In Judges 13:17–18, why does the angel refuse to give his name, raising questions about authenticity and origin? 1. Background and Narrative Context Judges 13 describes the miraculous announcement of Samson’s birth. Manoah and his wife were childless, and an angelic figure appeared with a promise that she would bear a son destined to begin delivering Israel from the Philistines (Judges 13:3–5). After Manoah prayed for clarity, the same messenger visited again (vv. 9–14). In verses 17–18, Manoah respectfully asks for the angel’s name: “Then Manoah said to the Angel of the LORD, ‘What is Your name, so that we may honor You when Your word comes to pass?’ And the Angel of the LORD replied, ‘Why do you ask My name, seeing it is beyond comprehension?’” (Judges 13:17–18). The angel’s refusal to disclose a name or identity in the customary sense has led some to raise questions about the authenticity of this account, the messenger’s origin, and the significance of such wondrous visits in the biblical narrative. 2. Textual and Manuscript Reliability The Hebrew text of Judges 13:17–18 is well-attested in the Masoretic Text tradition, and it appears with minute variation in ancient witnesses such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (though Judges is represented fragmentarily there). The consistent reading is also found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), affirming that no significant textual alterations obscure the meaning of these verses. Studies of ancient Hebrew manuscripts (including findings cited in scholarly works examining the Cairo Genizah and other repositories) confirm that the words in Judges 13 align with what has been transmitted through centuries of careful scribal preservation. Experts in textual criticism and manuscript evidence conclude that the variants present do not alter the theological message nor the narrative elements. This reliable transmission underscores the unity of the account across biblical tradition. 3. The Nature of the Angel of the LORD Throughout the Old Testament, the “Angel of the LORD” often appears in contexts that connote divine presence rather than a mere created messenger. In multiple instances—such as Exodus 3:2–6 (the burning bush), Judges 2:1–5, and Genesis 22:11–18—this figure speaks with the authority of God and sometimes accepts worship or sacrifices offered to God alone. In Judges 13:21–22, after this angel ascends in the flame of the altar, Manoah declares: “We are doomed to die! … for we have seen God!” This response indicates the recognition that the figure was more than an ordinary angel. Such encounters emphasize a divine manifestation—some scholars use the term “theophany.” The refusal to give a standard name suggests an association with the divine identity, whose fullness transcends human categorization. This is consistent with biblical themes of God’s transcendence (cf. Exodus 3:14, where God’s name is revealed as “I AM WHO I AM,” indicating an infinite reality that cannot be limited by conventional naming). 4. The Refusal to Reveal the Name The angel’s answer, “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is beyond comprehension?” (Judges 13:18), can also be rendered “wonderful,” “incomprehensible,” or “extraordinary.” The Hebrew root behind this phrasing (פָּלִאי, palî’) resonates with the idea of the miraculous or beyond human grasp. This highlights: 1. God’s Incomprehensibility: Within biblical theology, God’s character and identity surpass human understanding. The messenger’s refusal underscores this attribute by redirecting Manoah away from curiosity about the name to reverence for the One who is acting. 2. Resonance with Other Passages: In Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called “Wonderful Counselor.” The root is similar, reflecting that God’s nature and plans exceed human explanation. The angel’s statement in Judges 13 echoes this concept of divine awe. 3. Protection of the Divine Name: Names in the ancient Near East held tremendous significance, often indicating authority and revealing attributes. The angel’s refusal may serve as a safeguard against misconceptions or manipulations of the divine identity—revealing that God’s essence cannot be domesticated or exploited. 5. Theological and Apologetic Implications 1. Authenticity of the Account: Rather than raising doubts, the angel’s refusal aligns with a broader pattern of biblical theophanies in which God’s holiness and transcendence are emphasized. This internal consistency—seen in Exodus 3:14 (the deliberately enigmatic “I AM”) and other texts—reinforces the authenticity rather than challenging it. 2. Comparison with Near Eastern Texts: Ancient manuscripts from cultures surrounding Israel often presented elaborate lists of deities with detailed names and genealogies. The reticence in Judges 13 reflects a sharp contrast: it preserves the biblical assertion that the true God is not bound by human systems of naming or manipulation. 3. God’s Personal Yet Transcendent Nature: Scholars who examine the Old Testament’s theology note that even though God reveals Himself personally to individuals (as to Abraham, Moses, and Manoah), His essence remains exalted beyond the full scope of human comprehension. This duality carries through into New Testament revelation of Christ’s incarnation (John 1:14), further illustrating the extraordinary nature of God’s self-revelation. 6. Historical and Archaeological Support 1. Setting in the Period of the Judges: Archaeological investigations in the vicinity of Zorah and Eshtaol (Judges 13:2) have yielded evidence of continued habitation and fortifications during the Late Bronze and Iron Age periods, which align with the biblical timeline for the Judges. Pottery fragments, city gate structures, and storage vessels uncovered in these regions attest to flourishing settlements consistent with the cultural backdrop of Samson’s story. 2. Reliability of the Book of Judges: Outside of the textual tradition, external references to Philistines, their cities, and skirmishes in Egyptian inscriptions and subsequent remains (such as distinctive Philistine pottery) corroborate the biblical portrayal of tension in the region. While these archaeological findings do not mention Samson by name, they provide context supporting the plausibility of conflicts described in the narrative. 3. Miraculous Theme in Scripture and History: Testimonies of the miraculous, both in Scripture and in modern anecdotal accounts, align with the perspective that God’s intervention is not restricted by natural processes. Historical documentation—such as the early church witnesses who recorded healings and miracles—reinforces the continuity of the biblical worldview in which an angelic visitor can appear in a tangible form to announce God’s plan. 7. Purpose of the Angel’s Withheld Name 1. Highlighting Worship of God Alone: Manoah’s misplaced attempt to honor the angel personally is gently corrected by the response. The emphasis redirects Manoah and his wife to worship God, who ultimately receives the burnt offering (Judges 13:19–20). 2. Foreshadowing the Messianic Expectation: The motif of the unnamed or incomprehensible name appears elsewhere in Scripture as an anticipation of a greater revelation in Jesus Christ, whose name means “Yahweh Saves” (Matthew 1:21). This theological trajectory from the Old Testament to the New affirms that God’s ultimate self-disclosure arrives in the incarnation. 3. Demonstrating God’s Sovereignty: By not disclosing a name or identity in the conventional sense, the text affirms that God is sovereign over all knowledge and human inquiry. This humbling posture invites faithful submission. 8. Conclusion and Practical Takeaways Judges 13:17–18 provides profound insight into the nature of divine revelation, the uniqueness of the Angel of the LORD, and the humility required in encountering the transcendent God. Rather than undermining the passage’s authenticity, the angel’s refusal to share a name is consistent with the grandeur of God revealed throughout Scripture. From archaeological findings that ground the account’s historical credibility, to the carefully preserved textual forms that show no significant corruption in translation, the evidence consistently points to the trustworthiness of this narrative. Theologically, this passage aligns with broader biblical teachings of God’s self-disclosure being both intimate and unfathomable. For readers today, these verses challenge us to honor the holiness of the One who transcends human understanding while personally ministering to His people. They remind us that ultimate focus should remain on the God who works wonders rather than on the means by which He communicates. As the story of Samson’s miraculous birth unfolds, it invites awe at the divine plan and calls us to trust the living God—the same God who ultimately reveals Himself fully in the resurrection of Christ, the One through whom salvation is offered to all who believe. |
    |