Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, “If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”
So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand. He struck them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can’t go back.”
She said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh; do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon.” Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me. Leave me alone two months, that I may depart and go down on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.”
He said, “Go.” He sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains. At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. She was a virgin. It became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv30, 33, 34, 35, 37 As the Apostle commendeth Jephthah for his worthy enterprise…
As the Apostle commendeth Jephthah for his worthy enterprise in delivering the people, Heb. 11:32, so by his rash vow and wicked performance of the same, his victory was defaced: and here we see that the sins of the godly do not utterly extinguish their faith.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv30–40 Jdg 11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the…
Jdg 11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
Ver. 30. And Jephthah vowed a vow.] Perplexed and confused, yea, rash and inconsiderate, to say no worse of it, out of a preposterous zeal. Jerome saith, In vovendo fuit stultus, in praestando impius, he was a fool for vowing, and yet a worse fool for so performing. That he did perform his vow, it is most certain. {Jdg 11:39} But how and in what manner, there are quot homines, tot sententiae; quot sententiae, tot sensus; quot sensus, tot dissensus; the doctors are divided, and it is very hard to determine. It may seem by the text that he sacrificed his daughter, and not separated her only as a recluse, and one devoted to God. Which fact of his, if he did it, hath no approbation from God; the Scripture leaveth it uncensured. Ferus saith that no man ever durst determine whether Jephthah did well or ill herein, because it is uncertain whether he did it by the motion of God’s Spirit, or of his own mind, seeing this is not revealed. But, beside other of the ancient fathers and rabbis who generally condemn Jephthah, Augustine, though in his questions upon the Judges he go about to excuse him what he may, yet in his questions upon the Old Testament, if at least they be his, he is bold to call Jephthah’s devotion foolish, and himself facinorosum et improbum, a lewd and rash man in that enterprise.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 Of this and the following verse, See Poole "Jdg…
Of this and the following verse, See Poole "Jdg 11:39"
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv30–38 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon,…
So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon, to fight against them,.... As in Jdg 11:29, after he had made the above vow:
and the Lord delivered them into his hands; when both armies met and engaged, victory was on the side of Jephthah; the Lord being with him, and giving him success, to where all is justly ascribed.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 Minnith - A place not far from Rabbah, the…
Minnith - A place not far from Rabbah, the chief city of the Ammonites. Subdued before Israel - It does not appear, that he offered to take possession of the country. Tho' the attempt of others to wrong us, will justify us in the defense of our own right, yet it will not authorize us to do them wrong.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 Verse 31. Shall surely be the Lord's, and I…
Verse 31. Shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.] The text is והיה ליהוה והעליתיהו עולה vehayah layhovah, vehaalithihu olah; the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering; that is, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough; to have been made without them, it must have been the vow of a heathen, or a madman. If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering; and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, c., had been returning from a visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites, c., because they offered their sons and daughters to Molech in the fire, i.e., made burnt-offerings of them, as is generally supposed. That Jephthah was a deeply pious man, appears in the whole of his conduct and that he was well acquainted with the law of Moses, which prohibited all such sacrifices, and stated what was to be offered in sacrifice, is evident enough from his expostulation with the king and people of Ammon, Jdg 11:14-27. Therefore it must be granted that he never made that rash vow which several suppose he did; nor was he capable, if he had, of executing it in that most shocking manner which some Christian writers ("tell it not in Gath") have contended for. He could not commit a crime which himself had just now been an executor of God's justice to punish in others.
It has been supposed that "the text itself might have been read differently in former times; if instead of the words והעליתיהו עולה, I will offer IT a burnt-offering, we read והעליתי הוא עולה, I will offer HIM (i.e., the Lord) a burnt-offering: this will make a widely different sense, more consistent with everything that is sacred; and it is formed by the addition of only a single letter, (א aleph,) and the separation of the pronoun from the verb. Now the letter א aleph is so like the letter ע ain, which immediately follows it in the word עולה olah, that the one might easily have been lost in the other, and thus the pronoun be joined to the verb as at present, where it expresses the thing to be sacrificed instead of the person to whom the sacrifice was to be made. With this emendation the passage will read thus: Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors or my house to meet me - shall be the Lord's; and I will offer HIM a burnt-offering." For this criticism there is no absolute need, because the pronoun הו hu, in the above verse, may with as much propriety be translated him as it. The latter part of the verse is, literally, And I will offer him a burnt-offering, עולה olah, not לעולה leolah, FOR a burnt-offering, which is the common Hebrew form when for is intended to be expressed. This is strong presumption that the text should be thus understood: and this avoids the very disputable construction which is put on the ו vau, in והעליתיהו vehaalithihu, OR I will offer IT up, instead of AND I will offer HIM a burnt-offering.
Read full note →
"From Jdg 11:39 it appears evident that Jephthah's daughter was not SACRIFICED to God, but consecrated to him in a state of perpetual virginity; for the text says, She knew no man, for this was a statute in Israel. ותהי חק בישראל vattehi chok beyishrael; viz., that persons thus dedicated or consecrated to God, should live in a state of unchangeable celibacy. Thus this celebrated place is, without violence to any part of the text, or to any proper rule of construction, cleared of all difficulty, and caused to speak a language consistent with itself, and with the nature of God."
Those who assert that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter, attempt to justify the opinion from the barbarous usages of those times: but in answer to this it may be justly observed, that Jephthah was now under the influence of the Spirit of God, Jdg 11:29; and that Spirit could not permit him to imbrue his hands in the blood of his own child; and especially under the pretence of offering a pleasing sacrifice to that God who is the Father of mankind, and the Fountain of love, mercy, and compassion.
The versions give us but little assistance in clearing the difficulties of the text. In the Targum of Jonathan there is a remarkable gloss which should be mentioned, and from which it will appear that the Targumist supposed that the daughter of Jephthah was actually sacrificed: "And he fulfilled the vow which he had vowed upon her; and she knew no man: and it was made a statute in Israel, [that no man should offer his son or his daughter for a burnt-offering, as did Jephthah the Gileadite, who did not consult Phinehas the priest; for if he had consulted Phinehas the priest, he would have redeemed her with money."]
The Targumist refers here to the law, Le 27:1-5, where the Lord prescribes the price at which either males or females, who had been vowed to the Lord, might be redeemed. "When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord at thy estimation: the male from twenty years old even unto sixty, shall be fifty shekels of silver; and if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels; and from five years old unto twenty years, the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten." This also is an argument that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed; as the father had it in his power, at a very moderate price, to have redeemed her: and surely the blood of his daughter must have been of more value in his sight than thirty shekels of silver.
Dr. Hales has entered largely into the subject: his observations may be seen at the end of this chapter.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40 Jdg 11:31. Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I…
Jdg 11:31. Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt- offering — Dr. Waterland translates it, shall be consecrated to the Lord, or, I will offer it, &c. “It is very evident,” says Dr. Dodd, “that this translation of Dr. Waterland must be right, because it was impossible that Jephthah should mean to offer for a burnt-offering whatever came forth of the doors of his house to meet him, since it was possible for him to have been met by several things which it would have been sacrilegious for him to have offered to the Lord; and indeed the event sufficiently proves the propriety of this interpretation, since he was met by that which no vow, however solemn, could justify him in offering up. This is Mr. Locke’s opinion, in his gloss upon the place.” See the note on Jdg 11:39-40.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40 The words of this verse prove conclusively that Jephthah…
The words of this verse prove conclusively that Jephthah intended his vow to apply to human beings, not animals: for only one of his household could be expected to come forth from the door of his house to meet him. They also preclude any other meaning than that Jephthah contemplated a human sacrifice. This need not, however, surprise us, when we recollect his Syrian birth and long residence in a Syrian city, where such fierce rites were probably common. The Syrians and Phoenicians were conspicuous among the ancient pagan nations for human sacrifices, and the transfer, under such circumstances, to Yahweh of the rites with which the false gods were honored, is just what one might expect. The circumstance of the Spirit of the Lord coming on Jephthah Jdg 11:29 is no difficulty; as it by no means follows that because the Spirit of God endued him with supernatural valor and energy for vanquishing the Ammonites, He therefore also endued him with spiritual knowledge and wisdom. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon, but that did not prevent his erring in the matter of the ephod Jdg 8:27. Compare 1Co 12:4-11; Gal 2:11-14.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 He. Hebrew and Septuagint, "And he vowed." A new…
He. Hebrew and Septuagint, "And he vowed." A new sentence commences; (Cajetan) so that it is not clear that Jephte was moved to make this vow by the spirit of the Lord; else it could not be blamed. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v34 Jephthah, returning victoriously, is met by his daughter. The…
Jephthah, returning victoriously, is met by his daughter. The fulfillment of his vow
Jdg_11:34-40.
Read full note →
34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh [Mizpah] unto his house, and behold, his daughter came [comes] out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her28 he had neither son nor daughter. 35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought [thou bringest] me very low, and thou art one of them [the only one]29 that trouble [afflicteth] me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord [Jehovah], and I cannot go back. 36And she said unto him, My father, if [omit: if] thou hast [hast thou] opened thy mouth unto the Lord [Jehovah], [then] do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord [Jehovah] hath taken30 vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children [sons] of Amnion. 37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for [to] me:31 Let me alone two months, that I may go up and down [may go and descend]32 upon the mountains, and bewail [weep over] my virginity, I and my fellows [companions]. 38And he said, Go. And he sent her away [dismissed her] for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed [wept over] her virginity upon the mountains. 39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had 40vowed: and she knew no man. And it was [became] a custom in Israel, That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament [praise] the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a [the] year.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg_11:34.—מִמֶּנּוּ, for מּמֶּנָּה, because the neutral conception “child” floats before the writer’s mind, cf. Bertheau. The explanation of מִמֶּנּוּ by ex se, implying that Jephthah, though he had no other child of his own, had step-children, would, as Bertheau says, be “unworthy of mention,” were it not suggested in the margin of the E. V.—Tr.]
[2 Jdg_11:35.—הָיִית בְּעֹכְרָי might be rendered: “thou art among those who afflict me.” But the ב is probably the so-called ב essentiœ (Keil), and simply ascribes the characteristic of a class to the daughter (cf. Ges. Gram. 154, 3, a). Dr. Cassel’s “only” is not expressed in the original, but is readily suggested by the contrast, of the sad scene with all the other relations of the moment.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_11:36.—עָשָׂה, lit. “done,” with evident reference to the same word used just before: “do, since Jehovah hath done,” cf. the Commentary.—Tr.]
[4 Jdg_11:37—Dr. Cassel makes this clause refer to the fulfillment of the vow, and renders: “Let this thing be done unto me, only let me alone two months,” etc. But it clearly introduces the request for a brief period of delay, and is rightly rendered by the E. V., with which Bertheau, Keil, De Wette agree, cf. the Commentary.—Tr.]
[5 Jdg_11:37.—וְיָרַדְתִּי, “descend,” i. e. from the elevated situation of Mizpah (cf. on Jdg_11:29; Jdg_11:33), to the neighboring lower hills and valleys (Keil). יָרָד does not mean to “wander up and down,” a rendering suggested only by the apparent incongruity of “descending” upon the “mountains.”—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg_11:34-36. And behold, his daughter comes out to meet him. A great victory had been gained. The national enemy was thoroughly subdued. All Gilead was in a joyful uproar. The return of the victorious hero is a triumphal progress; but when he approaches his home, his vow receives a most painful and unexpected definition. “It shall be God’s, and not belong to the victor”—so runs the vow—“whatsoever comes out of my house to meet me.” And here is his daughter coming towards him, with tambourines and choral dances, to celebrate her father’s victory! He sees her, and is struck with horror. It is his only child; and his vow tears her from his arms, and makes him childless. Broad as his vow was, he never thought that he could, even if he would, include her in it. This again appears from the circumstance, already adverted to, that the victory and the vow are against Ammon. The heathen promised or sacrificed their first-born sons. According to the Mosaic law, also, the first-born males (זְכָרִים) belong to God. The same law permitted only male33 victims to be presented as whole burnt-offerings (Lev_1:3). Jephthah’s design was to testify that he gave himself up to his God as entirely as the Ammonites imagined themselves to do to their idols. He would have consecrated his first-born son to God—Abraham’s child, also, was a boy,—but he had none. Hence, he expresses his self-renunciation in the form of a vow, in which he leaves it to God to select whatever should be most precious in his eyes. But of his daughter he did not think. It never even occurred to him that she might come forth to meet him; for that was usually done only by women34 (נָשִׁים, Exo_15:20; 1Sa_18:6), not by maidens, who remained within the house; and Jephthah’s daughter was yet a בְּתוּלָה, virgin. But this daughter was worthy of her father. The victory was so great, that she breaks through the restraints of custom, and, like Miriam (the same terms are used here as on the occasion of Moses’ song of victory, Exo_15:20), goes forth to meet the conqueror. As soon as Jephthah sees her, he recognizes the will of God. His vow is accepted; but comprehensive as he consciously made it, it is God who now first interprets it for him in all its fullness. The hero had made the vow in this indefinite form, because he had no only and dearly loved son like Isaac. True, he had a daughter; but he deemed himself debarred from consecrating her, and therefore makes his vow. God now teaches him that he looks not at the sex of the consecrated, but at the heart of the consecrator. However comprehensive Jephthah’s vow, without his daughter it would at most have cost him money or property, but his heart would have offered no sacrifice. God teaches him that He delights not in he-goats and oxen;35 that that which pleases Him is a broken heart. His heart breaks within him, when he sees his daughter. She is his darling, his sole ornament, the light of his house, the jewel of his heart; and from her he must separate. He comes home the greatest in Israel; he now feels himself the poorest. But he perceives that this is the real fulfillment of his vow; that God cares not for money or property. The highest offering, which God values, is a chastened heart. Obedience is better than sacrifice. The life is not in the letter: every contract with God must be kept in the spirit. Jephthah’s faith revealed itself before the battle. That God was with him, was proved by his victory. But his entire self-surrender to God approves itself still more beautifully after the battle. For he conquers himself. He bowed himself reverently before God, before the decision was given; but his deepest piety manifests itself afterwards. He gives his own people, he gives Ammon and Moab, an instance of the power of an Israelite to perform the vows he has made. He suffers his vow to bind him, but does not attempt to bind it. He interprets it, not according to the letter, but the spirit Lev_27:4-5 prescribes the way in which a woman, concerning whom a vow has been made, is to be redeemed. But his only little daughter, who comes to meet him, he cannot protect. Since God leads her forth towards him, He cannot intend an offering of ten shekels (Lev_27:5). His pious soul does not take, refuge behind external formulæ; as we read in connection with heathen vows and bad promises.36 He recognizes the fact that, since his only, dearly loved child comes to meet him, God demands of him all the love which he cherishes for her, and all the pain which it will cost him to part with her. And in this conviction, he hesitates not for an instant. He believes like Abraham; and, like him, albeit with a bleeding heart, makes full surrender of what God requires.
The scene of Jephthah’s meeting with his daughter has no equal in pathetic power. Her we see advancing with a radiant face, giving voice to her jubilant heart, surrounded by dancing companions, and longing to hear her father’s happy greeting; while he, in the midst of sounding timbrels and triumphant shouts—hides his face for agony! What might have been a moment of loudest jubilation, is become one of the deepest sorrow. That on which his imagination had fondly dwelt as the crowning point of his joy—the honor with which he could encircle the head of his only child, his virgin-daughter, now the first in all the nation—was instantly transformed into the heaviest woe. “O my daughter, deeply hast thou caused me to bow, and thou alone distressest me.” He borrows the words perhaps from the panegyrical song in which she celebrates him as “having caused the enemy to kneel,37 and to be distressed;” and in the extremity of his grief applies them to his child, thus suddenly astonished and struck dumb in the midst of her joy. “But,” continues the hero, though his heart weeps, “I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back.” I promised God in the spirit of sincerity, and must perform it in the same spirit. And there is not in all antiquity, no, nor yet in Holy Scripture, an instance of a maiden uttering a more beautiful, more profoundly pathetic word, than that which Jephthah’s daughter, a hero’s daughter, a true child of Israel, speaks to her father, even while as yet she knows not the purport of the vow: “Hast thou opened thy mouth to Jehovah, then do according to that which proceeded out of thy mouth; for Jehovah also hath done according to thy word, and hath taken vengeance on thy enemies.” She neither deprecates nor laments, gives no start, exhibits no despair—does nothing to make her father waver; but, on the contrary, encourages him, refers him to what God has done, and bids him do as he has promised, not to think, as he might perhaps be tempted to do, of change or modification in her favor. Such is the delicacy and tenderness of the narrative, that the modes of thought and feeling characteristic of this heroic daughter, as such, stand out in full relief; for it is in true womanly style that she says to her father: “Since Jehovah hath taken vengeance of thine enemies.” The utterance is altogether personal, as her womanly interest was personal. She concentrates the national victory in that of her father; the national enemy in the enemies of her father. God has given him vengeance (נְקָמוֹת); consequently he is bound, personally, to give to God what he has promised.
Jdg_11:37-40. And she said to her father, Let this thing be done to me. The noble maiden may boldly take her place by the side of Isaac, who, according to the narrative in Genesis, was not aware of the sacrifice to which he was destined. She gives herself up to her father, freely and joyfully, to be dealt with as his vow demanded. Heathen antiquity, also, has similar instances of virgins voluntarily offering themselves up for their native land. But comparison will point out the difference between them and the case of Jephthah’s daughter, and will help to show that here there can be no thought of a literal sacrifice of life. Pausanias (i. 32) relates the legend, dramatically treated by Euripides, that when the Athenians, who harbored the descendants of Hercules, were at war with the Peloponnesians, an oracle declared the voluntary death of one of those descendants to be necessary in order to secure victory to the Athenians; whereupon Macaria killed herself.—When the Thebans were waging war with the Orchomenians, the oracle advised them, that, if they were to conquer, their most distinguished fellow-citizen must sacrifice himself (Paus. ix. 17). Antipœnus, who is this most distinguished citizen, despises the oracle; his daughters, on the contrary, honor it, and devote themselves to death.—In the war of Erechtheus with Eumolpus, the oracle required of the former the sacrifice of his daughters. They voluntarily killed themselves (Apoll. iii. 15, 11; cf. Heyne on the passage). The same thing is told of Marius by Plutarch. Defeated by the Cimbrians, a divine oracle informed him that he would conquer, if he offered up his daughter, which he did. In all these legends, which might be greatly multiplied, an oracle commands the virgin-sacrifice; in all of them, a vigorous, superstitious belief in the atoning efficacy of pure, blood, such as appears in the German legend of Poor Heinrich, is the underlying motive; in all of them, also, the virgin-sacrifice forms the preliminary condition of victory. But in the history of Jephthah all this is changed. Jephthah makes a vow, but does not think of his daughter. In his case, the vow is a recognition of the fact that victory belongs, not to men, but to God. He makes a vow, although God has not required one. He keeps it, even after victory, although the extent of the sacrifice had not been anticipated. Neither he nor his daughter think of evasions, such, e. g., as Pausanias (iv. 9) speaks of in connection with similar histories in Messenia. And yet, the offering which each of them brings is as trying as death would be, although it cannot actually involve death. For that point is decided, not only by the different statements of the history itself, but especially by the fact that the offering is made to Jehovah, who, even when, as in the case of Abraham, he himself requires a sacrifice, will not suffer obedience to consummate itself in deeds of blood.
Let me alone two months, that I may go and descend upon the mountains, and weep over my virginity, I and my companions. No equivocal intimation is here given of the fate which befell the daughter of Jephthah. She was still in her father’s house, an only daughter, not yet married. Since the vow touches her, and devotes her entirely as an offering to God, she must belong to no one else, consequently not to her father, nor to a husband. She cannot be married, and will never rejoice over children. That is Jephthah’s sorrow—his house is withered away (עֲרִירִי), his family disappears. The highest happiness in Israel, to have children, and thus to see one’s name or house continued, will not be his. The dearest of all beings, his only child, is dead to him. The same sorrow, and in accordance with ancient feelings with even greater severity, if that were possible, falls on the virgin daughter herself. An unmarried life was equivalent to death for the maidens of ancient Israel. For the bud withers away. Conjugal love and duty, the blossoms of life, do not appear. Unmarried maidens have no place in the life of the state. Marriage forms the crown of normal family life. The psalm (Psa_78:63) notes it as part of the utmost popular misery, that “the, fire (of war) consumes the young men, and the maidens are not celebrated” (in marriage songs). Analogous sentiments are frequent in the life of ancient nations. The Brahminism of India looks upon a childless condition as in the highest degree disgraceful. A woman is always in need of manly guidance and protection; be it as daughter from her father, as wife from her husband, or as mother from her sons (cf. Bohlen, Altes Indien, ii. 141 ff.). The laws of Lycurgus concerning marriage, and their penalties against men who did not marry, are familiar. Noteworthy, with reference to the customs of Asia Minor, is an episode in the history of Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos. Being urgently warned by his daughter against leaving his island to go to Oroetus, who was on the continent, he became angry, and threatened her, that in case of his safe return home, she should long afterwards continue to be a virgin; to which the dutiful daughter replied, that she would gladly remain virgin much longer still, if only she did not lose her father (Herod. iii. 124).
And weep over my virginity. Not, then, it appears, to mourn her own untimely death. If she was to die, it would have been unnatural to ask for a space of two months to be spent on the mountains in weeping. In that case, why depart with her maiden companions? why not remain at home with her father? A person expecting death and ready for it, would ask no time for lamentation. Such a one dies, and is lamented by others. But Jephthah’s daughter is to live—a virgin life, to which no honor is paid, from which no blossoms spring—a life of stillness and seclusion. No nuptial song shall praise, no husband honor, no child grace her. This weeping of virgins,38 because they remain without the praise of wedlock, is characteristic of the naïve manners and candid, unaffected purity of ancient life through wide-extended circles. Sophocles, in “King Œdipus” (11:1504), makes the father express his fears that “age will consume his children, fruitless and unmarried.” Electra, in the tragedy which bears her name, says of Chrysothemis (11:962 f.): “Well mayest thou lament that thou must grow old so long in unmarried joylessness;” just as she is herself commiserated by Orestes (11:1185): “Oh, the years of unmarried, anxious life which thou hast lived.” In many other instances of virgins who must die or have died, the fact of their dying unmarried is lamented. So, for example, in the beautiful inscription of the Anthology (cf. Herder, Werke, xx. 73): “Dear daughter, thou wentest so early, and ere I adorned thy bridal couch, down to the yellow stream under the shades,” and in the plaint of Polyxena (Euripides, Hecuba, 11:414): “Unmarried, without nuptial song, which nevertheless is my due.” The daughter of Jephthah laments not that she must die as a virgin, but with her maiden companions bewails her virginity itself.
From year to year the daughters of Israel go to celebrate in songs (לְהַנּוֹת, cf. Jdg_5:11) the daughter of Jephthah. Of this festival39 nothing further is known. A reflection of the feelings it expressed might, however, be found in very ancient analogies. After the maiden, with her companions, has wept on the mountains for two months, over the vain promise of her youth, she returns to her father. The mountains are the abode of a pure and elevated solitude, in which her own chaste heart and those of her companions can open themselves without being overheard. On mountains, also, and in unfrequented pasture-lands and forests, abode the Greek Artemis, the virgin who goes about alone, without companions, like the moon in the sky. It was on account of this her virginity, that Greek maidens celebrated her in many places with song and dance; from which practice she derived the name Artemis Hymnia, especially current in the mountains of Arcadia. The hymns were sung by virgin-choirs (cf. Welcker, Griech. Mythol. i. 585). A similar festival was devoted to Artemis on Mount Taygetus. At Caryæ, also in Laconia, festive choral dances were yearly executed in her honor (Paus. iii. 10). The virgin goddess was also called Hecaerge (‛Εκαέργη), and Opis or Oupis (Ὦπις or οὖπις). Οὔπιγγος is the song of praise, with which, especially in Delos, and in accordance with peculiar myths, virgins celebrated the chaste Oupis, and brought her, as soon as they married, a lock of their hair (Callim. in Del. 11:292; Paus. i. 43). The same custom was observed at Megara with reference to Iphinoe, who died a virgin (Paus. i. 43). Here also tradition leads us back to Artemis, who is styled protectress of her father. That it is the attributes of chastity and virginity which are thus celebrated, is indicated by the transfer of the custom in honor of a man, in the legend of Hippolytus. “Him,” Euripide makes Artemis say, “shall virgins ever praise in lyric songs;” and locks of hair were dedicated to him by Trœzenian brides (cf. Euripides, Hippol. 11:1425; Paus. ii. 32).
These observances are a reflection of the narrative concerning Jephthah’s daughter, for the reason that they present us with virgin festivals, and with songs to the goddess who did not die, but remained a virgin. In point of fact, the existence of such festivals points to conceptions of life under whose influence woman, contrary to the common rule, lived in a state of virginity. The circumstance, also, that it became a custom in Israel to “praise” the daughter of Jephthah four days in every year, is itself a proof that the practice did not refer to a maiden who had been put to death. For what would there have been to praise in what was not necessarily dependent on her own free will? As in Artemis, so in her, it is voluntary, self-guarded chastity that is praised, just as Hippolytus also is not celebrated because he died unmarried, but because his life fell a sacrifice to his virtuous continence.
And he did with her according to his vow, and she knew no man. Had she been put to death, that fact must here have been indicated in some way. The narrator would have said, “and he presented her as a sacrifice at the altar in Mizpah,” or, “and she died, having known no man,” or some other similar formula. At all events, it does not “stand there in the text,” as Luther wrote, that she was offered in sacrifice. Much rather does this sentence show the contrary. For its second clause is explanatory of the nature and purport of the vow as it was fulfilled. The end to which it looked was the very thing which it is stated was actually secured, that she should know no man.40 On any other interpretation, the addition of this clause would be inexplicable and questionable. For the fact that she was a virgin in her father’s house, has already been twice brought forward. Moreover, it is surely not an event of very rare occurrence, for young women to die before they are married. And why should the narrator have hesitated to speak of the transaction in such terms as properly and plainly described it? In other cases he does not fail to speak of the most fearful aberrations just as they are. The truth is, the whole narrative derives its mighty charm only from the mysterious, and at that time in Israel very extraordinary fact, that the daughter of the great hero, for whom a life of brilliant happiness opened itself, spent her days in solitude and virginity.41 Death, even unnatural, was nothing uncommon. But a life such as Jephthah’s daughter henceforth lived, was at that time unparalleled in Israel, and affords therefore profound instruction, not to be overlooked because issuing from the silence of retirement.
Jephthah performs his vow. That which comes to meet him, even when it proves to be his daughter, he consecrates entirely to God, as a true offering of righteousness (cf. Psa_51:19 : עוֹלָה וְכָליל זִכְחֵי־צֶדֶק). He fulfills his vow so fully as to put it beyond his own reach to annul or commute us purport. For he fulfills, as he vowed, voluntarily; no one called on him to make his promise good. The background of the history, without which it cannot be understood, is life in and with God. The providence to which the hero commits the definition of his vow, is that of Jehovah. And if God leads his daughter forth to meet him, and thus in her receives the highest object in the gift of Jephthah, the consecration of which she becomes the subject cannot be of a nature opposed to God.
The event throws a brightness over the life of perpetual virginity which rescues it from ignominy and dishonor. Jephthah’s daughter typically exemplifies the truth that a virgin life, if it be consecrated to God, is not such an utter abnormity, as until then it had appeared. In Jephthah’s fulfillment of his vow and the consequent unmarried life of his daughter, there is a foreshadowing of those evangelical thoughts by means of which the Apostle liberates woman from the dread of remaining unwedded. Not, however, that we are to look here for the germ or type of the nunnery system;42 but for an example of belonging wholly to God, and of living unmarried, without being burdened or placed in a false position.
That Jephthah through his vow became the occasion of such an example, is already some mitigation of his fate. He has become the father, not of children who inherited his house, but of countless virgins who learned from his daughter to remain free and wholly devoted to God. Jephthah is a truly tragic hero. His youth endures persecution. His strength grows in exile. His victory and fame veil themselves in desolation when his only daughter leaves his home. But everywhere he is great. Whatever befalls, he comes out conqueror at last. God is always the object of his faith. He suffers more than Gideon; but what he does at last does not become a snare to Israel. He also had no successors in his office of wisdom and heroism—just as Gideon, and Samson, and Samuel had none; but it was not his fault that he had them not. His daughter, who resembled a Miriam, gave herself up to God.43
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Jephthah’s call was extraordinary: extraordinary also is the manner of his own endurance and his daughter’s obedience. He parts with her, though deeply afflicted. He yields, though possessed of secular power. His daughter comforts him, though herself the greatest loser. Isaac did not know that he was to be the sacrifice; but Jephthah’s daughter knows it, and is content.
1. Thus it appears that a child who loves its father, can also love God. In true devotion of children to parents, there lies a germ of the like relation to God. The daughter of Jephthah loves her father so dearly, that for his sake she calmly submits to that which he has vowed to God. It is written: Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. To Jephthah’s daughter this was fulfilled in the spirit. Her memory has never faded from the books of Israel, nor from the heaven of God, where all sorrows are redeemed.
2. Jephthah might have conquered without a vow; but having vowed before his victory, he fulfills it after the same. Faithfulness to his word is man’s greatest wisdom, even though he moisten it with tears. Faithfulness towards a sin is inconceivable; because unfaithfulness lies in the nature of sin. Faithfulness has the promise: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.
3. Jephthah’s daughter does not die like one sacrificed to Molech: she dies to the world. She loses a thousand joys that are sweet as love. But no one ever dies to the world and lives to God, without experiencing sorrow. A virgin life is a nameless life, as Jephthah’s daughter is nameless in Scripture. But the happiness of this world is not indispensable; and like the solitary flower, the unmarried woman can belong to her God, in whose heaven they neither give nor are given in marriage.
Gerlach: That the Judges whom God raised up, when they thus offered to the Lord even that which they held most dear, did not deliver the estranged and deeply fallen people in a merely outward sense, is shown by this act of believing surrender.
Footnotes:
[28][Jdg_11:34.—מִמֶּנּוּ, for מּמֶּנָּה, because the neutral conception “child” floats before the writer’s mind, cf. Bertheau. The explanation of מִמֶּנּוּ by ex se, implying that Jephthah, though he had no other child of his own, had step-children, would, as Bertheau says, be “unworthy of mention,” were it not suggested in the margin of the E. V.—Tr.]
[29][Jdg_11:35.—הָיִית בְּעֹכְרָי might be rendered: “thou art among those who afflict me.” But the ב is probably the so-called ב essentiœ (Keil), and simply ascribes the characteristic of a class to the daughter (cf. Ges. Gram. 154, 3, a). Dr. Cassel’s “only” is not expressed in the original, but is readily suggested by the contrast, of the sad scene with all the other relations of the moment.—Tr.]
[30][Jdg_11:36.—עָשָׂה, lit. “done,” with evident reference to the same word used just before: “do, since Jehovah hath done,” cf. the Commentary.—Tr.]
[31][Jdg_11:37—Dr. Cassel makes this clause refer to the fulfillment of the vow, and renders: “Let this thing be done unto me, only let me alone two months,” etc. But it clearly introduces the request for a brief period of delay, and is rightly rendered by the E. V., with which Bertheau, Keil, De Wette agree, cf. the Commentary.—Tr.]
[32][Jdg_11:37.—וְיָרַדְתִּי, “descend,” i. e. from the elevated situation of Mizpah (cf. on Jdg_11:29; Jdg_11:33), to the neighboring lower hills and valleys (Keil). יָרָד does not mean to “wander up and down,” a rendering suggested only by the apparent incongruity of “descending” upon the “mountains.”—Tr.]
[33][Dr. Cassel manifestly views Jephthah’s vow as sui generis—not belonging to the class of vows treated of in Lev_27:1 ff. and therefore not falling under the provisions there made. Jephthah proposes a whole burnt-offering—spiritual indeed so far as its possible human subjects are concerned, but still bound by the law of whole burnt-offerings. Now, that law requires that offerings shall be of the male gender; whereas ordinary vows might embrace females, Lev_27:4. This view will impart clearness to some of our author’s sentences farther on, where he intimates that Jephthah could not redeem his daughter without taking “refuge behind external formulæ,” i. e. without interpreting the vow, as if it belonged to a class of vows to which it was not originally meant to belong.—Tr.]
[34][Frauen, by which the author evidently means married women. But נָשׁים bears no such restricted sense, cf. Ges. Lex. s. v. Moreover, that maidens were confined to the house is a proposition decidedly negatived by all we know of the position of the female sex among the Hebrews. See Bible Dict., art. “Women.”—Tr.]
[35]Apparently similar thoughts, it is true, are suggested from a heathen point of view, not only by such examples as that of Iphigenia (cf. Cicero, de Officiis, ii. 95), and of Curtius in Rome, but also by that of Anchurus, the son of the Phrygian king Midas, who deemed his own life the most precious sacrifice that could be offered from his father’s possessions to the gods. But in reality, these exhibit only the principles that underlie the practice of human sacrifices—principles, with which the spirit of the Scriptures, and their spiritual modes of conception, stand strongly in contrast.
[36]Cf. Nägelsbach, Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 244, etc.
[37] הַכְרֵעַ הִכְרַעְתִּנִי, from כָּרַע, to kneel; Hiphil, to cause to kneel, to subdue. She sang perhaps about the enemies whom he had subdued (cf. Jdg_5:27); he sadly applies her words to what she is doing with reference to himself.
[38]Similar customs may be found even in modern times. In a West-Slavic legend a maiden is blamed for having married without having taken leave of maidenhood, which it was customary to do in pathetic and elegiac terms Wenzig, West-Slav. Marchenschatz, pp. 13, 311.
[39]On the statement of Epiphanius, that a festival of the daughter of Jephthah was still celebrated in his time, compare my article in Herzog, p. 476.
[40]Hengstenberg, in his valuable essay on Jephthah’s vow (Pentateuch, ii. 105 ff.), seeks to explain the daughter’s destiny by means of an institute of holy women, into which she perhaps entered. This is not the place to treat that subject, which must be referred to 1Sa_2:22. This much only seems to me to be certain, that by the צֹבְאוֹת, Exo_38:8 and 1Sa_2:22, we are not to understand ministering women. It must be remarked, in general, that the fundamental signification of צָבָא is, not militare, but to be in a multitude.” From this the idea of the צבָאוֹת, the hosts, in heaven and on earth, is derived. צבָא derives its meaning “host,” not from military discipline, but from the assembling of a multitude at one place. The women of the passages alluded to are therefore not ministering women, but persons who collected together at the tabernacle for purposes of prayer, requests, and thanks-giving, like the wives of Elkanah (1 Samuel 1), or to consult with and inquire of the priests. Some, of course, were more instant and continuous in their attendance than others (cf. Kimchi on 1Sa_2:22). At all events, they were women who were either married or widowed. But the history of Jephthah’s daughter is related as something extraordinary. Her virginity must remain intact. On this account she is lamented, and a festival is celebrated for her sake. These are uncommon matters, not to be harmonized with the idea of a familiarly known institute. Even among the Talmudists, a female ascetic is a phenomenon unheard of and unapproved (Sota, 22 a).
[41]Nor is it necessary to assume anything more to explain the lament of the daughter or the grief of the bereaved father. Even Roman fathers took it sorrowfully, when their daughters became vestal virgins, notwithstanding the great honor of such a vocation. They were glad to leave such honors to the children of freedmen (Sueton. Aug. 31; Dio Cass. 55, p. 563).
[42]On this point, compare my article in Herzog, p. 474, note.
[43]Poets, unfortunately, have almost without exception considered a sacrificial death more poetical, and have thus done serious injustice to the memory of Jephthah. It was done, among others, by Dante (Paradise, v. 66), who herein followed the Catholic exegesis of his day (cf. my article in Herzog, p. 470). To be sure, Herder did the same. Lord Byron also, in his Hebrew Melodies (see a translation of his poems in Klein’s Volkskalender, for 1854, p 47). The names in Händel’s Oratorio seem to have been borrowed from the poem of Buchanan, published in Strasburg, 1568. Cf. Gödeke, Pamphilus Gengenbach, p. 672. In Faber’s Historischer Lustgarten (Augsburg and Frankfort, 1702), the daughter is called “Jephtina.”
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv31, 32, 34 whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house…
whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me--This evidently points not to an animal, for that might have been a dog; which, being unclean, was unfit to be offered; but to a person, and it looks extremely as if he, from the first, contemplated a human sacrifice. Bred up as he had been, beyond the Jordan, where the Israelitish tribes, far from the tabernacle, were looser in their religious sentiments, and living latterly on the borders of a heathen country where such sacrifices were common, it is not improbable that he may have been so ignorant as to imagine that a similar immolation would be acceptable to God. His mind, engrossed with the prospect of a contest, on the issue of which the fate of his country depended, might, through the influence of superstition, consider the dedication of the object dearest to him the most likely to ensure success.
shall surely be the Lord's; and [or] I will offer it up for a burnt offering--The adoption of the latter particle, which many interpreters suggest, introduces the important alternative, that if it were a person, the dedication would be made to the service of the sanctuary; if a proper animal or thing, it would be offered on the altar.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 30. Vowed a vow unto the Lord — Bound…
30. Vowed a vow unto the Lord — Bound himself by a strong oath and solemn appeal to Jehovah. So Jacob did at Bethel, (Gen_28:20,) and Hannah at the tabernacle. 1Sa_1:11. Although vows were not commanded in the Old Testament, they were often taken, and the law made provision for different kinds of vows. They might be pleasing or displeasing to God, according to their real character. A rash vow could never be pleasing to God, though it might be excusable from the ignorance of him that vowed.
It is not to be assumed that Jephthah uttered this vow under divine inspiration. The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and quickened him with energy and heroism to go and conquer Ammon, but not to make this vow. It is to be noted that no sacred writer commends Jephthah’s vow.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 30. vowed a vow] The sequel of Jdg_11:11. It…
30. vowed a vow] The sequel of Jdg_11:11. It was a solemn vow made deliberately at a sanctuary (Jdg_11:35-36) under stress of circumstances, like Jacob’s at Bethel Gen_28:20 f., Gen_31:13 E, Hannah’s at Shiloh 1Sa_1:11, Absalom’s at Hebron 2Sa_15:7 f.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 (30) Jephthah vowed a vow.—This was a practice among…
(30) Jephthah vowed a vow.—This was a practice among all ancient nations, but specially among the Jews (Gen_28:20-22; 1Sa_1:11; 2Sa_15:8; Psa_66:13).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 Vers. 30, 31. And Jephthah vowed a vow. This…
Vers. 30, 31. And Jephthah vowed a vow. This verse and the following go back to relate something which preceded his passing over to the children of Ammon, viz., his rash and unhappy vow. This is related, as so many things in Scripture are, without note or comment, and the reader must pass his own sentence upon the deed. That sentence can only be one of unreserved con- detonation on the part of any one acquainted with the spirit and letter of the word of God. Many attempts have been made to show that Jephthah only contemplated the offering of an animal in sacrifice; but the natural and indeed necessary interpretation of the words shows that he had a human victim in mind. He could not expect any but a human being to come forth from the doors of his house, nor could any but a human being come forth "to meet him a common phrase always spoken of Gen_14:17 Gen_24:65 Exo_4:14 Exo_18:7 Num_20:20 1Sa_25:34, etc., and below in ver. 34. Obviously, in the greatness of his danger and the extreme hazard of his undertaking, (Jud_1:12:3) he thought to propitiate God"s favour by a terrible and extraordinary vow. But if we ask how Jephthah came to have such erroneous notions of the character of God, the answer is not far to seek. Jephthah was "the son of a strange woman," probably, as we have seen, a Syrian, (Jud 11:1-11, note) and had passed many years of his life as an exile in Syria. Now it is well known that human sacrifices were frequently practised in Syria, as they were also by the Ammonites, who made their children pass through the fire to Moloch, and it cannot surprise us that a man brought up as Jephthah was, and leading the life of a freebooter at the head of a band of Syrian outlaws, should have the common Syrian notion of the efficacy of human sacrifices in great emergencies. His language, indeed, about Jehovah and Chemosh in ver. 24 savoured of semi-heathenism. Nor is it any valid objection that we are told in ver. 29 that "the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah." The phrase does not mean that thenceforth he was altogether under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that all that he did was inspired by the Spirit of truth and wisdom, but that the Spirit of the Lord inspired him with extraordinary strength and power for the great task of leading Israel to battle against the Ammonites. And I will offer. The rendering suggested by some, or I will offer, meaning, if the first. comer is a human being he shall be the Lord"s, or if it is an animal I will offer it as a burnt offering, is wholly inadmissible.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY Ver. 29. The Spirit of the Lord.
Read full note →
I THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS NOT A MERE INFLUENCE, BUT A LIVING PRESENCE. It is taught throughout Scripture that God does not only bestow graces, but also comes personally into our souls. (Joh_14:16, Joh_14:17) This Divine presence may not be perceived by the senses, as in the visions of the dove (Mat_3:16) and of the cloven tongues of Act_2:3. It need not give rise to any ecstasy or visible excitement, as in the case of the Corinthian Church. (1Co_14:2) It may be without the immediate consciousness of the subject. But it will be proved by its effects.
II THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD COMES UPON A MAN TO INSPIRE HIM FOR SERVICE. God does not simply inhabit a man as a temple; he infuses his life into the very being of the man; transforms, elevates: enlightens, strengthens. Thus Jephthah found the Spirit to be the source of his power for battle. God"s Spirit is always the spring of the Christian"s highest energies. It is foolish to attempt to do any good work without the aid that is given by the indwelling power of God.
III THE SPECIAL FORM OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CAPACITIES OF THE RECIPIENT AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS WORK. There is a variety of gifts.
1. God"s Spirit affects us differently, according to our natural differences. To the thoughtful man he is a spirit of understanding. To him who hungers and thirsts after righteousness he is a spirit of holiness. To the sympathiser, the comforting friend, he is a spirit of love. To the active worker he is a spirit of power.
2. God"s Spirit also affects us differently according to the needs of the times. God does not waste his influence; he adapts it to requirements. Therefore we must not think that his Spirit is less with us than with men of old because the manifestation is different, nor that he is less with those who have not the form of spiritual influence which we esteem most than with those who possess it. (1Co_12:6)
IV THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD DOES NOT ANNIHILATE THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS OF MEN. Jephthah retains his natural characteristics, and still shows them.
1. God"s Spirit does not supersede natural talent, but enlightens, purifies, and strengthens.
2. God s Spirit does not destroy human weakness. Jephthah has the Spirit of the Lord, yet he may be rash and may err. The spirit of wisdom does not necessarily accompany the spirit of strength. We may have the presence of the Spirit, and yet not be filled with the Spirit, so that human weakness may linger by the side of Divine power. A.
Vers. 30, 31, 34-40. Jephthah"s vow.
What it involved has been much disputed. But the wording of the vow certainly admits of an interpretation consistent with the highest humanity. The object is expressed neutrally, as being more comprehensive; but there is a distinction introduced into the consequent member of the sentence which shows that regard is had to a dual possibility, viz., of the object being either personal or otherwise. If the former, he or she was to be "Jehovah"s," an expression unnecessary if it was to be made a burnt offering, and which could only mean "dedicated to perpetual virginity or priesthood." If the latter, he would "offer it for a burnt offering." It bears out this that his daughter asks for two months "to bewail her virginity." The inference is imperative. It was not death, but perpetual virginity, to which she was devoted. In this vow we observe
I THE SPIRIT OF CONSECRATION IT EVINCED. Its meaning was evident. Jehovah was the true Judge and Deliverer of Israel. His, therefore, should be the glory when Israel returned in victory. There was to be no diverting of honour from him to Jephthah. A sacrifice, therefore, should be made before all men to acknowledge this. But as Jephthah is the person most in danger of being tempted to forget God"s claim, he himself gives anticipatively of his own, and of his own, especially, which might be considered as specially for his honour. It was a "blank form" to be filled up by Providence as it would.
II THE UNEXPECTED FORM THE SACRIFICE ASSUMED. How it astonishes men when God takes them at their word! Not that they do not mean what they say, but they do not realise all it implies. God ever does this that he may educate the heart in loving sacrifice, and reveal the grandeur and absoluteness of his own claim upon us.
III THE GRACE THAT INVESTED IT from
1. The mutual love of parent and child. They both sorrow because she is an only child, and they are all in all to one another. It was a keen, real sacrifice.
2. The unquestioning and cheerful obedience of the child. Like Isaac and Christ.
3. The unwavering fidelity of Jephthah to his vow. It was the wisest course, and the one that proved best the fidelity and infinite love of God. There was sorrow, but who will say that there was not a compensating blessedness in the act, and a "more exceeding weight of glory" in the ages to come? This is what God expects. Have we ever vowed to him? If so, have we paid our vows? Negligence in this matter will explain much that distresses and perplexes us. Honesty towards God how few practise it! Yet this is the true proof of him. (Mal_3:10)
IV HOW AN ABSOLUTE PERSONAL SACRIFICE MAY BECOME A NATIONAL IDEAL AND ATONEMENT. The circumstances were such that all Israel sympathised with the act of self-devotion. It fell in with the national mood and carried it to heroic pitch. The "custom in Israel" shows how profoundly the spirit of the people had been touched. The maiden offered to Jehovah is adopted as the offering of her people, a vicarious sacrifice of their repentance and faith. So does the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, become the world"s atonement. M. (2Co_5:14, 2Co_5:15)
Vers. 30-40. Jephthah"s vow.
Jephthah"s conduct should be viewed in the light of his age and of his own conscientious convictions, and not judged by the clearer light and changed convictions of Christendom. Measured by modern standards, it may appear superstitious, cruel, insane; but measured by the only standards to which Jephthah could bring it, his conduct was noble beyond expression. From the incident generally we may gather the following lessons:
I THE HAND OF GOD SHOULD BE RECOGNISED IN OUR GOOD AND FRUITFUL WORKS. The eiders had called upon Jephthah to deliver them from the Ammonites. Yet the warrior saw that his own right hand could not secure the victory; if this came, it must be from God. Such conduct shows humility a difficult grace for a popular hero to practise in the midst of his triumph; and faith in discerning the secret of success in the presence of God, and trusting to this before entering the battle.
II IT IS RIGHT THAT WE SHOULD RECOGNISE GOD"S CLAIMS IN RETURN FOR THE RECEPTION OF HIS GRACE. The thank offering belongs not to the Levitical law alone, but to all religion. (Rom_12:1) It is foolish to think to buy the help of God by promising him devotion in return. (Gen_28:20-22) But it may be helpful to our fulfilment of the duties of gratitude if we recognise the obligation of thankfulness even before we receive the special blessing of God, as we are more likely to realise it fully then than after we are relieved and satisfied. It should always be remembered that we have already received such great bounties from God that we are under constant obligations to him, that he claims our hearts, our possessions, our all, and that our true blessedness is only found in perfect surrender to him.
III IT IS GENERALLY FOOLISH AND WRONG TO MAKE A VOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH WE DO NOT FORESEE. There may be an occasional advantage in the vow to bind the soul by a solemn recognition of its obligations; but we are equally required to give God our all whether we make a vow or no. Nothing is more weak than to vow at a time when we axe not called to make a sacrifice, and then to prove unequal to the sacrifice when this is required. It is better to count the cost and refrain from making the vow if necessary. (Luk_14:28) The vow is often only a sign of presumption. It would be well for us to turn our vows into prayers, and instead of promising that we will do some great thing, to ask God to give us grace to do it. Still, viewed from the standpoint of devotion, there is something noble in the perfect surrendering of self, and the brave trustfulness of Jephthah"s vow.
IV WE SHOULD CONSIDER OURSELVES BOUND TO KEEP THOSE VOWS WHICH WE MAKE TO OUR OWN HURT SO LONG AS WE DO NOT FEEL THIS TO BE WRONG. Our own inconvenience is no excuse for declining to fulfil an obligation, just because we did not anticipate the trouble in entering into the obligation. (Psa_15:4) But our conviction of wrong is a reason for not keeping our promise. A promise to do evil is void from the first. It is wrong to make such a promise; to fulfil it is to add a second wrong. We can never bind ourselves by vow to do that which it would not be right for us to do without the vow. Therefore for us, with our Christian light, it would be sinful to fulfil such a vow as Jephthah"s. Nevertheless, the great Hebrew hero clearly felt that it was his duty to fulfil it, and therefore to him the vow was binding. If we blame him, it must be
(1) for the rashness which allowed him to contract himself into an obligation which he would never have entered with his eyes opened, and
(2) for the ignorance of the character of God which is shown in his supposition that God could be pleased with the sacrifice of his daughter. Even the imperfect revelation of God then vouchsafed should have prevented such a frightful misconception if it had been rightly used. (Gen_22:12) But we may find more of good example than of warning in the whole incident. Pathetic as is the error of Jephthah, his magnificent fidelity is a model of religious heroism. A.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v34 I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and…
Jdg_11:34-40
I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.
Read full note →
Retreat impossible
I. what we have done. I have opened my mouth unto the Lord.
1. We have opened our mouths before the Lord, first, by confessing our faith in Jesus Christ.
2. We have also avowed and declared before the living God that we are Christs disciples and followers.
3. We have opened our mouth to the Lord, next, because as we believe in Jesus Christ, and take Him to be our Master, so we have admitted the Redeemers claims to our persons and services, and have resolved to live for Him alone in our days. We have made a dedication of ourselves to His service, declaring that we are not our own, but bought with a price.
4. We have cast in our lot with His people.
II. What we cannot do. I cannot go back. Having once become Christians, we cannot apostatise from the faith. We cannot go back, even by temporary turnings aside.
1. If we did go back, we should show that we have been altogether false until now.
2. We should incur frightful penalties. To go back is death, shame, eternal ruin.
3. It would be so unreasonable. If you give up the religion of Jesus Christ, what other religion would you have? If you were to give up the pleasures of godliness, what other pleasures would you have? Oh, says one, we could go into the world. Could you? If you are a child of God you are spoiled for the world.
4. I have no inclination to go back. The man who is married to a good wife thinks to himself, If I had to marry again to-morrow morning, she should be the bride, and happy would we be. And so, if we had our choice to make again, we would choose our dear Lord over again, only with much more eagerness and earnestness than we did at first.
5. We have opened our mouth to the Lord, and we cannot go back because we are so happy as we now are. A man does not turn his back upon that which has become his life and his joy; he is bound to it by the bliss which he derives from it. Can the Swiss forget his country when he listens to the home-music which he heard as a child amidst his native hills? Does not the home-sickness come over him so that he longs to be among the Alps again? Does not the Englishman, wherever he wanders, whether by land or sea, feel his heart instinctively turn to the white cliffs of Albion, and does he not say that with all her faults he loves his country still? Who would cease to be that which he loves to be?
6. And then, besides that, we cannot go back from what we have said, for Divine grace impels us onward. There is a secret power more mighty than all other forces called the force of grace, and this has captured us.
III. Something which we must do. If there is a present sacrifice demanded of us, we must make it directly. If there is anything in your business, and you cannot be a Christian if you do it, abjure it at once and for ever. If you are to do this, however, you must ask for more grace. One other admonition to Christian people is this--burn the boats behind you. When the Roman commander meant victory he landed his troops on the coast where he knew there were thousands of enemies, and he burned the boats, so as to cut off all chance of retreat. But how are we to get away if we are beaten? That is just it, said he; we will not be beaten; we will not dream of such a thing. Burn the boats--that is what you Christian people must do. Make no provision for the flesh. Let the separation between you and the world be final and irreversible. Say, Here I go for Christ and His Cross, for the truth of the Bible, for the laws of God, for holiness, for trust in Jesus; and never will I go back, come what may. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
No trifling with God
We have opened our mouth unto the Lord. It is not what we promised the Church, though in becoming members of it we have promised to fulfil the mutual duties of Christians. It was not what we promised to the minister, though, in the very fact of becoming members of a Church of which he is the pastor we have a Christian duty towards him. It was not what we promised one another, though we all owe something to each other. But we have opened our mouth to the Lord. If a man must trifle, let him trifle with men, but not with God. If promises to men may be lightly broken--and they should not be--yet let us not trifle with promises made to God. And if solemn declarations ever can be forgotten--which they should not be--yet not solemn declarations made to God. Beware, oh! beware of anything like levity in entering into covenant with the Most High. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth.
A sacrifice of the world to high principle
Never in any age, or among any people, was there a more ready or thorough sacrifice of the world to high principle and duty than was made by the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. It was made, too, in most trying circumstances. If ever the world seemed bright to her, it must have been when she went forth with timbrels and dances to meet her father. The land of Israel they had so longed for was to be their home--they were to dwell there in peace and honour, high in rank, great in power. It would seem to the daughter of Jephthah as if life were but beginning; the night seemed past and the morning breaking--a morning without cloud. She could not but anticipate a long bright day for her father and herself; and it would be all the more welcome that they had sighed for it so often, and watched for it through a night so dark and so long. It was in these most trying circumstances that the daughter of Jephthah heard from her fathers lips that he had opened his mouth unto the Lord and could not go back. Yet without one word of reproach or complaint, and without hesitation, she said unto him who had vowed that rash vow, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me, etc. Think of her, that child of an outcast--brought up in a heathen land and in a camp--think of her, how pure, how unworldly, how unselfish, how noble in spirit! Think of her patriotism, think of her self-sacrifice, that you may abhor all that is mean and selfish, and worldly and untruthful; and that you may cease to grudge the sacrifices your Father in heaven requires in love and wisdom, and for your own deliverance and safety. (M. Nicholson, D. D.)
Let me alone two months, that I may.., bewail my virginity.--
The wail of Jephthahs daughter
It is this wail of Jephthahs daughter that rises from every generation of this worlds history. What we are all of us called upon to see with our own eyes, and judge with our own hearts, is a similar, or much more grievous waste of all that is good in human nature, of devotedness to country and family, of fine feeling, of the best intellect. Again and again, in our own society, we see the most splendid mental abilities squandered in the quest of what can never be discovered, the truest eloquence and highest moral feeling consecrated to a cause that is not worth lifting a finger to defend. Who has not seen the most precious human feelings wasted, you would say, on worthless people, while they might have fertilised and enriched responsive natures--the noblest devotedness sacrificed to a mere lie, or deception, or mockery? Two months was not too long to weep over the dreadful misguidedness of human actions, and the consequent waste or outward unprofitableness of what is best in human nature. Still, there is a compensating element even here. These companions who sympathised with their friend, and at last decked her as if for her bridal, and gave her into her fathers hands, must no doubt have felt to the close of life that a world in which anything so tragic could happen was a blighted, melancholy world. Still, as they themselves passed through the various womanly duties that fell to them, and felt still the hold that event had taken; as they told the story of the noble maiden to their own children, and found how it moved and controlled them, and how many, through that example, were urged to more self-sacrificing deeds, and to higher thoughts about what is beautiful and good in life; must not these women sometimes have thought that possibly the real children of Jephthahs daughter, those who had truly succeeded to her nature, were more and better than could have been hers, had she lived? If then by family circumstances, or in any other way, we are called upon to sacrifice our own will to what seems a very needless, provoking, and rash plan, what we have to do is to seek to have something of the spirit of Jephthahs daughter, and accept our position without a murmur; knowing that, though we do not see how, any more than she did, this may, and will, by Gods blessing, result in such development of our own character, and such enlargement of our usefulness, as could not otherwise be attained. (Marcus Dods, D. D.)
Did with her according to his vow.--
Modern Jephthahs; or, parental immolations
In Jephthahs vow we see two things--
1. A good feeling overcoming the judgment.
2. A sense of right leading to an enormous crime.
I. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to the true God. But what are many modern parents doing? Why, offering up their children to false gods!
1. The god of idleness. Indolence is ruin.
2. The god of worldliness.
3. The god of ambition.
II. Jepthah sacrificed only the body of his daughter. But parents in these modern times are found immolating the souls of their children; they are made to prostrate their powers, and to yield the Divine sentiments of their nature to idleness, pelf, vanity, fashion.
1. Soul immolation is more gradual.
2. Soul immolation is more mischievous. It is the ruin of the whole man.
III. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter from a noble impulse. No such high feeling prompts parents in these days to sacrifice the souls of their children even to the false and ignominious divinities. They do it either from the spirit of custom, vanity, greed, or ambition. It is a cold-blooded, soulless immolation. If there is any feeling, it is the mere lust of the eye and pride of life.
IV. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter with a terrible regret. But modern parents lay the souls of their children on the altar of worldliness, vanity, and sin, not only without any compunction, but with an utter indifference. They see the souls of their daughters running into grubs, butterflies, swine, and heave no sigh of regret.
V. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter with her full concurrence. Were worldly parents to say to their daughters at the dawn of their intelligent and moral life, We intend to take all the innocency from your young loves--all the sensibility from your young consciences--all the religious poetry from your young natures--and to make you the dolls of fashion, the devotees of a sham life, the victims of a pampered animalism, and thus rifle you of your birthright as immortals--this would be honest; this would bring the question so thoroughly home to the young heart as would, we think, rouse opposition to the fiendish plan. (Homilist.)
The vow performed
To Jephthah and his daughter the vow was sacred, irre- vocable. The deliverance of Israel by so signal and complete a victory left no alternative. It would have been well if they had known God differently; yet better this darkly impressive issue which went to the making of Hebrew faith and strength, than easy, unfruitful evasion of duty. We are shocked by the expenditure of fine feeling and heroism in upholding a false idea of God and obligation to Him; but are we outraged and distressed by the constant effort to escape from God which characterises our age? And have we for our own part come yet to the right idea of self and its relations? Our century, beclouded on many points, is nowhere less informed than in matters of self-sacrifice; Christs doctrine is still uncomprehended. Jephthah was wrong, for God did not need to be bribed to support a man who was bent on doing his duty. And many fail now to perceive that personal development and service of God are in the same line. Life is made for generosity, not mortification; for giving in glad ministry, not for giving up in hideous sacrifice. It is to be devoted to God by the free and holy use of body, mind, and soul in the daily tasks which Providence appoints. The wailing of Jephthahs daughter rings in our ears, bearing with it the anguish of many a soul tormented in the name of that which is most sacred, tormented by mistakes concerning God, the awful theory that He is pleased with human suffering. The relics of that hideous Moloch worship which polluted Jephthahs faith, not even yet purged away by the Spirit of Christ, continue and make religion an anxiety and life a kind of torture. I do not speak of that devotion of thought and time, eloquence and talent to some worthless cause which here and there amazes the student of history and human life--the passionate ardour, for example, with which Flora Macdonald gave herself up to the service of a Stuart. But religion is made to demand sacrifices compared to which the offering of Jephthahs daughter was easy. The imagination of women especially, fired by false representations of the death of Christ, in which there was a clear Divine assertion of self, while it is made to appear as complete suppression of self, bears many on in a hopeless and essentially immoral endeavour. Has God given us minds, feelings, right ambitions, that we may crush them? Does He purify our desires and aspirations by the fire of His own Spirit and still require us to crush them? Are we to find our end in being nothing, absolutely nothing, devoid of will, of purpose, of personality? Is this what Christianity demands? Then our religion is but refined suicide, and the God who desires us to annihilate ourselves is but the Supreme Being of the Buddhists, if those may be said to have a god who regard the suppression of individuality as salvation. Christ was made a sacrifice for us. Yes; He sacrificed everything except His own eternal life and power; He sacrificed ease and favour and immediate success for the manifestation of God. So He achieved the fulness of personal might and royalty. And every sacrifice His religion calls us to make is designed to secure that enlargement and fulness of spiritual individuality in the exercise of which we shall truly serve God and our fellows. Does God require sacrifice? Yes, unquestionably--the sacrifice which every reasonable being must make in order that the mind, the soul may be strong and free, sacrifice of the lower for the higher, sacrifice of pleasure for truth, of comfort for duty, of the life that is earthly and temporal for the life that is heavenly and eternal. And the distinction of Christianity is that it makes this sacrifice supremely reasonable because it reveals the higher life, the heavenly hope, the eternal rewards for which the sacrifice is to be made, that it enables us in making it to feel ourselves united to Christ in a Divine work which is to issue in the redemption of mankind. (R. A. Watson, M. A.)
Jephthahs payment of his vow
Jephthah paid his vow. At a frightful sacrifice he gave up what he had promised. When he gave up his daughter he gave up his all. Did Jephthah open his mouth unto the Lord? and have not you who are parents--have not you dedicated your children to the Lord, and vowed that they shall be His? Not rashly, not hastily, but with due deliberation you did so, and that in a holy ordinance appointed by God for the very purpose. Your vow is registered in heaven; is it to be forgotten on earth? You have opened your mouth unto the Lord; will you go back? God asks your children to be presented to Him not as slain, but living sacrifices. You have vowed; are you paying your vows? Do you pray for your children? Do you teach them to pray? Do you speak to them of God and of Jesus, and lead them in the way of holiness? And when your vows require that you should exercise discipline, and when faithfulness to God requires that you should lay upon your children what for the present is not joyous but grievous, do you shrink from it? To spare your feelings, do you shrink from it? Oh, remember Jephthah when you are thus tempted; and think, if you were under such a vow as he was, how you would act. And you children, think of Jephthahs daughter. Let her spirit take possession of you. Think how she lived above her own personal and selfish interests; think how she honoured her father and honoured God. (M. Nicholson, D. D.)
Did with her according to his vow
If he did not offer her as a burnt-offering, then he did not do with her according to the vow. Moreover, why all this wailing and anguish if, after all, all that was going to happen to her is what happens to thousands who seem to stand in little need of compassion? Then, again, why did she ask for the one favour of a respite of two months to bewail her virginity, if she was to have thirty or forty years with leisure for that purpose? And, lastly, if the mere fact of her remaining unmarried fulfilled even that part of the vow which specified that she was to be the Lords, then what objection can we make to other young women giving themselves to the Lord in the same way? If Jephthahs daughter became a nun, and if this was judged a fulfilment of his vow, if by being a virgin she was somehow more the Lords than by being a married woman, a stronger foundation need not be sought for the establishment of nunneries. (Marcus Dods, D. D.)
Vows which should not be kept
Two men are very foolish or stubborn who fulfil an agreement which they both see to be disadvantageous, and wish to fall away from. No duty whatever compels them to fulfil it, and if they do so they are justly the laughing-stock of their acquaintances. Now, this is precisely the case in which a man finds himself who has vowed to God what turns out to be sinful, for God can never wish him to fulfil a contract which, he now sees, involves sin. A man swears to do a certain thing because he thinks it will be pleasing to God, but if he discovers that, instead of being pleasing, it will be hateful to God, to perform his vow, and do that vowed but hateful thing, is to insult God. By the very discovery of the sinfulness of a vow, the maker of it is absolved from performing it. God shrinks much more than he can do from the perpetration of sin. Both parties fall from the agreement. (Marcus Dods, D. D.)
Typical aspect of Jephthahs vow
See in the tragic tale a foreshadowing of the Cross of our Lord Christ. He took upon Himself our human nature, and having vowed it as the ransom of the guilty world He never hesitated, despite the awful cost, to keep His vow. Gladly did He make voluntary oblation of His own spotless humanity, a vicarious sacrifice to set the whole race free from the spiritual children of Ammon, the followers of the evil one. That it was a costly sacrifice He offered we know full well from the story of Gethsemane; nevertheless He did only cry, Not as I will, but as Thou wilt, then held His peace. Do we think it is true that He bewailed His virginity with His fellows on the mountains before His death? Yet we know that from the human standpoint our Lords ministry of three years and a half was almost fruitless. Multitudes followed Him to see His miracles; they crowded about Him bringing their sick folk to be healed; but they did not become His disciples, and accept heartily His Word. To His human nature this must ever have been a grief and sore trial. Once He said to the Twelve, Will ye also go away? We know that not even His own relations believed on Him. (Arthur Ritchie.)
.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v30 (Jdg_11:30-31; Jdg_11:34-40)
JEPHTHAH’S VOW
(Jdg_11:30-31; Jdg_11:34-40)
Read full note →
CRITICAL NOTES.— Jdg_11:30. Vowed a vow unto the Lord.] He looked entirely to Jehovah for victory (Psa_18:2; Psa_18:6; Psa_18:29, etc.; Psa_62:6-8; Psa_46:1-7; Psa_118:6-13; Psa_121:1-2). From first to last, He sees God’s overruling Providence preserving His church. He recognises this when treating with the elders of Gilead (Jdg_11:9-10), when he accepted the office of captain (Jdg_11:11), when he spoke of the past victories of Israel (Jdg_11:21; Jdg_11:23-24; Jdg_11:27), and now when about to contend with the enemy in battle (Jdg_11:30). As if by instinct he turns to his great refuge in the time of danger. The vow was an engagement that if God should put forth His power on his behalf he would offer something as a sacrifice, not only in acknowledgment of God’s goodness but of his own increased obligation to love and serve Him as his God.
If thou Shalt without fail deliver.] lit., If giving thou shall give. The doubling of the phrase, so common in the Hebrew, always implies additional strength of statement.
Jdg_11:31. Whatsoever cometh forth, etc.] Heb. That which coming forth shall have come forth—a doubling of the statement as in Jdg_11:30, and having the force of saying, “assuredly what comes forth, etc., shall be the Lord’s.” Many read whosoever, but it would be grammatically proper to read either way. The text does not determine certainly, whether a human being or a beast was present to the mind of the speaker. The rendering in the A.V. appears to be preferable, because it leaves the object entirely undefined, which was the real state of the vower’s mind. To get quit of the difficulty, some would render the ו by or, turning the copulative into a disjunctive. We cannot agree with Keil, who says that it never has this sense, for see Exo_21:15; 2Sa_2:19. It is, however, a rare use of the particle, and Keil’s statement, that it is to be taken here as explanatory, must be accepted as just. To offer up the object as a burnt offering is not an alternative to the consecration of it to the Lord, but an explanation of the manner in which the purpose of so consecrating it was to be carried out (see Bush). Another attempt to solve the difficulty is that made by Dr. Randolph, who would read the last clause—and I would offer (to Him) a burnt offering—an ingenious conjecture, but it simply amounts to the foisting of a meaning into the text, instead of taking one out of it. The suffix pronoun הוֹ added to the verb in Hebrew is always the objective to the verb, not to a preposition, unless that is expressed. We prefer the rendering given in the A.V. to any other.
Jephthah, we believe, was at this moment greatly agitated, under a sense of the vast responsibility which rested on him as having to “order the battle.” He was in deep waters and the floods were overflowing him. It would be a strong additional obligation to him to be the Lord’s, and to live to Him a more devoted life, were He but to give deliverance at such a crisis. As expressive of this felt obligation, there must be some outward sign. That sign naturally took the form of a sacrificial offering on the altar; but so flurried was he in spirit, that he could not make up his mind as to what the object should be. He therefore leaves it to God to “provide Himself with a lamb for a burnt offering.” The object was thus entirely indefinite to Jephthah’s mind.
Jdg_11:34. His daughter came out to meet him with timbrels.] It was customary, in those times, for the women to go forth to meet the conquerors on their return, with songs of joy and with dances (1Sa_18:6; Exo_15:20). A whole choir of maidens would doubtless come, but Jephthah’s daughter was the leader. She was his only child.] A term of special endearment (Zec_12:10; Gen_22:2; Gen_22:16). His wife might have had children by a former husband, but this was the only child whom he had. The phrase מִמִּבּוּ seems to mean “besides her,” in which case there must have been no other family in the household.
Jdg_11:35. When he saw her he rent his clothes.] He was completely taken by surprise. He had never imagined this as possible, when he made his vow. Whether he then had thought of any other human sacrifice, it is clear, it had never crossed his mind, that his own daughter might possibly be the victim. Indeed it suggests the doubt, whether he had the idea of any human sacrifice in his mind at all. Certainly nothing seemed to him more unexpected, or was farther from his thoughts, than that she whom “he most tenderly loved should be laid on the altar as a sacrifice unto the Lord.”
He rent his clothes.] He tore his clothes in anguish, the usual symptom of a distracted mind (Lev_10:6; Gen_37:29; Job_1:20). “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, etc.”) Heb. Bowing thou hast made me to bow. The repeating of the word a second time gives empasis to the statement; as if he meant to say, my hopes are crushed; my spirit is broken; a blacker grief has come down on me than that from which I have just been delivered. Instead of returning to my home to enjoy peace, thou art become the occasion of more trouble to me than the Ammonites have been. As David was troubled by Absalom; or Jacob by his sons, when they sold their brother for a slave; or as the Saviour himself was troubled by his own people, the Jews, so Jephthah was now to find in his own daughter, the greatest trouble of his life—in perfect innocence on her part, and through rash presumption on his part.
“I have opened my mouth to the Lord, etc.” (Num_30:2; Deu_23:21-23; Psa_118:14; Psa_118:18; Psa_66:13-14). “I cannot revoke it.”
Jdg_11:36. Do to me according to that which hath proceeded, etc.] The whole conversation is not here given. At the close of Jdg_11:35 there appears to be a hiatus; at which point, Jephthah would explain to his daughter what he had done in the transaction between him and his God. In the full view of the sacrifice she was suddenly called upon to make, she uttered the noble words of this verse. She would doubtless take a little time to deliberate, that she might fully weigh the case; and then she shows how well she could rise with the occasion.
There is no wild screaming against the terrible fate that was so suddenly presented to her; no positive determination to resist for this once the excessive tax made on her filial obedience; no upbraiding of her father for his rash vow; no proposal to obtain a substitute; and no attempt to fly for her life to a foreign land. There is a calm willingness to accept the sad consequences of her father’s error, since now it cannot be altered, and a noble resolution to sacrifice all that was dear in life in the interests of God’s Church, and for the glory of God’s name. A whole cluster of virtues opens out in this beautiful character.
(1.) Filial dutifulness. “My father has done it; I will submit at once.”
(2.) Zeal for the cause of God. “I am nothing; the cause of God is everything.”
(3.) A complete renunciation of her share of worldly honours. “A fair morning dawns on others; I am willing that night should fall on me.”
(4.) Unselfishness. “The other maidens may continuue their singing and dancing; I accept the lot of the mourner, and the forlorn.”
(5.) Willingness to lose life itself at God’s call. “It is my God that calls me; I am ready to surrender every prospect I have in life to please Him.” Comp. the case of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jdg_11:37. Let me alone for two months.] This would be said after some reflection. Even this proposal is mentioned as a request of her father. Mizpeh stood on an eminence. Hence it was proper to speak even of going down to the mountains. And bewail my virginity.] To be a wite and mother was the supreme desire of Israelitish women. Ever from the time that it was said, the great Messiah was to be “the seed of the woman,” and to be “born of a woman,” it was reckoned the blessing of Heaven to become a mother. In like manner to be barren, or to die childless, was regarded as a curse (Psa_78:63). Compare the cases of Hannah, Rachel, Sarah, and others. Perpetual virginity was among the Israelites a condition of deep reproach, as is strikingly pourtrayed in Isa_4:1; also in Luk_1:25; Jer_16:9; Jer_7:34; contrasted with Psa_127:3-5; Zach. Jdg_8:5.
Go up and down among the mountains.] Heb. go to, and go down, meaning—go to the mountains, and down to the valleys between them, to get seclusion from the world. To “bewail” is to weep over, and the cause of weeping was the perpetuation of her virginity. It is not said her sacrifice, which is important to notice. The word used comes from בָתַל a virgin, implying that she was to remain in a fixed state of virginity; and no mention is made of death.
Jdg_11:39. Did with her according to his vow.] Heb. he did to her his vow—i.e., fulfilled his vow in regard to her, but not a word as to the manner, except the clause which follows, “and she knew no man.” Had the original text been according to his vow, the natural interpretation would have been, that he offered her for a burnt offering. But the phrase “did to her his vow” simply means, that he carried his vow into execution, without saying in what manner he did so. He kept his word to his God. But he may have done so in the spirit of the meaning, though not in the letter. Had he done so in the letter, we should have expected, when the matter was so important, that the narrator would have said, “he executed his vow, and offered her for a burnt offering unto the Lord.” But in place of this, we have the statement, “he did his vow to her, and she knew no man.” This last statement looks like a finger pointing to what he actually did—in which case the interpretation would be, that she was devoted to a life of celibacy. Knew.] Perfect tense. Not had known. It refers to the future, not the past.
A custom in Israel.] Lit. an ordinance, or an established custom.
Jdg_11:40. Yearly.] Lit. from days to days, or from year to year (Exo_13:10). It was an annual practice.
To lament the daughter, &c.] The more correct translation would be to praise, or to celebrate the praises of—לתּיַּוֹר is only once used elsewhere in Scripture (Jdg_5:11), where it is translated “rehearse,” and could not mean “lament.” Some make it “talk with,” as if they condoled with her in her hapless state [Kimchi], This would imply that she was still alive. But if we take the more commonly received interpretation, “to celebrate the praises of,” it implies that something like a festival was kept. Analogous to this, the Greek Artemis, the virgin who went about alone, without companions, like the moon in the sky, had her praises celebrated by Greek maidens, because she lived in a state of virginity. In many places they kept festival with song and dance in her honour, not because she died as a virgin, but because her life was spent in virginity.
INTERPRETATION OF THE VOW
This, like many other questions in Scripture history, has been keenly contested for many centuries, without an explanation being arrived at in which all could agree. This is mainly due to the elliptical character of the account given. It is plain, that if only one or two sentences of information had been added, the haze would have been removed which now hangs over the narrative. But to retain that haze seems, for wise and holy reasons, to be intentional on the part of Him who gave the “Holy oracles.” Indeed, it appears to be a principle of the Scripture record, in many an important paragraph, to withhold from us some of the elements of the case narrated, and leave the points not given to be found out by inference from the details which are given. This leads the minds of the readers to the healthful exercise of examining more minutely all the recorded details, and sifting more carefully their exact meaning, gathering up the whole information and comparing part with part in the most thorough manner, so as to discover the unknown. It is a higher wisdom which conceals a part, instead of leaving nothing to be found out. one result is, a far more diligent and complete search of Scripture than would be made, if nothing were left to whet the appetite for discovery. Another result is, that Scripture becomes a Book of continual freshness, according to the great variety of lights and shades which fall on the page from the speculations of differently constituted minds.
But the enigma in Jephthah’s history, we humbly think, has been made more of a riddle than it really is; and, certainly, it has received a measure of discussion far beyond what the value of its moral teaching would justify; though that is not inconsiderable. Its interest, at first sight, lies in the touching and romantic character of the incident itself. It sheds also a strong light on the religious character of the two persons chiefly concerned; and we cannot wonder that the sacred writer should have thought, that the unflinching decision to adhere to the principles of true piety at any cost, on the part of both, was worthy of being recorded for everlasting remembrance. Looked at deeper still, an important lesson is taught, about the necessity of the heart faithfully examining itself before it ventures to be tried by the test of surrendering all that it best loves at the call of its God.
We shall inquire:—
1. Was it wrong to vow?
By a vow in such a case as that before us is meant, a solemn promise made to God, that, in consideration of some great deliverance granted by Him, the petitioner would acknowledge that the glory of the deliverance was His, and that out of deep gratitude, he would consecrate himself afresh to the love and service of God. It is making a free-will offering of one’s self to God, in a formal and solemn manner. It was customary that all offerings presented to God should be laid on the altar, and the burnt offering implied complete consecration. This was the form in which Jephthah meant to express his vow.
Such being the general meaning, how could it be wrong for Jephthah to vow? Some regard it as a mere bribe offered to God to secure His help in a great difficulty; others say, it looks like bargaining with God for His aid, and has a heathenish savour about it. We do not see much force in these objections. Is it not right to express gratitude to God for great deliverances wrought? If so, is it not right to express that gratitude by a fuller consecration of one’s self to Him in future, than has been the case in times past? And if this is right after the deliverance has been accomplished, how can it be wrong to promise the same thing beforehand, in the event of deliverance being granted? True, we should always be fully devoted to God, but when a new and special mercy occurs, is not that a good reason for a new and special self-dedication? By deliverance from an imminent danger our life is virtually given to us anew, and so furnishes a new reason for the consecration of our lives to His service. It amounts to giving new pledges of our lives to His service. It amounts to giving new pledges of our love and obedience.
The heathens did indeed vow. The mariners who were in the ship with Jonah, in their terror, made vows as well as offered sacrifices (Jon_1:16). An eminent Greek vowed to Minerva, on the occasion of Greece being invaded by Darius, that if she would grant to his country the victory, he would sacrifice on her altars as many he-goats, as would equal the number slain in the camp of the enemy. It was a common thing among the Romans to vow that, if the Divinity complied with the request of the offerer, he would do some signal service out of gratitude.
But it is to little purpose to know what were the customs of the heathen. It is sufficient for our guidance, that God has always approved of vows when rightly made, and has accepted them. He even lays down rules to guide us as to the manner in which they should be made. This puts the matter beyond dispute (Num_30:1-16; Num_6:1-12; Leviticus 27; Deu_23:21-23; Ecc_5:4). We have also several instances of pious people recorded, who vowed to the Lord in special circumstances, and were accepted. Jacob did so (Gen_28:20), Hannah, (1Sa_1:11), David frequently (Psa_61:3; Psa_66:13; Psa_116:16, &c)
The mere fact of making a vow in itself is not wrong, provided it is made in the manner God requires. It is indeed an act of deep piety.
II. What did Jephthah mean by his vow?
He seems to have had one great object in view. He wished to save precious interests which were put in great peril. It was an eventful crisis in Israel’s history. The good of the whole nation was involved in the decision which now trembled in the balance. Everything was on the point of being won or lost; should Ammon prevail, a long dark night of sorrow must inevitably overspread the land. Should victory be declared for Israel, the heavy incubus of years of oppression would be lifted up, and a joyful morning of liberty would dawn on the homes of the chosen people. The question was one of life or death to Israel, which really meant the rising or falling of the church of God. Was so sacred a thing as a vow of self-dedication to the Lord too solemn for such an occasion?
By making this vow he meant two things:—
1. He wished to ascribe all the glory of the salvation of Israel to the Lord. He knew there would be great rejoicings among the people, and that they would be ready to hail the victory with loud acclamations. There would be gifts and garlands, and dances; voices of song, and the sounding of timbrels. Jephthah will be celebrated and praised, and his name will go down in the lists of Israel’s mighty warriors. So now, he will at the outset take a decisive step to secure all the honour to Him to whom it was due. He presents himself and all that he has at the feet of Jehovah. And as a proof of this, he will lay on the altar the first object that presents itself on his return home. That object shall, like the first sheaf representing the whole harvest, stand for the whole property which God has given him, and indicate that all belongs to God. But his meaning went beyond this. He confessed that it was impossible to succeed without the help of his God—that “salvation belonged unto Him,” that only through Him “could they do valiantly,” and therefore that “their expectation was only from Him.”
2. He wished to put a new seal on his obedience. It is obvious that we can give nothing to God to enrich Him. All that we have is already His. “Of thine own have we given thee,” said the man who spake in name of the congregation that made the largest contribution ever laid on the altar for sacred purposes in the history of time (1Ch_24:14-16). We cannot add to God’s possessions by what we give (Job_22:2). Our gratitude therefore must find another mode of expression; and that which the heart itself instinctively suggests is deeper love and more implicit obedience. We understand Jephthah accordingly by laying an offering on the altar to mean that he bound himself to love his God more fully than ever he had done before, and in proof of that, to give Him a more faithful and conscientious obedience.
Thus far all appears to be not only right in itself, but most favourable as to the judgment we are to form of Jephthah’s character.
III. The choice of an offering left with God.
This is a critical part of the case, where care is needed to hold the balance even. The terms of his vow have been unduly subjected to a harsh criticism. Reference is made to the rude and barbarous age in which he lived, as an apology for him. He is spoken of as a half savage chief, or a bandit leader in a heathen country. He is supposed to partake somewhat of the fierce character of a robber chieftain, or an Indian warrior, from his long sojourn in a country where there was no fear of God, and where human life was cheap. He is also imagined to have lost the knowledge of the laws and institutions that were given by Israel’s God, and to be swayed more by heathen practices than by Divine precept. And, accordingly, he is credited with thinking of a human sacrifice to be laid on the altar, equally with an animal offering, should God so determine. And some go the length of saying, that he seems prepared to sacrifice his own daughter, if she were the object whom Providence might put in his way.
Nothing, we believe, of all that line of thought ever entered the mind of Jephthah—a man that lived continually in the presence of his God. Such evil suppositions arise from putting too hard an interpretation on the words he uttered when making his vow. We have already said on Jdg_11:31, that he had no well-defined conception before his mind as to what the object might be. We must make allowance for the overwhelming sense of responsibility that rested on him, while he was ordering his words, and, at the least, hold it probable that his thoughts never went the length of imagining that a human victim might be presented to him. Such a victim for a sacrificial offering had never been known in all Israel’s history; if we except the abnormal case of Abraham being called to offer up his son—an offering, however, which was never made. Neither we believe had Jephthah ever dreamt of such a thing in all his past life. It would, therefore, never occur to him to draw a sharp distinction between a human and an animal sacrifice, in the language which he used. All his thoughts seemed to be swallowed up by the purpose to offer any object that God Himself might choose; and so he uses the widest latitude of expression, “whatsoever cometh forth.” He has too much too think of to define his meaning to be, either HE who cometh forth, or THAT which cometh forth. He knew that a human sacrifice was condemned by the law of his God, and therefore never could have supposed, when the choice was left by him to God Himself, that He would choose such a sacrifice as that. How could He choose that, which instead of being pleasing was an abomination in his sight? If Jephthah thought of the matter at all, that must have been his thought.
Yet there was an error committed in the way he took to make choice of an offering. He was in fact both right and wrong.
(1.) He was right in his motive. His heart was full of desire to give all the glory to the God of Israel, and it seemed to him a more complete surrender of himself to God, if he should make God Himself the judge of the kind of offering he should make. He felt assured that he could make no improper choice, and that the best thing that he could do was to leave himself entirely in His hands.
(2.) He was wrong in not counting the cost. He did not consider that a vow once made must be carried out; for it was equivalent to a solemn assertion made in the presence of God, with the lifting up of the hands, and calling God to witness. It was, therefore culpably irreverent to promise anything in this manner, which had not been carefully weighed. No speaking at random is allowed before the Divine footstool (Ecc_5:2; Lev_10:3). It was well for him to say to his God, “I place all that I have before Thee—choose what Thou pleasest, and I shall give it up at once. I solemnly engage to keep my word.” But it was wrong to go that length, before he had carefully examined, whether his heart was prepared to give up its dearest object, at the call of his God. It was a similar rashness that induced Peter to say to his Master: “If it be Thou, bid me come to Thee on the water.” He soon began to sink, and so did Jephthah. The rule laid down by Christ Himself is, “If any man come to me and hate not father and mother, wife and children, brethren and sisters, yea and his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” Similarly, He says, “He that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” It was trifling with God for Jephthah solemnly to profess to do that at His call, which he had never settled it with his heart to do.
As Jephthah puts it there was no reservation. Anything which he had in the world God might choose, and he would yield it up. This was true piety, but it was a terrible risk for a human heart that did not know its own weakness.
IV. The choice being: left with God, He chooses the best.
Everything that happens is of God’s ordering. It was He who arranged in His Providence that Jephthah’s daughter should be the object to go forth to meet him on his return, instead of any member of his flocks or herds. A solemn promise had been made, as the price of a great deliverance asked, and God virtually says, “I have given you all you asked—the salvation of the whole people of Israel; now, therefore, I ask that you give me your daughter in return.” This was an overwhelming surprise, and most harrowing to a father’s feelings. Yet by two considerations it is justified. It was simply deciding according to Jephthah’s own terms, which kept back nothing, but permitted anything even the best, to be taken. Also, when the choice was left open, it was right that the best should be given to God. This was simply His due. It would have been wrong for Jephthah to have said that he loved the creature better than his God. It was reasonable to give up to God the most precious jewel he had; for all that he had, his daughter included, had been given him by God.
V. The selection is made to test Jephthah’s character.
This is proved by the simple fact, that a human sacrifice could not be acceptable to Jehovah. It was condemned as one of the worst iniquities of the nations, that were driven out of Canaan, because of their enormous wickedness (Deu_12:29-31; Lev_20:2-3; Deu_18:10; Deu_18:12). Such a thing as a human sacrifice, is expressly declared to be an abomination to the Lord, nor was such a thing ever heard of in Israel, until the times of Ahaz and Manasseh, not even in Jezebel’s time. We cannot therefore for a moment suppose, that God would now take delight in seeing any human sacrifice from Jephthah’s house laid on the altar as a burnt offering before Him. It must have been with another intention that He put his daughter in the way. He meant, we believe, to put Jephthah to the test, whether, when now he had put himself entirely in God’s hand, he would yield up his very best to his God, without a murmur when called upon to do so.
There is only one other instance in the whole of Israelitish history where a human victim was laid on the altar for immolation by God’s command, and that, we are expressly told, was to test the character, or try the faith and obedience of the offerer (Gen_22:1-2). But to show that actual immolation was not intended, we are informed that, at the extreme moment, Abraham was kept back from slaying his son, by the appearance of an angel from Jehovah, charging him not to proceed farther, for the purpose of the command was gained by his showing his willingness to comply with it (Gen_22:10, &c.). In like manner, an opportunity is afforded to Jephthah here, to show whether he was willing to sacrifice the dearest object he had on earth at the call of his God. Could he say, “There is none on earth I desire besides thee”? Having shown his willingness to go this length, and not even to withhold his only daughter from his God, the purpose was served, and, we believe, the actual burning on the altar was not permitted. If he had gone farther, it would have been a complete solecism in the entire history of God’s people. There is nothing to justify it on any side, but much to condemn such an act. It is against the whole spirit of the divine law, which treats human life as sacred, and which, as we have said, condemns human sacrifices as among the most atrocious crimes of the heathen nations. Looked at in itself, indeed, it is difficult to distinguish it from the act of murder, taking the life of a fellow creature, and that, not only without asking her consent, but it was for a father to imbrue his hands in the blood of his own daughter, whose life he was bound by the strongest obligations to preserve! What pleasure could God take in such an offering, where so many of His laws were violated?—the law of parental love, the duty of parental protection, the great moral commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” and the peremptory prohibition of human sacrifices.
VI. The vow was fulfilled in the spirit, not in the letter.
This is not expressly said. But the account is manifestly elliptical; for it is not said that Jephthah informed his daughter what his vow actually was. Yet it is obvious, that he must have informed her, for her whole action implied that she knew. In like manner we are not told, that the letter of his vow was exchanged for the spirit, though that seems to be the only possible way in which it could have been acceptable unto God. The very fact, that to lay a human victim on the altar as a burnt offering to God, is so entirely opposed to divine requirement, as well as to Israelitish practice, ought of itself to be sufficient, without any express statement, to make us believe that the vow could not be carried out in the letter. It is indeed alleged, that his vow required him to put his daughter to death in the manner which is done to a victim laid on the altar. For did he not solemnly vow, that the object who might meet him from the doors of his house on his return “would surely be the Lord’s, and he would offer it up for a burnt offering”? Also in Jdg_11:39 is it not expressly said, that “he did with her according to his vow which he had vowed”? Many think these statements conclusively prove, that she was offered on the altar for a burnt offering. In this opinion we cannot acquiesce, for these reasons:—
(1.) The idea of a human sacrifice was not in his mind when he made the vow. It is clear from his intense surprise, and overwhelming grief, that the thought of his daughter being the victim never entered his mind. It was also matter of fact, that the laying of a human victim on the altar was unknown in the history of God’s people. In Jephthah’s conceptions, it was taken for granted, that the victim would be an animal. He knew of no other in the past, and could never imagine anything else now. Had he thought of the possibility of a human victim, it is not likely he would have spoken of offering it as a burnt offering, contrary to all experience, and in face of the fact, that such an offering was as abomination to God (Jer_7:30-31; Deu_12:30-32). He might be wrong, and we think he was wrong in expressing himself indefinitely, so that the language would apply to any object, whether human or animal. But we believe he thought only of such an object as could properly be laid on the altar. The meaning he attached to his vow we apprehend was this:—“The object that comes to meet me on my return, if it be suitable for laying on the altar, I will offer it for a burnt offering.”
(2.) No vow could make that well pleasing to God which was already sinful. The obligation is indeed strong to pay that which we have vowed (Ecc_5:4-5). But that applies only to things which are lawful. Beyond that limit, the rule does not hold; for no vow of ours, however solemnly made, can make that which God condemns cease to be a sin. And if it be a sin we dare not commit it by way of fulfilling our vow. To do so would only bring down the Divine frown. God’s will is always the highest law, and overrides every other law. Jephthah could not carry out his vow literally towards his daughter, without doing a thing which was an abomination to Jehovah. Yet, in so far as it could be done, consistently with what God approved of, he was bound to fulfil it, that is, not in the letter, but in the spirit.
(3.) The kind of vow which he made did not absolutely require a literal fulfilment. The Hebrew word used in Jdg_11:30 is not cherem but neder. The former denoted a devotement to destruction, and was accompanied by an anathema, or execration. There was no power of redemption from this vow (Lev_27:28). When it applied to animals, it meant that they were devoted to destruction; or to things, that they were to be utterly consumed with fire, or to be held exclusively reserved for God in their use for all time coming. When it applied to persons, it was usually to the enemies of God, or the heathen, such as the Canaanites, the Amalekites, and all aliens (Deu_13:12-18; 1Sa_15:33; Num_21:2-3). The neder implied a milder vow. It meant simply the bringing of any offering to God, and dedicating it to Him, such as lands, tithes, beasts, both clean and unclean. These might be redeemed at a certain rate. In the case of a female, it was 30 shekels of silver (Lev_27:4). It is this word which is employed here. Neder, indeed, is a generic word, and includes cherem, but the very fact that the former word is used and not the latter, leaves room for supposing that there might be a fulfilment in the spirit, apart from the letter of the vow.
(4.) In fact he did fulfil his vow, but the manner in which he did so is not recorded. Our A.V. says “he did with her according to the vow which he had vowed.” but the original has it, “he did to her the vow which he had vowed.” The words “according to” are not in the Hebrew. The averment made there is simply that he accomplished his vow without saying in what manner. Looking a little closer, what is the substance of meaning in the phrase, “I will offer it up for a burnt offering?” It is not the mere act of slaying, or burning the victim we are to look at, but at what that implies. Ceremonialism was nothing in itself, but the meaning it expressed was most important. The meaning here in substance is, that the object so offered is entirely and absolutely devoted to God, so that it cannot belong to any one else but Him. All connection is cut off from the world around. If then this substance of meaning expressed by the vow can be fulfilled in some other way on Jephthah’s daughter, than by immolation, which would be the breaking of a Divine command, it is natural to expect that that other way would be chosen. And if so, it would still be true that he had kept his word to his God in the only way he lawfully could.
That mode, we believe, was by devoting her to perpetual virginity. This meant directly the cutting her off from the possibility of marriage, and so removing the principal link by which she might be bound to the world. But indirectly, it meant also the removal of all other links by which she might be bound to all other objects, that she might be reserved for God alone. She was thus set apart exclusively for God. A husband, a father, and relatives, were to be as nothing to her, because of the completeness of her consecration to God. To suppose that this was the form which the fulfilment of the vow took, is no mere fancy. For though we are not told it in so many words, in the narrative, neither are we informed that he placed his daughter as a bleeding victim on the altar. On the mode of fulfilling the vow, the record is silent, the fact that he did fulfil it is explicitly stated. But we are informed that what she bewailed for two months was her “virginity.” On this emphasis is put. Why not bewail her impending sacrifice, if sacrificed she was to be. If she were so soon to die, it would be of small consequence to her whether she should die a virgin or not. But if she were bound by a sacred law to a life-long virginity, it would be reckoned to her a perpetual reproach, in view of the stigma put upon it by Israelitish society.
Besides, when it is related that he fulfiled his vow upon her, it follows in the same sentence, “and she knew no man” which naturally means, it was in this way that the vow was performed. She was never married “Her life was dedicated to the Lord as a spiritual burnt offering, in life-long chastity.”—(Keil).
To put the tense into the pluperfect as some do, and say “she had known no man” is a gratuitous gloss, for which there is no warrant. The whole statement means that he fulfilled his vow through the fact that she knew no man.
Other arguments confirm this interpretation.
(a.) To be given up to a life of perpetual virginity served the purpose equally well with immolation on the altar. It ought to be remembered what the purpose of the sacrifice really was. It was to express the offerer’s entire consecration of himself to the Lord. This he would symbolise by bringing forward an animal as a substitute, and offering it as a whole burnt offering in his stead. But when, to his surprise, it was a human victim that was brought to him, he presents her as an object to be separated from the world, and dedicated wholly unto God for the term of her natural life. There could hardly be more complete consecration to the Lord for any daughter of Israel, than to remain unmarried, and without the prospect of maternity, to be shut out from all society, and to lead a life of solitude and seclusion.
(b.) Human beings were to be redeemed, not sacrificed, when presented to God. (Exo_13:12-13 with Exo_13:15, Exo_34:20; Num_18:15.) Jephthah’s daughter was his first-born. After the first explosion of grief, it would soon occur to Jephthah himself, as well as to those around him, that the same thing could not be done with a human, as with an animal, offering. But to make good the vow, something must be done to the object that met him at the door of his house on his return. To appoint her to perpetual virginity, and lifelong shutting out from the world, would either naturally be suggested to their own minds, or would be dictated by Heaven as a fitting course to take in carrying out the spirit of the vow. She would thereby become dead to the world, and so it would be equivalent to an actual immolation.
(c.) If she were to die, why should she ask to spend two months on the mountains? When she manifestly loved her father so well, and was so thoroughly beloved by him, it seems unnatural for her to ask to be separate from him for two months. We would rather expect that they would both be too anxious to spend the time in each other’s society, and think it all too short.
(d.) If she were to die, why seek to the mountains at all? The same tears might have been shed at home. But it was her virginity that she was to bewail. “She was to remain a bud that had not been allowed to unfold itself, being prevented not by death but by life.” “Lamentations about her virginity could not be uttered in the town, and in the presence of men. Modesty required the solitudes of the mountains for these. Only in sacred silence does the virtuous heart of the maiden pour out its lamentations of love.”—(Cassel).
(e.) The act of Jephthah is not disapproved by God, but on the contrary seems to be recorded to his honour. The smaller transgression of Gideon is recorded with an express word of censure (Gen_8:22). “Which became a snare to Gideon and his house.” Yet here is no word of disapprobation, but on the contrary, the tale ends with a celebration of praise to the daughter of Jephthah for many a long year thereafter. If a human sacrifice had now been offered, why should not the brand of reprobation have been put upon it, as is done everywhere else when it is mentioned in scripture?
(f.) If Jephthah had been guilty of such a scandal, why is he held up as a pattern of faith and an eminently godly man? There can be little doubt that the men in that list were men of God and heirs of salvation, though they had their imperfections and their sins. But the presumption is always against a really good man being deliberately guilty of violating a solemn rule laid down by his God. And Jephthah’s name stands in that honoured list (Heb_11:32).
(g.) Once more. If sacrifice there was, it is difficult to explain how it could have been performed. Burnt offerings, those cases where the animal was first put to death, and then had its body burned on the altar, could only be lawfully presented on the altar at the tabernacle, or before the ark by the priests, unless when some extraordinary occurrence in Providence had taken place, which did not apply here. But could any priest of the whole number be found, with boldness enough, to commit such an offence against the jealous God of Israel, as to immolate a human being on the altar? And Jephthah was no priest, so that he could not officiate in doing such a work himself. Shiloh, where the tabernacle was, was in the tribe of Ephraim, a part of the land whither Jephthah was not very likely to go, when the feeling was so hostile between him and the men of that tribe. “If then, there is the best reason to believe that such an offering was not made by the high priest, nor by any priest—that it was not made by Jephthah himself, and that it was not made at Shiloh, the appointed place of sacrifice, what reason is there to suppose it was made at all?”—(Bush).
PRACTICAL LESSONS
(Jdg_11:30-31; Jdg_11:34-40)
I. It is possible for the highest religious principle to exist, with irreligion in its worst forms all around it.
Jephthah’s character is the proof. Who can doubt the sterling principle of the man who, at the first overwhelming revelation of the price he would have to pay for fidelity to his God, nobly said, “I will rather sacrifice the dearest object I have on earth than take back my word to my God.” Not that he loved his daughter less than human instinct prompts, but that he loved his God more. Yet he lived for many years beyond the confines of Israel, with no fearers of the true God around him, no worship of the God of Israel observed, but His laws transgressed, and other gods served instead! This was worse than even the position of David, who lived for a shorter time an outcast from his people, and was not so entirely an outcast, being often within the boundary of the sacred land, and having some partial access to its privileges. Yet Jephthah was full of the law of his God, if we may judge from this chapter, had the fear of God constantly before his eyes, and made no great decision in life without His approbation.
The Divine promise was fulfilled to him, “I will keep thee in all places whither thou goest,” not only from temporal dangers, but from spiritual contamination. Jesus himself living in a world of sin knew no sin, and He is able to make any one of those who accept Him as their Redeemer, to live a “holy and harmless” life, “separate from sinners.” Temptations when firmly resisted tend to strengthen the character. Greater resolution is required in adhering to one’s principles. When a man has to battle with a fierce wind as he proceeds on his course, the more he sets his face to contend with it, his muscles, his nerves, and his whole constitution become strengthened. Wherever we are, we may always live near to God.
II. The human will never bends to the Divine will at a loss.
This is illustrated by the case of both father and daughter. In both, we see straightforwardness and decision of character, and when what seems like a towering rock rising up in their path, neither of them thinks on that account of “going back.” They will sacrifice every thing for their God—the father, his dearest treasure on earth; the daughter, her whole interest in life. Each bows to the Divine will; and are they the losers? Of much of earthly comfort and pleasure they may be, and were really, deprived, but that was far more than made up by inward peace with God during life, a high reputation for loyalty to their God in future ages, and a true immortality of fame beyond death and the grave. They lose the lesser joys of time, the indulgences of the body, but they gain a high moral fame in the estimation of all the holy and good to the end of time. In the world to come the gain is unspeakably glorious. The highest piety of the creature is to have no other will but that of its God. That will, will never disappoint in the long run, even where great sufferings intervene (Rom_8:18; Joh_14:27; Joh_16:33; 1Pe_1:6-7). It is a Christ-like spirit that can say, with a bitter cup in the hand, “Not my will, but thine be done!”
III. It Is oftentimes love that dictates our severest trials.
Why not say always? “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth” is one of the familiar Christian experiences that go without saying. Jephthah’s daughter shone out all at once as a star of the first magnitude, just the moment before it seemed to become extinguished. But it is one of those lights that never can be extinguished. It has shone for 3,000 years and it shines still, nor will it cease to shine so long as high moral virtue and spiritual beauty in the sight of Heaven, continue to be admired. But, before her great trial, this beauty of character was unknown. It was the great sacrifice she was called on to make that made her famous, because she rose with the occasion. She was like those who were unknown—
“Till persecution dragged them into fame
And chased them up to heaven.”
If we, by the grace of God, but do the same, we shall find that our mountain waves of trouble are the very things that raise us nearer to heaven. To all eternity will the afflicted Christian, who has profited by his affliction, have reason to bless God that He sent the affliction, because of the immense accession it brings to his spirituality of mind, and heavenliness of character.
IV. The closest ties of the earthly state are often suddenly ruptured without notice given.
The father in this case never intended for a moment to create the risk of losing his daughter by the vow he made, nor did he imagine it could by possibility have any such effect. Yet this separation came all in a moment, nor could it be avoided. Many parents strive hard to build up bright prospects for their children. They spend a fortune to get them well fed and well clad, to make their home comfortable, to supply them with all the conditions of good health, to get them well married and hopefully started in life, and to do all that can be done beyond themselves to advance their health and happiness. Yet, at any moment, God has a thousand means before him for breaking the brittle thread of life, were He so minded. The truest wisdom, therefore, is for father and daughter, and all members of family circles, to strive to become one in the Lord Christ. That tie once formed nothing can break. And when sudden rupture is made of other ties, that link of connection will only come out firmer than before, and prove that the union is still stronger on the other side of death than now, and will last for ever.
V. “Works of righteousness are always satisfactory in the retrospect.
They are always fresh and green, because possessed of moral or spiritual excellence in themselves, and they are always accompanied by peace of conscience. “They make us not ashamed.” We can look back on them for ever, and never regret having done such works. All our regrets will be, that we did not strive more earnestly for that strength from on high, through which such works can be done. They are works that bear the light of day, which no one made after the image of God shall ever regret to have done. They will always have the smile of heaven upon them.
VI. Vows should first be settled with the heart, before they are brought out in form.
It ought never to be forgotten that we have to deal with a heart-searching God, and that every service rendered to Him, in order to be acceptable, should arise from a well-considered purpose of the heart. Vows are the free-will offerings of the heart unto God, prompted by a consideration generally of some special act of His goodness. In them the soul steps forward, and solemnly pledges itself to a greater degree of loyalty and obedience to its God. This to be acceptable implies great reverence before God. It is no time for trifling, or incoherent speech. The heart ought to weigh well with itself, whether it is prepared to make this valuable offering, or perform that important service, before it come forward in due form to enter into a special engagement.
“Just prior to the issue of the September proclamation of liberty to the slaves in the United States, the President opened the business of the Cabinet-meeting by saying, that the time for announcing the emancipation policy could be no longer delayed. Public sentiment would sustain it, many warm supporters demanded it, and (speaking in a low tone) I have promised my God that I will do it. On being asked by Mr. Chase, whether he correctly understood him, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ’I have made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee were driven back from Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves.’ He issued his proclamation, and four million slaves became free men.”—Chase.
“Vows are easily made, but more easily broken. A sea captain, while resting on a single plank in the wide ocean, vowed to devote his life to God if he should be saved, but he forgot his vow as soon as his feet were on the solid earth. If a child is sick, his ungodly father may vow amendment of life, and attention to the word of God, on condition that the son recovers. Sometimes real conversion follows, but more frequently the person soon returns like the sow that is washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
“The Archbishop of Cologne, being asked by the Emperor Sigismund how to reach true happiness, replied, ‘Perform when thou art well what thou didst promise when thou wast sick.’ ”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv32, 34, 36, 38 So Jephthah passed through ... Yahweh gave him victory…
So Jephthah passed through ... Yahweh gave him victory ... He attacked
Since Jephthah was the leader of his army, he and his army are often spoken of as Jephthah himself. AT: "So Jephthah and his army passed through ... Yahweh gave them victory ... they attacked" (See: Synecdoche)
Read full note →
Aroer
Translate the name of this city the same way you did in Judges 11:26.
Minnith ... Abel Keramim
These are the names of cities. (See: How to Translate Names)
twenty cities
"including 20 cities" (See: Numbers)
translationWords
slaughter
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.