing views about what forgiveness should entail. Choosing not to forgive does not doom someone to being mired in the past forever. Accepting what happened and moving on is a good general principle. But it can be comforting for those being browbeaten to absolve their parents to recognize that forgiveness works best as a mutual endeavor. After all, many adult children of abusers have never heard a word of regret from their parent or parents. People who have the capacity to ruthlessly maltreat their children tend toward self-justification, not shame.

Even apologies can have their limits, as illustrated by a Dear Prudence letter from a mother who called herself “Sadder but Wiser.” She verbally humiliated her son when he was a boy, realized the damage she had done, changed her ways, and apologized. But her son, who recently became a father, has only a coolly cordial relationship with her, and she complained that she wanted more warmth and caring. I suggested that she should be glad that he did see her, stop whining for more, and tell her son she admires that he is giving his little boy the childhood he deserves and that he didn’t get.

It’s wonderful when there can be true reconciliation and healing, when all parties can feel the past has been somehow redeemed. But I don’t think we should be hammered with lectures about the benefits of—here comes that dread word—closure. Sometimes the best thing to do is just close the door.

0 notes

jamesdazell · 7 years

Text

RELIGION VS ART, LITERATURE, CULTURE - (Or, How Literature Literally Lost The Plot)

1. Literature ~ I

The origin of the aesthetics of a novel are found in the Gospels, the stories of the Old Testament, Augustinian confession, Plato dialogues (who was a Proto-Christian), comedy, and the moral fable. I wondered for so long why the best novelists were the ones so well acquainted with the Bible. The novel is a thoroughly Judeo-Christian work, and since Christianity is reformation of Judaism, and Islam is the reformation of Judaism through Christian scholarship, the tradition is Islamic too. Twentieth century cinema, a practical development of the novel (not plays) have dysfunctional characters who suffer from themselves usually isolated by their neurosis and essentially are imploding across the story line. Gangster films for instance, horror films, take pleasure in pain and suffering in the sense of violence in medieval passion plays retelling the crucifixion if Christ. The pleasure in suffering. In the degeneration of a man. The very emblem of Christianity is the dead Christ on a cross. Christ who suffers for our sins. It’s unsurprising that the king directors of the mob film genre, Martin Scorsese, Brian de Palma, and Francis Ford Coppola are all Catholic. The genre springs right out of it, and the audience revelled in its violent pains as well as a joy in pessimism, ugliness, and self-deprication, as well follow their descent in to madness and disorder. Not at all like in the tragedies where we take pleasure in the strength in suffering, wisdom on account of suffering. In cinema and the novel, the characters suffer often from their own awful psychological traits (the dysfunctional psychological story is the confession before God and a quest for a redemption, the judgement before God’s eyes, a Catholic guilt), that one suffers for having sinned. Outside of the Bible this also belongs in comedy, where the idiot suffers from ignorance, and in history where the person is said to have fallen to ruin by a lack of prudence. But as time went on, comedy, history, and Christianity all merged. Worst of all, that we’re supposed to take pity on the characters. Pity: the bleakest, heaviest, weakening effect on the body, mind, and spirit there is; and yet a Christian virtue. Pity is far worse than sadness. It’s a degenerating quality that weighs down the spirit and kills off joy. There are films where the stronger our pity for the hero is, the greater we’re to perceive their heroism is even more Christian. And the story is built along the action driven by specifically Christian values and concepts of the world. Fabrications which don’t exist in the actual world. Does the plot have a dualism of good versus evil? The moral good in resentiment towards the moral evil? Does it drive by the foundation value of Christianity: resentiment, and the Christian concept of evil, a figure of immorality, which does not exist, but has hithero been the make-up of every great being on Earth. More a Julius Caesar than a Jesus Christ. One, who possessed every life affirmative instinct possible, the other, the most life degenerating instincts.

Instincts which are also in the foundation of the novel. It’s said the first novel is Cervantes’ Don Quixote. If so, that explicitly proves it: Cervantes a Catholic, written in prison (a hermit existence), a comedy written as a history, that attempts to moralise its audience, written episodically like the picaresque books. The practice of writing a novel requires a hermitage, unphysical hibernation, a kind of discarding of the body, in to an asceticism. Shutting off the world for a writing desk, and life for the imagination. The novel a Christian art form through and through. The novelist becomes confessionally introspective, but doesn’t reveal it through the dialogue, but through the psychological study of its character in the same way that Christians were supposed to keep a diary to observe and critique their moral thoughts. The novel is a really weird form of literature, it’s a medley of many low styles of writing, that don’t even really fit together.

Even the style of language in a novel is light with a rhythm and cadence that derives from comedies like Menander and histories of Herodotus, instead of the mightier line of epic or tragedy, or even the histories written by Thucydides and Livy. Found from Aristophanes, Plato, Menander, through Apuleius, right through to Cervantes, to Tolstoy, to Garcia-Marquez. The prose style of the novel reached its perfection in the writer Leo Tolstoy. But the Latin elegiac poetry and Roman Latin prose is the best style of writing of all writers ever. It’s Tolstoy but from a totally superior level that completely detoxes Tolstoy from writing.

Time in a novel never stands still, it shifts back and forth, abruptly, as if the author could never grip a moment. In plays and poetry the matter at hand is gripped with intensity. Time in a novel is always transient without ever putting us in the moment. I have to go to epic poems, plays, and poetry just to hold on to a moment, to really feel the weight of a moment. The plot of novels never keep me gripped because they don’t even grip themselves. There’s more done in a single soliloquy of Shakespeare’s Hamlet than in an entire novel. I want to feel the moment that the character is in, the pressure that is upon him, the choice at the crisis, his own sense of himself, his relationship to his existence, other characters, his decisions, and the universe. I have to feel that the character is involved in something, in some crisis which makes the drama - but I don’t in a novel because the moment disappears and I’m given a new one before I’ve had the chance to accept it.

The playwright and the scriptwriter are both superior practices to the novelist - not to say anything of their content. Although the poet is the supreme writer of all, the playwright has a greater task than the poet, because they present life, the relationships between people, society, and the world at large. There was a time when the poet, playwright, philosopher were one thing and all came out in the same work. That kind of writer remains the most supreme of all. I don’t think a writer like that would even recognise a novelist without a great burst of laughter. How disagreeable the Western novel would have been to Shakespeare, Aeschylus, and Homer. Playwrighting and poetry is more akin to music than it is even its own ugly sibling, the novel.

Tragic heroes seem as though they’re similar but they’re a total opposite. They’re supremely great characters, better than we meet in real life, who suffer from a superfluity of greatness, isolated by their superabundance of energy towards a particular habit that breaks them free from traditions of the world around them, they are explosive across the story line. Essentially they are beaten down by the world that come upon them by feeling this new thing is a threat. “Greatness wins hate” writes Aeschylus in his tragedy The Orestia. Not one tragedy asks you to pity it. The heroes are strength in the face of danger. Pleasure of will to power in the face of pain. Defiant in the face of morality. Self-insistent, an anti-hero, neither good nor evil but beyond both. Tragedies see Christianity as beneath it. The novel (and thereby cinema) is just a comedy we take pity for; a comedy we take all too seriously.

~ II

We perpetuate our values, beliefs, interpretations of the world through the stories that we tell, and the culture we share among an audience. Our own Western tradition of story telling comes from the Abrahamic religions that the West had absorbed for centuries. It’s hard to divert away from them, as the tradition of all our story-telling concepts seem to originate there. Similarly, the stories that are told around the world have their origins in the traditional and prevalent religions of that region.

In the Western world, wherever you’re telling a story its more than likely that, even if you don’t have to think about it, the story you’re telling has its roots in Abrahamic religion’s values, beliefs, interpretations, concepts, simply because for two-thousand years the West has been predominately divided up by the three Abrahmic faiths. And when we tell a story we are really just interpreting these values, beliefs, ideas, interpretations, goals etc. we are only articulate these through a story. Sunsan Sontag expressed her view of this in a conversation with John Berger, saying that there are no stories. Stories only happen where there are writers. That life doesn’t happen in stories, life merely happens, the universe merely happens, and events merely happen in the infinity of events; and it;s our story-telling that isolates the scenario, constructs their beginning and end, places a perspective of value on to it, and gives it a meaning. That there are no stories until the story-teller makes one.

Anybody can tell a story. It’s ingrained in us how to tell stories. We know how to tell stories through the stories we absorb all the time through the films we see, the stories we are told as children, the video games we play, the way history is told, the books we read, the essays we read, the way the news is told in the media, and the anecdotes we tell each other - we are surrounded by stories. But where do their own techniques of story-telling come from, and are they universal?

Art has always been religion’s greatest obstacle. Not science. Science, in its relinquishing of the senses as empiricism, and an objectivity that goes as far as to deny human significance “i look at the universe as realise how insignificant we are” science says - thereby denying the body and the powerful significance of one’s life - science has so far been religions greatest ally. Art on the otherhand offered people a whole view of life and power over life that religion has had no comparative to. God is not the issue in the 21st Century. You don’t have to be religious in the modern world to be religious. You just have to perpetuate religion’s values and beliefs through culture and stories. When Martin Luther nailed his treatise to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31st October 1517, and the Reformation sprung up which effectively ended the Renaissance (the Golden Age of Man of nearly two millennia), because he felt that the Catholic Church had been corrupted by paganism, culture became Christianity’s best ally. Through culture Christianity became secularised. It poisoned the rivers of culture through a new art movement Romanticism. Although philosophically after the Renaissance philosophers have always held scepticism towards Christianity, Romanticism is effectively secular Christianity. Which itself has all the ingredients of the decadent movement (or, playing in one’s ashes, or the delight in degradation), atheism (or Christianity without God), and nihilism (or, conceptual art.)

So what happens the moment you say, “well, I don’t want to tell an Abrahamic story.” Where do you go then? Say that you’re not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, say you don’t have an Abrahamic interpretation of life and the world, what if you don’t hold Abrahamic values, how do you not tell a story that is relating these Abrahamic values and life interpretations? Let’s consider that.

~ III

I said in an earlier essay on The Tragic Artist that theatre was an extension of poetry and that theatre pre-dated formal Western philosophy. Both formal Western theatre and formal Western philosophy arose within the same people, relatively soon after each other - so soon, it could be easily argued in reaction to each other. Poetry was once philosophy too, but it divided in to two halves, those who made theatre and those who made philosophy. One of art and one of logical reasoning. Both were interpretations of their own world view and extolled the values and beliefs of that world view.

You have to really work hard to untangle the traditional Western mode of story-telling and not step in to it. Here’s a quick list of what our stories cannot involve:

Redemption (as in the endings of Dostoevsky - after a series of immoral actions, then concluding by the act of praying or converting to religion in an act of vindication of from one’s sinful actions)

Pity - characters going through suffering but we have to pity them. Pity has a weakening effect on strength.

Self-sacrifice for the greater good or out of despair of life (or, the martyrdom of Christ)

Suffering from oneself, or from life, (the ineptitude to live well and the author’s demand that we pity their ineptitude and call it drama)

Love of one’s neighbour (converting from individual to the herd)

The idea that love conquers all (Agape - the God’s love is the highest power and redeemer of humankind)

Hatred of the powerful, the people vs the ruler, what is that if not Moses’ people versus the Egyptian rulers, David versus Goliath, Jesus versus the Romans (Considering the Abrahamic religions have their origins in lowest classes of society, the herds of the oppressed lowest classes that rued their rulers, whilst the Asian religions and Ancient Greek religion have their origin in ancient educated nobility. Hatred of the powerful is a resentment of power, and the qualities of powerful, the great, the strong. Pleb revolt in favour of degenerate qualities because they are weaker and want power. The Bible Romanticises these events, but in reality they turn in to the revolutions that gave us Lenin, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Napoleon, even Donald Trump. I already expressed that in the essay WE.) Hatred of the powerful is hatred of power itself, hatred of the strong is hatred of strength itself.

Sin and the Ten Commandments -That one’s suffers because on is sinful.

Christian concepts for various incarnations of the devil, daemons, whether incarnate or in possession of the soul. (What is the Devil if not a kind of God? And if there are no Gods, then there is no Devil. And if there is the concept of a Devil, there is within that the concept of a God.)

Good and Evil. The idea of a character of moral evil. Evil having its origin in Judeo-Christianism. The closest to evil in non-Abrahamic story-telling is what is contemptible like Eastern cinema, Epic poems or Tragic theatre. In Western stories where the antagonist of moral evil the character is always one-dimensional, flat, depthless, we’re simply supposed to believe in the idea of Evil and that’s what they are In Eastern and Greek, all the characters were good, only that some were contemptible in character, but for that they had to have character.)

Parallel worlds, alternative reality or religious afterlife. - the belief that there is a better world, a truer world, a paradise world that awaits, and that this world is only a punishment, a training, a testing ground for an afterlife where a person is saved from suffering. Or, the inability to handle life and so invents another “better” one and degrades this only and actual one in to a dream, a fabrication, even - ugh! - a punishment.

The all encompassing one hero fated to save the world - (or, the chosen people appointed by divine origin, in the case of the Jews, or the divine son, the world redeemer, in the case of Christ.)

Immortality of the soul - for that there would need to be an afterlife

Free will (so that one can be accountable for one’s actions and thereby punishable, concept of The Last Judgement, and eternal damnation. For that one would need a soul, an afterlife, and a critic like a God)

Faith - (what is faith but not wanting to believe what is true.)

Hope (Hope is the worst kind of cruelty, for it prolongs the torment. Hope after nothing, will to do it, the willingness is all. when it is willed sufficiently enough it is done.)

~ IV

If you were cancel out the timeline and geography of story-telling in the Judeo-Christian tradition, a huge chunk of time and geography is removed. What’s left is Asia, which has its own religious outlooks of Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto etc and Western geographical world that pre-dates the prevalence of Abrahamic religion, ie. Before the Hebrew Bible and before Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire (which pretty much contained all of Europe).

There were only two places where I could go to to find story-telling that was counter-active to those: Asian (particularly Japan) and the Ancient Greeks (specifically Archaic Greece.) The only two story-telling approaches that arose out of world views that sprang from the educated noble, strong, masterful societies and cultures. Japanese and Archaic Greek story-telling comes out the section society that could have the strongest view of life, that stood before society like a eagle on an eyrie.

In Buddhism, there is no concept of evil, there is no sin. Sin has a Jewish origin. The dichotomy of Good and Evil is a Zarathustran origin. Our morality, a Christian. Buddhism isn’t dualistic like the Abrahamic faiths and Hinduism. It’s monoism. The yin and yang are one, complete, whole, inseperable. The East doesn’t have this influence until the 20th century Westernisation in its story-telling. and western story-telling doesn’t begin to break away from it until its Eastern influence in the 20th century. The tradition of tragedy pre-dates the concepts of good and evil. In Homer both Trojans and Greeks are Good, Hector and Achilles are both good. It’s the same in tragic plays. However, in Japanese stories a person can behave in a way that is contemptable. Disloyalty is contempltable, or irresponsibility of power etc. Instead of Christian morality there are noble codes of the samurai just as there are heroic codes in Homer.

What would be my highest concept of an artist? My highest concept of an artist. That one has gratitude and a confidence in the face of all things. Does not seek either consolation or soothing from life. Whom can really swallow the benefit in every bad situation. The Archaic Greeks held so much truth of the nature of life, that life would have been unbearable to live with such a degree of truth. In order to be able to live and not divert from it they created myth, a beautiful veil over life that sprang right out of that truth. What is requires is intoxication and ecstasy in to life that one springs in to visions that beautiful life through gazing in to truth so long. In a word: Art.

Art allows us not only to bare the sufferings and pain of life, but be grateful for it. What cant an artist endure who is of that degree. Who can go through life with confidence and gratitude in the face of all things. The artist who has a super abundance of life, knowing that all things are for them, can bear with reality and know that antagonisms make them. What is there this artist could not be grateful for, could not deal with, could not come through better as a result of all things that arrive to him/her. Everything works for their becoming. There is no misfortune of life. All things that occur work to serve them. And the awareness of the terribleness of life is not consoled, soothed, or diverted from, but overcome through Art. Only an artist to that degree of gratitude to life would I even begin to call an artist. That they overcome, ascends above, and dances right over suffering. They see it for what it truly is and not merely for what it seems to be. That art is the proper affirmation of life. As though he would recoil off the truth of life’s in to art by instinct, in order to love it still all the more. That one has no resentment towards the presence of anything, but only holds what is proper in contempt. And what does this artist hold in contempt? Anything that diminishes this instinct.

~ V

What then are all Abrahamic values? Symptoms of declining life. An impoverished life, poor in spirit, a life denying will. Symptoms that one suffers super abundantly, unendurably, from life, from stronger people, and from one’s own conscience and body. The body becomes sin, weakening, where depressants like pity become a virtue, the individual degenerates in to the need for the herd to protect and preserve it, where every quality of strength becomes an evil, and the afterlife is created as a redeemer from the pain in this one.

To be not without a little scepticism towards the social origin of religions, a little prejudice perhaps, but observation nevertheless, isn’t it funny that in religions which come from the lower classes, God is much more vague and monotheistic. Religions from the lower classes, as expected they would be from a people that knew “power” vaguely and a great singular “them above us” God is something just as fearful as a “the noble rulers” wants to be praised as much by them just as “noble rulers.” Whilst in religions that come from higher classes, gods are many (polytheistic) like the noble courts would be, and resemble many characteristics about noble courts. Since they were “higher up”, they have a gods closer to the eye, closer to the bearer, a god that does not want to be praised all the time, one or many that can be ill-tempered, flawed, and with human temperaments, that can be outwitted, a god like the Olympians, the Egyptian Gods, the Hindu gods, the Shinto gods etc, that one can even be amongst them and perhaps, even overcome them.

I’ll come outright and say it, the prevalence of Abrahamic perspectives have killed off high culture wherever and wherever they have prevailed. Just as they are prevailing right now. We approached a curve during the 20th Century through our enthusiasm for Eastern religion (which make a hundred times more sense) and the Greek Chorus-like ecstatic return to nature in music, (the colourful and enchanted but robust view of life Icelandic Sagas - which we might owe to even for a Bjork), and love of cruelty, sex, and danger in cinema (as it had been on Shakespeare’s stage, Seneca’s, and Sophocles’s stage). I only encourage artists to look elsewhere. Namely Eastern and Archaic Greek. Just recognise that it hinders the greatest art. Make your art out of a higher spirit, mentality, and perspective than what Abrahamic traditions can serve.

~ VI

Do we understand yet what the secret great goodness was occurring through the 20th century right from its beginnings to its end? From Imagism’s interest in the Japanese Haiku, Kabuki and Noh theatre, from modern dance being inspired by the ecstatic movement of Ancient Greek chorus, to Picasso’s enthusiasm for African and Ancient art, to the 60 and 70s enthusiasm for Eastern religion, its stories and symbolism, to the dream-state expressionism in theatre, to the ecstatic method of making music through 60s to 90s. Music became more physiological again, more instinctive on the way it not only affected our emotions but the way it affected our bodies. It could do with far more intellectualism in how it does this, but that it begins there is the naive genius of popular music. The 90s and very early 2000s rekindled a huge enthusiasm for Eastern culture and philosophy and religion, as well as Indian Hinduism (the practice of yoga is still popular, and Buddhist meditation), as well as a Dionysian ecstasy particularly in music, And a love of the strange, the dark, the mysterious, even the terrifying, as something to compel strength, even a love of the ancient Roman and Greek, Eatern worlds (through cinema)). It’s likely our actors are better in the 20th Century than in centuries earlier. Because we are more complete beasts. We are more barbaric, animal, primal, beasts. We don’t sever aspects of ourselves under “sin” like we had done for hundreds and hundreds of years. And combined with the elegance of literary language and scene, we straddle both high and low. We far far less likely to think of life as though it’s a chronic illness, as Abrahamic values had seen it - as even Socrates had seen it when he said “life is a long sickness.” It is precisely our barbarism that makes us more complete human beings, more animal man, fuller of life. And yet not full enough. We began to revive a foundation for super abundant life affirmative values and behaviour. Somehow perhaps very calculatedly underswept almost entirely by the mid-2000 it all disappeared. Will this curve end? End because of the cultural conscience that has exploded upon it from Middle Eastern terror and political unrest that took hold of the West’s consciousness? Is that not itself more cause for it. Exhaustion versus Exaltation, Energy, Ecstasy. We were on our way to undoing or interfering with the Abrahamic religious influence on the Western culture, and we were creating so much better culture on account of it. How much of the 90s looked to Eastern religion, symbolism, story-telling, cinema and philosophy, that by the year 2000 we were so tired of seeing yet another martial arts appearance in a Hollywood film. But look what that did FOR pop culture. Then swept away swiftly by as early as 2002, beside the low culture that arose of Reality TV of The Simple Life that became in to the Kardashians. Why has the Kardashians been so successful? Because suddenly the whole mediocrity of the world could see themselves as a Kim or Kylie. They didn’t only identify with it they could turn to their own mirror and appear like it, and they could be claim some social affinity to multi-millionaire society to improve their social attractiveness. That took away the imaginative and well-scripted drama on TV. It took music back to that retro-retrograde of music of the raw punk and post-punk that hadn’t quite had its fill, that simplified music and the un-artistic, pathos instead of art, instead of the new peaks it was reaching as a synergy of all the genres and ideas that were circulating in the late 90s taking popular music if not music to where it hadn’t been to. And then 9/11 happened and resurged the cultural and political consciousness of Abrahamic religions. Even resurged Christianity in the West as an ignorant counter-active culture to its bigotry disdain for Islam. (As it’s doing now under Donald Trump.) So once more the Abrahmic culture gained a resurgence, defeating the Eastern-cure that was the enthusiasm for Eastern religions from India to Japan, which would have been the foundation to have a real resurgence in to that most supreme of Greek culture, for Archaic Greek culture, but from our 21st Century advantage of a perspective surveying the whole of all these varying cultures. Isn’t it clear that we were on the way, and that 9/11 interrupted this profoundly!

What fears and distrust of the East and Middle East it made the West. Causing a near immediate effect of making the West forget that the greatest music (and the poetry, cinema, and music of the 60s, 70s, and 90s was profoundly influenced by music of India, Asia, and the Middle-East - just as it influenced Greece, Rome, and the Renaissance, and the Orientalism of the early 20th century, and in short, every great period of Western Art). The 1970s (the first post-modern decade) gave us the 20th Century’s peak in popular culture’s masters. (Not meaning Arts masters, but where popular culture had figures that were touching on the Artistic Masters themselves.) But they were few and far between. But in the 90s the enthusiasm for these few figures was creating a mainstream culture that followed in their footsteps. And by the end of the 90s and first couple of years of the 2000s the brightest stars of this culture were hitting that same mastery and with the broad audience of pop culture full of enthusiasm for them. 2. Music

~ VII

But it was all abandoned. How did the Renaissance end? With the Reformation, with Lutherism, and Calvinism, and Protestant Reform of the Catholic Church that hoped to redeem the church from the Renaissance paganism love of Greece and Rome, to pull it backwards in reverse to the resurgence of Christianity. It already killed off music during the Renaissance. The joyful and strong music of Francesco Landini, Guilliame Dufay, Adam de la Halle, to become the cold and morbid music of Palestrina. That took away rhythmic power in music to have melodic music, that arose from the most commonly heard melodic music, the choirs of Christian mass. The whole tradition of classical music is a censorship on music. There’s no doubt what dances right on top and over Abrahamic religions - the Archaic Greeks, drinking songs, tragedy, ecstatic music, beauty. Dionysius. The Renaissance, the last Golden Age, did not consist of thousands of Leonardo da Vinci’s, these were exceptions, within religious times. It didn’t matter that these were religious times, these were exceptions within those times. It’s not that life is ugly, but the truth of life is ugly. So ugly that without the beautiful image and the ecstatic music we can hardly bare with such truth of life. The world can be a terrible place, that’s why we have culture, so we can live in it, that’s why we have art, so that we don’t perish by the truth. Out of the truth of reality, which would otherwise stun us in horror as stiff as a Niobe, the artist, during intoxication and passion for creativity, recoils in to artistic expression, allowing them despite the truth of life to love it all the more nevertheless. The degree of a musician is often how transformative they can turn an experience; can turn dark to light, can turn pain to pleasure, can stare in to the darkest realities of life and feel untouchable, can scale that same power as its great antagonist and become a laughing dance over it, singing never directly out of pathos but ironic to the lyric, have inventive rhythm sections and polyphonic melodies, can keep rhythm as the stronger force in music than melody, can sing as though to turn all the pain in to pleasure, and through doing so celebrate the reality of life and the vitality of the individual, freed of everything that had tried to hold it down, transformed in to a wild self-affirming return to nature.

When the future high culture looks back at our pop music with any admiration, i know of no other musician it will look admiringly with more certainty than Bjork. Throughout her catalogue she has touched on every genre, and there are touches of every form of music of every kind, without ever not sounding nevertheless quintessentially Bjork. She puts herself in to music and makes it conform to her not her to it. But more than that hers is the one music that is reminiscent of music of previous high cultures. And therefore most likely to be enjoyed by future high cultures. I fundamentally believe this: that all high cultures relished in the same culture. Its a rare culture because its the culture of rare types of people. The confusion of the contemporary world is that it mistakes the high art of the upper classes of the modern world (1600-present) for high culture, when nothing could be further. and that the people’s culture has had more to do with the high culture of high periods, its just that its shallowed and hollowed by a confusion of instinct and low personality, that lacks genius as its audience. But there should be no mistaking the backwards anti-music of opera with music of high cultures compared to the energy and wildness of popular music, made for dance, sex, even danger, and catharsis. And everything else which constitutes virility and life. And essentially strong and healthy types. Enjoyment even in the stimulus of pain in life, (how many albums were conceived out of heartbreak, and how many popular musicians say its hard to write a song from being happy), music which lifts off pain often out of the stimulus of pain. That confronts it instinctively and creates and masters over it intuitively until its purged of pain. And ends up almost grateful for it. What are all the stale opera houses in the world compared to that, which is a music that only tries to dramatise pain. Opera is itself is a complete misunderstanding of music. And for it to be called high art is a complete misunderstanding of culture. The modern world has had no high culture. Not forgetting that classical music and opera both came out of Christian religious music. And that because there was once a time that Church was higher than the state this music was naturally assumed as higher music socially, politically, and religiously. And that instrumentals for dance with secular singing etc had been the great European music until the Church banned it. And its that music that resembled our popular music. Classical music is really just a strange anomaly in the history of music - except for choral music - that really only appears in the modern world and nowhere else. And on the grand scale of how long music has been around, that’s a relatively very short period of time.

My praise for FKA twigs, (who is in many ways that risidual-Abrahamic artist - but what she is, is better than what she does). I praise her for taking music back to its ritualistic nature that it takes us to in ecstasy. I was just watching some videos from the 1990s (actually Give It Away by Anton Corbijn, which is comparable to Papi Pacify). And was just like that’s why music had me so excited back then. it broke down the bullshit. it united us all in this ritualistic ecstasy that is music. the art of music in the 1990s was more real to me than ‘real-life’. I don’t think so much today. I feel music is dressed up in the values of real life. In its materialism and consumerism, its capitalist aspirations. How many shops, manufacturers, qualities of life are entwined with music. Here music was a strength. A gravity. A superpower. A sage. Wherever the visual aesthetic of music brings us back to the nature of music, culture is the better for it. Everything about music in the 1990s verged on the ritualistic, and these projections that sprung from it, that were these visionary icons. As though connecting and portraying something deep and more enriched than the everyday, that seemed to defy and confront it. And liberate it. And liberate us to some greater direction than the world seemed to have in store for us. It seemed to remind of us a way into ourselves and a way out of the miseries of the world. If we could only sustain it in ourselves and overlap it on to the world each day. Dance and music have moved forward in ways that literature hasn’t even begun to. And for that same reason, cinema lags behind too. That’s why I invented my Poets of Ecstasy, as a redeemer of all better things in literature. And as an objection to the ascetic practice of novel writing.

~ VIII

Homer’s works would itself be inspiration for the whole Archaic age of Greece, taking them out of the dark age. The age that gave it Thucydides, Heraclitus, Protagoras, Pindar, Sappho, and Aeschylus to name a few. And Socrates ended that age, the same way that Luther ended the Renaissance, the same way that Christianity ended the culture of the Romans. My writings of the last six months have pointed unswervingly to that the Archiac/Tragic period of Greece was the greatest culture and art movement of all time. It even brought Greece out of its own Dark Age. And the philosophy imbued in tragedy is the greatest philosophy of all. And that the Japanese nobility’s tradition of Buddhism and its own folk tales and theatrical stories are only a step lower and are sort of that foundational level if you were to lose your grip on Tragic art. That it’s there to catch you, and ultimately to keep you “culturally hygenic” and prevent you from falling in to the Abrahamic stories that have undone every great period of art and culture in all time.

I’m not blaming any person, I’m blaming psychological traits, values, the interpretations and perspectives on to life that come along with the Abrahamic tradition - as though it were a thing that can be clasped on to a mentality. 3. Visual Art Renaissance and ancient art was not realistic because it was fascinated by the rational view of life but that it painted myths with realism and clarity that was esteemed because it was imagination of cultural myths depicted with the clarity of realism. In the late 19th century they depict real life with subjective impression and a lack of myth. 20th century art is an art period without myths, without stories, without its own tales. Conceptual art is pure nihilistic art because it has nothing to interpret the world out of it, its a vision without substance beyond opinion, flat, and usually a polemic against something. It is art, but its nihilism. Conceptual art is merely a compensation for lacking myths. We have no stories, we have lens through which to see the world, to interpret it. We shed all our myths through atheism and the modern artistic movements. But nevertheless we have to make sense of the world and comment on it, so we use conceptual perspectives to scrunch it up, chew it up, and breathe air in to it. Conceptual art is that one can't see life with any clarity so the artist sees it through impressions, distortions, and concepts. Lies because he does not know how to see the truth. It doesn’t want Christian tales but it’s replaced them with nothing. So it has non narrative and often non figurative and where it does it is only the mundane absurdity of life, at best an empty but beautiful image, or an art conceived out of a concept of the absurdity of life , an art like this is fundamentally nihilistic. Full of nothing. That life was chaotic absurd and meaningless, just like its art. We live in an age of no myths. What’s needed is poets and story-tellers to create new myths. Romanticism is full of Christian concepts, Gothic is full of Christian concepts, Decadence, Conceptual, Surrealism, etc. The Renaissance proper was verging on to the Greco-Roman Hellenism art and at its very highest examples was veering towards Archaic Greek. The Reformation was the undoing of the Renaissance.The spirit, values, and ideals latched on to the art - which yes, may be a product of the Renaissance through figures like Michelangelo perhaps even Dante - but religion’s great opposition, Art, began to relax in the full summer of its Renaissance and found itself bitten by its enemy. All the myths were made by poets, but the rationality of science and rejection of Christianity left us nothing. I don’t want Christian myths, or even Greek and Roman myths, but we need to start making new myths, out of new values and perspectives. It’s up to poets and story-tellers to give artists a way of seeing the world clearly. A way for the world to see the world clearly. The conceptual artists aimed to do this, the Impressionists, the Romantics, the Renaissance painters, the Byzantine artists, and the Romans and Greeks, and any other era of artists. The only way to overcome Romanticism, is to overcome Christianity. Turn to the East, to the Japanese art, the Buddhist-Hindu art to purify oneself and purge the Romanticism out. Then the Archaic Tragic height, the highest peak art has yet known, will be reachable.

It’s not at all a problem that we have them, but that we don’t have the other, the better. But it gives it a reason to exist. It actually makes tragedy more profound. It’s actually the reason why Shakespeare may be more profound than Aeschylus - because he created a story-telling technique where the morality of Abrahamic faith was the “essence of evil” to the non-Abrahamic principled hero. As though the tragic hero were himself a new found European freedom, a free-spirit in every full sense of the word, who complete stepped out of Western Abrahamic tradition, but could not succeed in “living” within that world. The waste of this free-spirit in the backdrop of the Abrahamic world was Shakespearean tragic; the waste of the exception, the great hope for the future, the greatest. That was his tragedy from his first play to his last. He made all his tragic heroes tremendous by making them defy morality, customs, tradition of the world over and over again until the world finally engulfed him, and then honoured him after his demise. This was a story-telling technique that Aeschylus had no need for. The Abrahamic faith hadn’t yet caught hold of Europe’s higher classes. Aeschylus’s moral world was Zeus, and the breaching the Olympian gods, but even they were used as representations of Aeschylus’ perception in to the order of the universe. Not that it was ruled by gods, but that it had within it patterns of nature. When Aeschylus and Shakespeare are sandwiched on to each other, then there is a story that is entirely built on an understanding of the nature of the universe and the nature of man.

Here are a few easy-to-read articles about the differences between East and West story-telling

http://lithub.com/our-fairy-tales-ourselves-storytelling-from-east-to-west/

https://blog.tkmarnell.com/east-asian-storytelling/

http://stilleatingoranges.tumblr.com/post/25153960313/the-significance-of-plot-without-conflict

http://thebookaholic.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/are-asian-stories-different.html

https://andreaskluth.org/2010/08/18/somewhere-between-apollo-dionysus/

http://www.timsheppard.co.uk/story/dir/traditions/asiamiddleeast.html

#litearture #the novel #novel #books #plot #stories #story

1 note · View note