After a while, the children of Ammon made war against Israel. When the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah out of the land of Tob. They said to Jephthah, “Come and be our chief, that we may fight with the children of Ammon.”
Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Didn’t you hate me, and drive me out of my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?”
The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “Therefore we have turned again to you now, that you may go with us and fight with the children of Ammon. You will be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.”
Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you bring me home again to fight with the children of Ammon, and Yahweh delivers them before me, will I be your head?”
The elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “Yahweh will be witness between us. Surely we will do what you say.”
Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and chief over them. Jephthah spoke all his words before Yahweh in Mizpah.
Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon, saying, “What do you have to do with me, that you have come to me to fight against my land?”
The king of the children of Ammon answered the messengers of Jephthah, “Because Israel took away my land when he came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon even to the Jabbok, and to the Jordan. Now therefore restore that territory again peaceably.”
Jephthah sent messengers again to the king of the children of Ammon; and he said to him, “Jephthah says: Israel didn’t take away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon; but when they came up from Egypt, and Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh, then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, ‘Please let me pass through your land;’ but the king of Edom didn’t listen. In the same way, he sent to the king of Moab, but he refused; so Israel stayed in Kadesh. Then they went through the wilderness, and went around the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they encamped on the other side of the Arnon; but they didn’t come within the border of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab. Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said to him, ‘Please let us pass through your land to my place.’ But Sihon didn’t trust Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and encamped in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. Yahweh, the God of Israel, delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they struck them. So Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. They possessed all the border of the Amorites, from the Arnon even to the Jabbok, and from the wilderness even to the Jordan. So now Yahweh, the God of Israel, has dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and should you possess them? Won’t you possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whoever Yahweh our God has dispossessed from before us, them will we possess. Now are you anything better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them? Israel lived in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along the side of the Arnon for three hundred years! Why didn’t you recover them within that time? Therefore I have not sinned against you, but you do me wrong to war against me. May Yahweh the Judge be judge today between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.”
However, the king of the children of Ammon didn’t listen to the words of Jephthah which he sent him. Then Yahweh’s Spirit came on Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed over to the children of Ammon.
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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 Or, ambassadors, sent for that purpose.
Or, ambassadors, sent for that purpose.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv4–33 Jdg 11:4 And it came to pass in process…
Jdg 11:4 And it came to pass in process of time, that the children of Ammon made war against Israel.
Ver. 4. In process of time.] Heb., After days. Junius rendereth it, post annos illos, after those years, that is, those eighteen years mentioned in Jdg 10:8.
Read full note →
That the children of Ammon made war against Israel.] About which time also the Greeks made war against Troy, and after ten years took it.
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 vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 In process of time, Heb. after some days; or,…
In process of time, Heb. after some days; or, after a year; days being oft put for a year, as hath been showed, after that year mentioned Jdg 10:8. The Ammonites had vexed and oppressed them eighteen years, and now that the Israelites begin to make opposition, they commence a war against them. Or, some time after Jephthah had been banished, and after he had taken up arms, and given them some disturbance. Or, after the Israelites assembled together, as is said, Jdg 10:18.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv4, 12, 29 Here is, I. The distress which the children of…
Here is, I. The distress which the children of Israel were in upon the Ammonites' invasion of their country, Jdg 11:4. Probably this was the same invasion with that mentioned, Jdg 10:17, when the children of Ammon were gathered together and encamped in or against Gilead. And those words, in process of time, refer to what goes immediately before of the expulsion of Jephthah; many days after he had been thus thrust out in disgrace was he fetched back again with honour.
II. The court which the elders made to Jephthah hereupon to come and help them. They did not write or send a messenger to him, but went themselves to fetch him, resolving to have no denial, and the exigence of the case was such as would admit no delay. Their errand to him was, Come, and be our captain, Jdg 11:6. They knew none among themselves that was able to undertake that great trust, but in effect confessed themselves unfit for it; they know him to be a bold man, and inured to the sword, and therefore he must be the man. See how God prepared men for the service he designs them for, and makes their troubles work for their advancement. If Jephthah had not been put to his shifts by his brethren's unkindness, he would not have had such occasion as this gave him to exercise and improve his martial genius, and so to signalize himself and become famous. Out of the eater comes forth meat. The children of Israel were assembled and encamped, Jdg 10:17. But an army without a general is like a body without a head; therefore Come, say they, and be our captain, that we may fight. See the necessity of government; though they were hearty enough in the cause, yet they owned they could not fight without a captain to command them. So necessary is it to all societies that there be a pars imperans and a pars subdita, some to rule and others to obey, that any community would humbly beg the favour of being commanded rather than that every man should be his own master. Blessed be God for government, for a good government.
Read full note →
III. The objections Jephthah makes against accepting their offer: Did you not hate me, and expel me? Jdg 11:7. It should seem that his brethren were some of these elders, or these elders by suffering his brethren to abuse him, and not righting him as they ought to have done (for their business is to defend the poor and fatherless, Psa 82:3, Psa 82:4), had made themselves guilty of his expulsion, and he might justly charge them with it. Magistrates, that have power to protect those that are injured, if they neglect to redress their grievances are really guilty of inflicting them. "You hated me and expelled me, and therefore how can I believe that you are sincere in this proposal, and how can you expect that I should do you any service?" Not but that Jephthah was very willing to serve his country, but he thought fit to give them a hint of their former unkindness to him, that they might repent of their sin in using him so ill, and might for the future be the more sensible of their obligations. Thus Joseph humbled his brethren before he made himself known to them. The particular case between the Gileadites and Jephthah was a resemblance of the general state of the case between Israel and God at this time. They had thrust God out by their idolatries, yet in their distress begged his help; he told them how justly he might have rejected them, and yet graciously delivered them. So did Jephthah. Many slight God and good men till they come to be in distress, and then they are desirous of God's mercy and good men's prayers.
IV. Their urgency with him to accept the government they offer him, Jdg 11:8. "Therefore because we formerly did thee that wrong, and to show thee that we repent of it and would gladly atone for it, we turn again to thee now, to put such an honour upon thee as shall balance that indignity." Let this instance be, 1. A caution to us not to despise or trample upon any because they are mean, nor to be injurious to any that we have advantage against, because, whatever we think of them now, the time may come when we may have need of them, and may be glad to be beholden to them. It is our wisdom to make no man our enemy, because we know not how soon our distresses may be such as that we may be highly concerned to make him our friend. 2. An encouragement to men of worth that are slighted or ill-treated. Let them bear it with meekness and cheerfulness, and leave it to God to make their light shine out of obscurity. Fuller's remark on this story, in his "Pisgah Sight," is this: "Virtue once in an age will work her own advancement, and, when such as hate it chance to need it, they will be forced to prefer it," and then the honour will appear the brighter.
V. The bargain he makes with them. He had mentioned the injuries they had formerly done him, but, perceiving their repentance, his spirit was too great and generous to mention them any more. God had forgiven Israel the affronts they had put upon him (Jdg 10:16), and therefore Jephthah will forgive. Only he thinks it prudent to make his bargain wisely for the future, since he deals with men that he had reason to distrust. 1. He puts to them a fair question, Jdg 11:9. He speaks not with too much confidence of his success, knowing how justly God might suffer the Ammonites to prevail for the further punishment of Israel; but puts an if upon it. Nor does he speak with any confidence at all in himself; if he do succeed, it is the Lord that delivers them into his hand, intending hereby to remind his countrymen to look up to God, as arbitrator of the controversy and the giver of victory, for so he did. "Now if, by the blessing of God, I come home a conqueror, tell me plainly shall I be your head? If I deliver you, under God, shall I, under him, reform you?" The same question is put to those who desire salvation by Christ. "If he save you, will you be willing that he shall rule you? for on no other terms will he save you. If he make you happy, shall he make you holy? If he be your helper, shall he be your head?" 2. They immediately give him a positive answer (Jdg 11:10): "We will do according to thy words; command us in war, and thou shalt command us in peace." They do not take time to consider of it. The case was too plain to need a debate, and the necessity too pressing to admit a delay. They knew they had power to conclude a treaty for those whom they represented, and therefore bound it with an oath, The Lord be witness between us. They appeal to God's omniscience as the judge of their present sincerity, and to his justice as an avenger if afterwards they should prove false. The Lord be a hearer, so the word is. Whatever we speak, it concerns us to remember that God is a hearer, and to speak accordingly. Thus was the original contract ratified between Jephthah and the Gileadites, which all Israel, it should seem, agreed to afterwards, for it is said (Jdg 12:7), he judged Israel. He hereupon went with them (Jdg 11:11) to the place where they were all assembled (Jdg 10:17), and there by common consent they made him head and captain, and so ratified the bargain their representatives had made with him, that he should be not only captain now, but head for life. Jephthah, to obtain this little honour, was willing to expose his life for them (Jdg 12:3), and shall we be discouraged in our Christian warfare by any of the difficulties we may meet with in it, when Christ himself has promised a crown of life to him that overcometh?
VI. Jephthah's pious acknowledgment of God in this great affair (Jdg 11:11): He uttered all his words before the Lord in Mizpeh, that is, upon his elevation, he immediately retired to his devotions, and in prayer spread the whole matter before God, both his choice to the office and his execution of the office, as one that had his eye ever towards the Lord, and would do nothing without him, that leaned not to his own understanding or courage, but depended on God and his favour. He utters before God all his thoughts and cares in this matter; for God gives us leave to be free with him. 1. "Lord, the people have made me their head; wilt thou confirm the choice, and own me as thy people's head under thee and for thee?" God justly complains of Israel (Hos 8:4), they have set up kings, but not by me. "Lord," said Jephthah, "I will be no head of their making without thee. I will not accept the government unless thou give me leave." Had Abimelech done this, he might have prospered. 2. "Lord, they have made me their captain, to go before them in this war with the Ammonites; shall I have thy presence? Wilt thou go before me? If not, carry me not up hence. Lord, satisfy me in the justice of the cause. Assure me of success in the enterprise." This is a rare example, to be imitated by all, particularly by great ones; in all our ways let us acknowledge God, seek his favour, ask counsel at his mouth, and take him along with us; so shall we make our way prosperous. Thus Jephthah opened the campaign with prayer. That was likely to end gloriously which began thus piously.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv4–33 And it came to pass in process of time,....…
And it came to pass in process of time,.... Some time after Jephthah had been expelled from his father's house, and he was become famous for his martial genius, and military exploits; or at the close of the eighteen years' oppression of the children of Israel by the Ammonites, or some few days after the children of Israel were gathered together at Mizpeh, that the people and princes of Gilead were preparing for war with Ammon, and were thinking of a proper person to be their general:
that the children of Ammon made war against Israel; not only passed over Jordan again, and encamped in Gilead, but began to attack them in some place or another, at least threatened them with it, and made motions towards it.
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 vv4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33 Made war - The Ammonites had vexed and oppressed…
Made war - The Ammonites had vexed and oppressed them eighteen years, and now the Israelites begin to make opposition, they commence a war against them.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33 Verse 4. The children of Ammon made war] They…
Verse 4. The children of Ammon made war] They had invaded the land of Israel, and were now encamped in Gilead. See Jdg 10:17.
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 vv4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33 Jdg 11:4-5. The children of Ammon made war against…
Jdg 11:4-5. The children of Ammon made war against Israel — The Ammonites had oppressed them eighteen years, and now, when the Israelites begin to make opposition, they commence a war against them. The elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah — By direction from God, who both qualified him for, and called him to the office of a judge, otherwise they would not have been at liberty to choose a base-born person.
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 vv7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 29, 31, 33 This gives a wider signification to Jdg 11:2-3, and…
This gives a wider signification to Jdg 11:2-3, and shows that Jephthah’s “brethren” include his fellow tribesmen.
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 vv5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 Hard. Hebrew, "and when the Ammonites made war." As…
Hard. Hebrew, "and when the Ammonites made war." As both armies were encamped near Maspha, they could hardly avoid having some skirmishes. But the Israelites durst not come to a pitched battle till they had Jephte at their head. (Haydock) --- The Ammonites infested them every year with similar incursions, ver. 12. (Calmet)
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 vv12, 29 Jephthah’s diplomatic negotiations with the king of Ammon
Jephthah’s diplomatic negotiations with the king of Ammon
Jdg_11:12-28.
Read full note →
12And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children [sons] of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me [What is there between me and thee], that thou art come against [unto] me to fight in my land? 13And the king of the children [sons] of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because5 Israel took away my land, when they [he] came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto [the] Jabbok, and unto [the] Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. 14And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children 15[sons] of Ammon: And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away 16the land of Moab, nor the land of the children [sons] of Ammon: But [For] when Israel [they] came up from Egypt, and [then Israel] walked through the wilderness 17unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; [.] Then [And] Israel6 sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land:7 but the king of Edom would not hearken [hearkened not] thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not consent. And Israel abode in Kadesh. 18Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed8 the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by [on] the east side9 of [to] the land of Moab, and pitched [encamped] on the other [yonder] side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was [is] the border of Moab.10 19And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites,11 the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land12 unto my place. 20But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast [territory]: but Sihon gathered all his people together,13 and [they] pitched [encamped] in Jahaz, and [he] fought against [with] Israel.14 21And the Lord [Jehovah, the] God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them;15 so [and] Israel possessed [took possession of, i. e. conquered] all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. 22And they possessed [conquered] all the coasts [the entire territory] of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto [the] Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto [the] Jordan. 23So now the Lord [Jehovah, the] God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess [dispossess]16 it [i. e. the people Israel]? 24Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever [whatsoever] the Lord [Jehovah] our God shall drive out from 25before us [shall give us to possess], them [that] will we possess. And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab? did he ever strive 26against [litigate with]17 Israel, or did he ever fight against them, [?] While [Since] Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns [daughter-cities], and in Aroer [Aror] and her towns [daughter-cities], and in all the cities that be along by the coasts [banks] of Arnon [there have passed] three hundred years? [;] why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? 27Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the Lord [Jehovah] the Judge be judge this day between 28the children [sons] of Israel and the children [sons] of Ammon. Howbeit, the king of the children [sons] of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg_11:13.—Dr. Cassel omits “Because.” כִּי, in this place, may be either the sign of a direct quotation, as which it would be sufficiently indicated by a colon after “Jephthah”; or a causal conjunction (E. V., De Wette). If the latter, the sentence is elliptical: “We have much to do with each other,” or, “I am come to fight against thee,” because, etc.—Tr.]
[2 Jdg_11:23.—תִּירָשֶׁנּרּ, lit. “seize him.” “The construction of יָרַשׁ with the accusative of the people,” says Keil, “arises from the fact that in order to seize upon a land, it is necessary first to overpower the people that inhabits it.” Both he and Bertheau, however, refer the suffix to “the Amorite,” and are then obliged to make the Amorite stand for the “land of the Amorite.”—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_11:25.—רִיב, to contend in words, to plead before a judge. Dr. Cassel translates by rechten, to litigate, which must here of course be taken in a derivative sense.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg_11:12. The peaceable negotiations into which Jephthah, before he proceeds to war, enters with Ammon, demonstrate—and the less successful such efforts usually are, the more characteristically—the truly God-fearing character of the new chieftain. The Ammonites were a strong and valiant people (cf. Numbers 21.; Deu_2:20-21); but it was not on this account that he sought to negotiate with them once more. The Ammonites were descended from Lot, the nephew of Abraham; and Israel, on their journey to Canaan, had not been allowed to assail them (Deu_2:19). Jephthah, before he draws the sword, wishes to free himself from every liability to be truthfully charged with the violation of ancient and sacred prescriptions. He desires to have a clear, divine right to war, in case Ammon will not desist from its hostile purposes. He hopes for victory, not through strength of arms, but through the righteousness of his cause. This he would secure; so that he may leave it to God to decide between the parties.
What is there between me and thee, וָלָךְ מַה־לִּי. A proverbial form of speech, which may serve the most divergent states of mind to express and introduce any effort to repel and ward off. While it might here be rendered, “What wilt thou? what have I done to thee?” in the mouth of the prophet Elisha, repelling the unholy king (2Ki_3:13), it means, “How comest thou to me? I know thee not!” and in that of the woman whose sorrow for the loss of her child breaks out afresh when she sees Elijah (1Ki_17:18), “Alas, let me alone, stay away!” The Gospel translates it by τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί; in which form it appears in the celebrated passage, Joh_2:4, where Jesus speaks to Mary. But it has there not the harsh sense, “What have I to do with thee!” (which it has not even here in the message of Jephthah), but only expresses a hurried request for silence, for his “hour was not yet come.”
Jdg_11:13. Israel took away my land. For a question of right, Ammon, like other robbers and conquerors, was not at all prepared; but since it is put, the hostile king cannot well evade it. Reasons, however, have never been wanting to justify measures of violence. Although unacquainted with the arts of modern state-craft, ancient nations, as well as those of later times, understood how to base the demands of their desires on historical wrongs. Only, such claims, when preferred by nations like the Ammonites, usually did not wear even the appearance of truth. The king of Ammon seeks to excuse his present war against Israel, by asserting that when Israel came up out of Egypt they took from him the territory between Arnon, Jabbok, and Jordan, about coextensive with the inheritance of Reuben and Gad. It was utterly untrue. For when Israel went forth out of Egypt, this territory was in the hands of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon (Numbers 21). This king, it is true, had obtained it by conquest; but not so much from Ammon as from Moab, even though some connection of the Ammonites with the conquered lands is to be inferred from Jos_13:25. Israel itself had fought with neither Moab nor Ammon, taken nothing from them, nor even crossed their borders.
Jephthah does not fail to reduce this false pretense to its nothingness; for it was of the utmost importance in his view to make it manifest that the war, on the side of the Ammonites, was thoroughly unjust. The memoir which he sends to the king of Ammon, is as clear as it is instructive. It shows the existence of a historical consciousness in the Israel of that day, asserting itself as soon as the people became converted to God. For only a believing people is instructed and strengthened by history. Jephthah unfolds a piece of the history of Israel in the desert. It has been asked, in what relation the statements here made stand to those contained in the Pentateuch. The answer is, that the message of Jephthah makes a free use of the statements of the Pentateuch.
Jdg_11:15-28. Thus saith Jephthah. This introduction to Jdg_11:15 already indicates the free combination by Jephthah, of statements derived from the ancient records. That which is of peculiar interest in this document, and strongly evinces its originality, is, that while the turns of the language and the various verbal repetitions (already pointed out in the text) indicate the source whence it was borrowed, its departures from that source evidence the freedom with which the material is used for the end in view. Nothing is said which is not contained in the Pentateuch; only a few facts, of present pertinence, are brought forward and freely emphasized. Bertheau is inaccurate, when he thinks that the statement in Jdg_11:17, concerning Israel’s sending to Moab to ask for passage through their land and Moab’s refusal, is altogether new. For in the first place the perfect equality of Edom and Moab as regards the policy pursued towards them by Moses, is already intimated in Deu_2:9; and in the next place, Jdg_11:29 of the same chapter makes Moses request Sihon to give a passage to Israel through his land, and that he will not do “as the sons of Esau and the Moabites did,” to wit, deny them. That which connects Jdg_11:29 with Jdg_11:28 (Deuteronomy 2), is not that Esau and Moab had granted what Moses now requests of Sihon, but that they had not allowed his petition, by reason of which he is compelled to demand it of Sihon.18 Here, therefore, it is plainly intimated, that Moab also refused a passage. This fact, Jephthah clothes in his own language, and weaves into his exact narrative with the selfsame design with which Moses alluded to it in the passage already quoted, namely, to prove that Israel was compelled by necessity to take its way through the land of the Amorite. The same tracing of events to their causes, leads Jephthah in Jdg_11:20 to say of Sihon: “he trusted not Israel,” whereas Num_21:23 merely says: “he permitted not.” Jephthah seeks to give additional emphasis to the fact, that if Sihon lost his land, the fault lay not with Israel. Sihon could not but see that no other passage remained for Israel; but he refused to credit the peaceable words of Moses. His distrust was his ruin. Further: instead of the expression, “until I pass over Jordan, into the land which Jehovah our God giveth us” (Deu_2:29), Jephthah writes, “let us pass through thy land to my place.” At that time, he means to say, the Canaan this side the Jordan was Israel’s destination; for not till after that—and this is why he changes the phraseology—did God give us Canaan beyond the Jordan also. For the same reason he substitutes “Israel” for “Moses” in the expression, “And Moses sent messengers” (Num_20:14). Over against Ammon, he brings Israel into view as a national personality.
On the basis of this historical review, Jephthah in a few sentences places the unrighteousness of his demands before the king of Ammon. What, therefore, Jehovah our God allowed us to conquer—that thou wilt possess? thou, who hadst no claims to it at any time, since, properly speaking, it was never thine? If any party could maintain a claim, it was Moab; but Balak, the king of Moab, never raised it, nor did he make war on that account. The conquest, by virtue of which Israel held the land, was not the result of wrongful violence, but of a war rashly induced by the enemy himself. God gave the victory and the land. A more solid title than that which secures to Israel the country between the Arnon and the Jabbok, there cannot be. Or has Ammon a better for his own possession? Were they not taken by force of arms from the Zamzummim (Deu_2:21)? or, as Jephthah expresses it, “were they not given thee by Chemosh, thy god?” He makes use of Ammon’s own form of thought and expression. Chemosh (the desolater, from כָּבַשׁ = כָּמַשׁ) is the God of War. As such, he can here represent the god of Ammon, although usually regarded as the Moabitish deity; for it is the martial method in which Ammon obtained his land on which the stress is laid. Chemosh is war personified, hence especially honored by the Moabites, whose Ar Moab, the later Areopolis, is evidently related to the Greek Ares19 (Mars). Hence also the representation of him on extant specimens of ancient Areopolitan coins, where he appears with a sword in his right, and a lance and shield in his left hand, with torches on either side (Eckhel, Doctr. Nummor, iii. 394; Movers, Phönizier, i. 334).
Jephthah is sincere in this reference to the title by which Ammon holds his land. He does not dispute a claim grounded on ancient conquest. For in Deu_2:21, also, it is remarked, from a purely Israelitish point of view, that “Jehovah gave the land to the sons of Ammon for a possession.” Quite rightly too; inasmuch as Jehovah is the God of all nations. But as Jephthah desires to speak intelligibly and forcibly to Ammon, who does not understand the world-wide government of Jehovah, he connects the same sentiment with the name of Chemosh, to whom Ammon traces back his warlike deeds and claims.20 He thereby points out, in the most striking and conclusive manner, that if Ammon refuses to recognize the rights of Israel to its territory, he at the same time undermines, in principle, his own right to the country he inhabits. Aside from this, 300 years have passed since Israel first dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer, and on the banks of the Arnon. The statement exhibits a fine geographical arrangement: Heshbon, as capital of the ancient kingdom, is put first; then, to the north of it, Aroer (or Aror, probably so called to distinguish it from the southern Aroer) in Gad, over against the capital of Ammon; and finally, in the south, the cities on the Arnon. Possession, so long undisputed, cannot now be called in question. Jephthah concludes, therefore, that on his side no wrong had been committed; but Ammon seeks a quarrel—may God decide between them! But Ammon hearkened not—a proof how little the best and most righteous state papers avail, when men are destitute of good intentions. On the other hand, let this exposition of Jephthah be a model for all litigating nations, and teach them not only to claim, but truly to have, right and justice on their side. For God, the judge, is witness and hearer for all.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
[P. H. S.: Jephthah as Diplomatist—a noble model for modern imitation. His document Isaiah , 1. Straightforward and convincing by its truthfulness; 2. Firm in its maintenance of righteous claims; yet, withal, 3. Winning and conciliating in its tone.—The most upright diplomacy may fail to avert war; but it is nevertheless powerful for the right. Israel doubtless fought better, and with higher feelings, when it saw the righteousness of its cause so nobly set forth; while the enemy must have been proportionably depressed by convictions of an opposite character.—Jephthah’s diplomacy as contrasted with that of the king of Moab. Alas, that representatives of Christian nations should so often imitate the heathen king rather than the Hebrew Judge, and that Christian nations should uphold them in it!
Henry: Jephthah did not delight in war, though a mighty man of valor, but was willing to prevent it by a peaceable accommodation. War should be the last remedy, not to be used till all other methods of ending matters in variance have been tried in vain. This rule should also be observed in going to law. The sword of justice, as the sword of war, must not be appealed to till the contending parties have first endeavored by gentler means to understand one another, and to accommodate matters in variance (1Co_6:1).—The same: (on Jdg_11:17-18): Those that conduct themselves inoffensively, may take the comfort of it, and plead it against those that charge them with injustice and wrong. Our righteousness will answer for us in time to come, and will “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.”—The same: One instance of the honor and respect we owe to God, as our God, is, rightly to possess that which He gives us to possess, receive it from Him, use it for Him, keep it for his sake, and part with it when He calls for it.—The same: (on Jdg_11:27-28): War is an appeal to heaven, to God the Judge of all, to whom the issues of it belong. If doubtful rights be disputed, He is thereby requested to determine them; if manifest rights be invaded or denied, He is thereby applied to to vindicate what is just, and punish what is wrong. As the sword of justice was made for lawless and disobedient persons (1Ti_1:9), so was the sword of war for lawless and disobedient princes and nations. In war, therefore, the eye must be ever up to God; and it must always be thought a dangerous thing to desire or expect that God should patronize unrighteousness.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[5][Bp. Hall: “Men love to go the nearest way, and often fail. God commonly goes about, and in his own time comes surely home.”—Tr.]
[6]Jdg_11:17.—The words printed in blackfaced type are found in Num_20:21. The first part of Jdg_11:17 is from Num_20:14, except that there “Moses” takes the place of “Israel.” On the other hand, the expression, “Thus saith thy brother Israel,” there used, is here wanting.
[7]Jdg_11:17.—Num_20:17; only, “let me pass,” is there read, “let us pass.”
[8]Jdg_11:18.—Num_21:4 has לִםְבֹּב.
[9]Jdg_11:18.—Num_21:11
[10]Jdg_11:18.—Num_21:13.
[11]Jdg_11:19.—Num_21:21.
[12]Jdg_11:19.—Num_21:22 has אֶעְבְּרָה for נָּא נַעְבְּרָה־.
[13]Jdg_11:20.—Num_21:23.
[14]Jdg_11:20.—Num_21:23, the words “they encamped” being substituted for “he came.”
[15]Jdg_11:21.—Num_21:24; “Israel smote him.”
[16][Jdg_11:23.—תִּירָשֶׁנּרּ, lit. “seize him.” “The construction of יָרַשׁ with the accusative of the people,” says Keil, “arises from the fact that in order to seize upon a land, it is necessary first to overpower the people that inhabits it.” Both he and Bertheau, however, refer the suffix to “the Amorite,” and are then obliged to make the Amorite stand for the “land of the Amorite.”—Tr.]
[17][Jdg_11:25.—רִיב, to contend in words, to plead before a judge. Dr. Cassel translates by rechten, to litigate, which must here of course be taken in a derivative sense.—Tr.]
[18][This interpretation of Deu_2:29, which would clear it of all appearance of conflict with Num_20:14-20, is unfortunately not supported by the language of the original. The natural rendering of the text is substantially that of the E. V.: “Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and thou shalt give me water for money, that I may drink; only I will pass through on my feet: as did unto me the sons of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar: until I pass over Jordan, into the land which Jehovah our God giveth us.” The reader’s first thought is, that the conduct of Edom and Moab is referred to as a precedent covering both parts of the present request to Sihon: “Sell me food and grant me a passage—as Edom and Moab did, so do thou.” But history relates that Edom denied a passage, and that Israel made a detour around the Edomite territories. May we then regard the precedent as referring only to the matter of supplies? and the clause which recalls it to the memory of Sihon, as occupying a place after that which a logical arrangement of the clauses would assign it? This supposition, by no means unlikely in itself, seems to be favored by the construction of the sentence. It does not, however, relieve the passage of all difficulty. For it still leaves the implication that Edom and Moab sold food and water to Israel, whereas according to Num_20:20 they refused to do that also. Keil therefore argues that this refusal was made when Israel was on the western boundary of Edom, where the character of the mountains made it easy to repulse an army; but that when Israel had reached their eastern boundary, where the mountains sink down into vast elevated plains, and present no difficulty to an invading army, the Edomites took counsel of prudence, and instead of offering hostilities to the Israelites, contented themselves with the profitable sale of what would otherwise have been taken by force. This is at least a plausible explanation, although not founded on historical evidence, unless, what is by no means improbable, Deu_2:2-9 is designed to explain the course of actual events by a statement of divine instructions.—Tr.]
[19]Hence, the name Aroer proves also that the worship of the “War-god” obtained in Ammon as well as in Moab. For a city of that name existed in the territories of each of these nations.
[20][Wordsworth: “It does not seem that Jephthah is here using the language of insult to the Ammonites, but is giving them a courteous reply. He appears to recognize Chemosh as a local deity; and he speaks of the Lord as the God of Israel, and as our God; and calls Israel his people. He regards Him [speaks of Him?] as a national deity, but does not claim universal dominion for Him.”—Tr.]
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 vv4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 28, 29, 31, 32 THE GILEADITES COVENANT WITH JEPHTHAH. (Jdg 11:4-11)
THE GILEADITES COVENANT WITH JEPHTHAH. (Jdg 11:4-11)
in process of time--on the return of the season.
Read full note →
the children of Ammon made war against Israel--Having prepared the way by the introduction of Jephthah, the sacred historian here resumes the thread of his narrative from Jdg 10:17. The Ammonites seem to have invaded the country, and active hostilities were inevitable.
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 vv5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 5. Elders of Gilead went — These were doubtless…
5. Elders of Gilead went — These were doubtless delegates from the assembly of princes of Gilead, mentioned Jdg_10:18. There the question was raised, Who shall be our leader against Ammon? and this verse shows that their choice had fallen on Jephthah. His fame as a bold and warlike chieftain was doubtless the reason of this choice.
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 vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 4. after a while] An indefinite mark of time…
4. after a while] An indefinite mark of time as in Jdg_14:8, Jdg_15:1. The wording implies that the Ammonites have not been mentioned before; this is another reason for believing that the introductory notice Jdg_10:6-18 was composed later than the present passage.
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 vv4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 (4) In process of time.—Marg., after days, implying the…
(4) In process of time.—Marg., after days, implying the time between Jephthah’s expulsion in early youth and his mature manhood.
The children of Ammon made war.—The fact that this is introduced as a new circumstance, though it has been fully related in Jdg_10:8-9; Jdg_10:17-18, probably arises from the use of some new, and probably Gileadite, document in these two chapters.
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 vv4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33 This verse brings us back to Jud_1:10:17, and reunites…
This verse brings us back to Jud_1:10:17, and reunites the two streams of narrative.
Vers. 4-11. Magnanimity of patriotism.
Read full note →
In the behaviour of Jephthah on this occasion we have a noble illustration of the blending of the religious and the patriotic spirit.
I PERSONAL WRONGS ARE FORGIVEN. He might have brooded over them, sulked, and rejoiced over the elders in their trouble. But he felt that his country"s distress was not a time or occasion for revenging the contumely and wrong that were past. This is the true spirit of the patriot. The individual is lost in the commonwealth.
II HIS COUNTRY"S NEED IS GENEROUSLY RESPONDED TO. What an opportunity for an. unprincipled, irreligious man! He might have turned Israel"s loss to his own gain.
III HIS OWN FORTUNES ARE LOST SIGHT OF IN THE GREATER AMBITION Of BEING THE SAVIOUR OF HIS COUNTRY. Rank he does not value. He refuses leadership until it is shown that he is the Divinely revealed leader. He gives all the honour to Jehovah. From that moment he was at the service of his people, and the unselfish "servant of Jehovah." Men are found who will behave thus for earthly fatherlands and temporal attachments. Often the human tie and the Divine conflict. Jephthah was serving God and country at once. The Christian will serve his friends and his country best by serving God first. How dear should the Church and kingdom of God on earth be to us! All other considerations should be lost sight of in the zeal for our Master"s glory. M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v12 AT every stage of their history the Hebrews were…
THE TERRIBLE VOW
Jdg_11:12-40
Read full note →
AT every stage of their history the Hebrews were capable of producing men of passionate religiousness. And this appears as a distinction of the group of nations to which they belong. The Arab of the present time has the same quality. He can be excited to a holy war in which thousands perish. With the battle cry of Allah and his Prophet he forgets fear. He presents a different mingling of character from the Saxon, -turbulence and reverence, sometimes apart, then blending magnanimity and a tremendous want of magnanimity; he is fierce and generous, now rising to vivid faith, then breaking into earthly passion. We have seen the type in Deborah. David is the same and Elijah; and Jephthah is the Gileadite, the border Arab. In each of these there is quick leaping at life and beneath hot impulse a strain of brooding thought with moments of intense inward trouble. As we follow the history we must remember the kind of man it presents to us. There is humanity as it is in every race, daring in effort, tender in affection, struggling with ignorance yet thoughtful of God and duty, triumphing here, defeated there. And there is the Syrian with the heat of the sun in his blood and the shadow of Moloch on his heart, a son of the. rude hills and of barbaric times, yet with a dignity, a sense of justice, a keen upward look, the Israelite never lost in the outlaw.
So soon as Jephthah begins to act for his people, marks of a strong character are seen. He is no ordinary leader, not the mere fighter the elders of Gilead may have taken him to be. His first act is to send messengers to the king of Ammon saying, What hast thou to do with me that thou art come to fight against my land? He is a chief who desires to avert bloodshed-a new figure in the history.
Natural in those times was the appeal to arms, so natural, so customary that we must not lightly pass this trait in the character of the Gileadite judge. If we compare his policy with that of Gideon or Barak we see of course that he had different circumstances to deal with. Between Jordan and the Mediterranean the Israelites required the whole of the land in order to establish a free nationality. There was no room for Canaanite or Midianite rule side by side with their own. The dominance of Israel had to be complete and undisturbed. Hence there was no alternative to war when Jabin or Zebah and Zalmunna attacked the tribes. Might had to be invoked on behalf of right. On the other side Jordan the position was different. Away towards the desert behind the mountains of Bashan the Ammonites might find pasture for their flocks, and Moab had its territory on the slopes of the lower Jordan and the Dead Sea. It was not necessary to crush Ammon in order to give Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben space enough and to spare. Yet there was a rare quality of judgment shown by the man who, although called to lead in war, began with negotiation and aimed at a peaceful settlement. No doubt there was danger that the Ammonites might unite with Midian or Moab against Israel. But Jephthah hazards such a coalition. He knows the bitterness kindled by strife. He desires that Ammon, a kindred people, shall be won over to friendliness with Israel, henceforth to be an ally instead of a foe.
Now in one aspect this may appear an error in policy, and the Hebrew chief will seem especially to blame when he makes the admission that the Ammonites hold their land from Chemosh their god. Jephthah has no sense of Israels mission to the world, no wish to convert Ammon to a higher faith, nor does Jehovah appear to him as sole King, sole object of human worship. Yet, on the other hand, if the Hebrews were to fight idolatry everywhere it is plain their swords would never have been sheathed. Phoenicia was close beside; Aram was not far away; northward the Hittites maintained their elaborate ritual. A line had to be drawn somewhere and, on the whole, we cannot but regard Jephthah as an enlightened and humane chief who wished to stir against his people and his God no hostility that could possibly be avoided. Why should not Israel conquer Ammon by justice and magnanimity, by showing the higher principles which the true religion taught? He began at all events by endeavouring to stay the quarrel, and the attempt was wise.
The king of Ammon refused Jephthahs offer to negotiate. He claimed the land bounded by the Arnon, the Jabbok, and Jordan as his own and demanded that it should be peaceably given up to him. In reply Jephthah denied the claim. It was the Amorites, he said, who originally held that part of Syria. Sihon who was defeated in the time of Moses was not an Ammonite king, but chief of the Amorites. Israel had by conquest obtained the district in dispute, and Ammon must give place.
The full account given of these messages sent by Jephthah shows a strong desire on the part of the narrator to vindicate Israel from any charge of unnecessary warfare. And it is very important that this should be understood, for the inspiration of the historian is involved. We know of nations that in sheer lust of conquest have attacked tribes whose land they did not need, and we have read histories in which wars unprovoked and cruel have been glorified. In after times the Hebrew kings brought trouble and disaster on themselves by their ambition. It would have been well if David and Solomon had followed a policy like Jephthahs rather than attempted to rival Assyria and Egypt. We see an error rather than a cause of boasting when David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: strife was thereby provoked which issued in many a sanguinary war. The Hebrews should never have earned the character of an aggressive and ambitious people that required to be kept in check by the kingdoms around. To this nation, a worldly nation on the whole, was committed a spiritual inheritance, a spiritual task. Is it asked why, being worldly, the Hebrews ought to have fulfilled a spiritual calling? The answer is that their best men understood and declared the Divine will, and they should have listened to their best men. Their fatal mistake was, as Christ showed, to deride their prophets, to crush and kill the messengers of God. And many other nations likewise have missed their true vocation, being deluded by dreams of vast empire and earthly glory. To combat idolatry was indeed the business of Israel and especially to drive back the heathenism that would have overwhelmed its faith: and often this had to be done with an earthly sword because liberty no less than faith was at stake. But a policy of aggression was never the duty of this people.
The temperate messages of the Hebrew chief to the king of Ammon proved to be of no avail: war alone was to settle the rival claims. And this once clear Jephthah lost no time in preparing for battle. As one who felt that without God no man can do anything, he sought assurance of divine aid; and we have now to consider the vow which he made, ever interesting on account of the moral problem it involves and the very pathetic circumstances which accompanied its fulfilment.
The terms of the solemn engagement under which Jephthah came were these:-"If Thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, then it shall be that whatsoever" (Septuagint and Vulgate, "whosoever") "cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon shall be the Lords, and I will offer it (otherwise, him) for a burnt offering." And here two questions arise; the first, what he could have meant by the promise; the second, whether we can justify him in making it. As to the first, the explicit designation to God of whatever came forth of the doors of his house points unmistakably to a human life as the devoted thing. It would have been idle in an emergency like that in which Jephthah found himself, with a hazardous conflict impending that was to decide the fate of the eastern tribes at least, to anticipate the appearance of an animal, -bullock, goat, or sheep, -and promise that in sacrifice. The form of words used in the vow cannot be held to refer to an animal. The chief is thinking of some one who will express joy at his success and greet him as a victor. In the fulness of his heart he leaps to a wild savage mark of devotion. It is a crisis alike for him and for the people and what can he do to secure the favour and help of Jehovah? Too ready from his acquaintance with heathen sacrifices and ideas to believe that the God of Israel will be pleased with the kind of offerings by which the gods of Sidon and Aram were honoured, feeling himself as the chief of the Hebrews bound to make some great and unusual sacrifice, he does not promise that the captives taken in war shall be devoted to Jehovah, but some one of his own people is to be the victim. The dedication shall be all the more impressive that the life given up is one of which he himself shall feel the loss. A conqueror returning from war would, in ordinary circumstances, have loaded with gifts the first member of his household who came forth to welcome him. Jephthah vows to give that very person to God. The insufficient religious intelligence of the man, whose life had been far removed from elevating influences, this once perceived-and we cannot escape from the facts of the case-the vow is parallel to others of which ancient history tells. Jephthah expects some servant, some favourite slave to be the first. There is a touch of barbaric grandeur and at the same time of Roman sternness in his vow. As a chief he has the lives of all his household entirely at his disposal. To sacrifice one will be hard, for he is a humane man; but he expects that the offering will be all the more acceptable to the Most High. Such are the ideas moral and religious from which his vow springs.
Now we should like to find more knowledge and a higher vision in a leader of Israel. We would fain escape from the conclusion that a Hebrew could be so ignorant of the divine character as Jephthah appears; and moved by such feelings many have taken a very different view of the matter. The Gileadite has, for example, been represented as fully aware of the Mosaic regulations concerning sacrifice and the method for redeeming the life of a firstborn child; that is to say, he is supposed to have made his vow under cover of the Levitical provision by which in case his daughter should first meet him he would escape the necessity of sacrificing her. The rule in question could not, however, be stretched to a case like this. But, supposing it could, is it likely that a man whose whole soul had gone out in a vow of life and death to God would reserve such a door of escape? In that case the story would lose its terror indeed, but also its power: human history would be the poorer by one of the great tragic experiences, wild and supernatural, that show man struggling with thoughts above himself.
What did the Gileadite know? What ought he to have known? We see in his vow a fatalistic strain; he leaves it to chance or fate to determine who shall meet him. There is also an assumption of the right to take into his own lands the disposal of a human life; and this, though most confidently claimed, was entirely a factitious right. It is one which mankind has ceased to allow. Further, the purpose of offering a human being in sacrifice is unspeakably horrible to us. But how differently these things must have appeared in the dim light which alone guided this man of lawless life in his attempt to make sure of God and honour Him! We have but to consider things that are done at the present day in the name of religion, the lifelong "devotion" of young women in a nunnery, for example, and all the ceremonies which accompany that outrage on the divine order to see that centuries of Christianity have not yet put an end to practices which under colour of piety are barbaric and revolting. In the modern case a nun secluded from the world, dead to the world, is considered to be an offering to God. The old conception of sacrifice was that the life must pass out of the world by way of death in order to become Gods. Or again, when the priest describing the devotion of his body says: "The essential, the sacerdotal purpose to which it should be used is to die. Such death must be begun in chastity, continued in mortification, consummated in that actual death which is the priests final oblation, his last sacrifice," -the same superstition appears in a refined and mystical form.
His vow made, the chief went forth to battle, leaving in his home one child only, a daughter beautiful, high spirited, the joy of her fathers heart. She was a true Hebrew girl and all her thought was that he, her sire, should deliver Israel. For this she longed and prayed. And it was so. The enthusiasm of Jephthahs devotion to God was caught by his troops and bore them on irresistibly. Marching from Mizpah in the land of Bashan they crossed Manasseh, and south from Mizpeh of Gilead, which was not far from the Jabbok, they found the Ammonites encamped. The first battle practically decided the campaign. From Aroer to Minnith, from the Jabbok to the springs of Arnon, the course of flight and bloodshed extended, until the invaders were swept from the territory of the tribes. Then came the triumphant return.
We imagine the chief as he approached his home among the hills of Gilead, his eagerness and exultation mingled with some vague alarm. The vow he has made cannot but weigh upon his mind now that the performance of it comes so near. He has had time to think what it implies. When he uttered the words that involved a life the issue of war appeared doubtful. Perhaps the campaign would be long and indecisive. He might have returned not altogether discredited, yet not triumphant. But he has succeeded beyond his expectation. There can be no doubt that the offering is due to Jehovah. Who then shall appear? The secret of his vow is hid in his own breast. To no man has he revealed his solemn promise; nor has he dared in any way to interfere with the course of events. As he passes up the valley with his attendants there is a stir in his rude castle. The tidings of his coming have preceded him and she, that dear girl who is the very apple of his eye, his daughter, his only child, having, already rehearsed her part, goes forth eagerly to welcome him. She is clad in her gayest dress. Her eyes are bright with the keenest excitement. The timbrel her father once gave her, on which she has often played to delight him, is tuned to a chant of triumph. She dances as she passes from the gate. Her father, her father, chief, and victor!
And he? A sudden horror checks his heart. He stands arrested, cold as stone, with eyes of strange dark trouble fixed upon the gay young figure that welcomes him to home and rest and fame. She flies to his arms, but they do not open to her. She looks at him, for he has never repulsed her-and why now? He puts forth his hands as if to thrust away a dreadful sight, and what does she hear? Amid the sobs of a strong mans agony, "Alas, my daughter, thou hast brought me very low and thou art one of them that trouble me." To startled ears the truth is slowly told. She is vowed to the Lord in sacrifice. He cannot go back. Jehovah who gave the victory now claims the fulfilment of the oath.
We are dealing with the facts of life. For a time let us put aside the reflections that are so easy to make about rash vows and the iniquity of keeping them. Before this anguish of the loving heart, this awful issue of a sincere but superstitious devotion we stand in reverence. It is one of the supreme hours of humanity. Will the father not seek relief from his obligation? Will the daughter not rebel? Surely a sacrifice so awful will not be completed. Yet we remember Abraham and Isaac journeying together to Moriah, and how with the fathers resignation of his great hope there must have gone the willingness of the son to face death if that last proof of piety and faith is required. We look at the father and daughter of a later date and find the same spirit of submission to what is regarded as the will of God. Is the thing horrible-too horrible to be dwelt upon? Are we inclined to say,
"Heaven heads the count of crimes
With that wild oath? She renders answer high,
Not so; nor once alone, a thousand times
I would be born and die."
It has been affirmed that "Jephthahs rash act, springing from a culpable ignorance of the character of God, directed by heathen superstition and cruelty poured an ingredient of extreme bitterness into his cup of joy and poisoned his whole life." Suffering indeed there must have been for both the actors in that pitiful tragedy of devotion and ignorance, who knew not the God to Whom they offered the sacrifice. But it is one of the marks of rude erring man that he does take upon himself such burdens of pain in the service of the invisible Lord. A shallow scepticism entirely misreads the strange dark deeds often done for religion; yet one who has uttered many a foolish thing in the way of "explaining" piety can at last confess that the renouncing mortifying spirit is, with all its errors, one of mans noble and distinguishing qualities. To Jephthah, as to his heroic daughter, religion was another thing than it is to many, just because of their extraordinary renunciation. Very ignorant they were surely, but they were not so ignorant as those who make no great offering to God, who would not resign a single pleasure, nor deprive a son or daughter of a single comfort or delight, for the sake of religion and the higher life. To what purpose is this waste? said the disciples, when the pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, was poured on the head of Jesus and the house was filled with the odour. To many now it seems waste to expend thought, time, or money upon a sacred cause, much more to hazard or to give life itself. We see the evils of enthusiastic self-devotion to the work of God very clearly; its power we do not feel. We are saving life so diligently, many of us, that we may well fear to lose it irremediably. There is no strain and therefore no strength, no joy. A weary pessimism dogs our unfaith.
To Jephthah and his daughter the vow was sacred, irrevocable. 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.
There are not a few popularly accepted guides in religion who fatally misconceive the doctrine of sacrifice. They take man-made conditions for Divine opportunities and calls. Their arguments come home not to the selfish and overbearing, but to the unselfish and long-suffering members of society, and too often they are more anxious to praise renunciation-any kind of it, for any purpose, so it involve acute feeling-than to magnify truth and insist on righteousness. It is women chiefly these arguments affect, and the neglect of pure truth and justice with which women are charged is in no small degree the result of false moral and religious teaching. They are told that it is good to renounce and suffer even when at every step advantage is taken of their submission and untruth triumphs over generosity. They are urged to school themselves to humiliation and loss not because God appoints these but because human selfishness imposes them. The one clear and damning objection to the false doctrine of self-suppression is here: it makes sin. Those who yield where they should protest, who submit where they should argue and reprove, make a path for selfishness and injustice and increase evil instead of lessening it. They persuade themselves that they are bearing the cross after Christ; but what in effect are they doing? The missionary amongst ignorant heathen has to bear to the uttermost as Christ bore. But to give so-called Christians a power of oppression and exaction is to turn the principles of religion upside down and hasten the doom of those for whom the sacrifice is made. When we meddle with truth and righteousness even in the name of piety we simply commit sacrilege, we range ourselves with the wrong and unreal; there is no foundation under our faith and no moral result of our endurance and self-denial. We are selling Christ, not following Him.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
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.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v29 Jephthah seems to have been judge only of northeast…
Jephthah
Jephthah seems to have been judge only of northeast Israel.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv12, 29 Jephthah’s Message to the Ammonites
Jephthah’s Message to the Ammonites
v. 12. And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, for he intended to remove every suspicion as though he had ruthlessly violated the Lord’s command not to molest the children of Ammon, Deu 2:5 to Deu 9:19, saying, What hast thou to do with me, what matter should cause us to wage war against each other, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?
Read full note →
v. 13. And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan, for a part of the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites, had originally been in the hands of Moab and Ammon, Num 21:26. Now, therefore, restore those lands again peaceably.
v. 14. And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon,
v. 15. and said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab nor the land of the children of Ammon;
v. 16. but when Israel came up from Egypt and walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh, Num 14:25; Num 13:26,
v. 17. then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto, Num 20:18; Num 20:21. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not consent; and Israel abode in Kadesh. This was at the time when the children of Israel were on the western side of the mountains of Seir.
v. 18. Then they went along through the wilderness, marching south to the Elanitic Gulf, and thence east into the desert, and compassed the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, Num 21:11, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, on the south side, but came not within the border of Moab, to the territory actually occupied by the Moabites; for Arnon was the border of Moab.
v. 19. And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place.
v. 20. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel.
v. 21. And the Lord God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them; so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country.
v. 22. And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. This account agrees exactly and almost verbally with Num 21:21-25. Jephthah relates the history as it concerned the children of Israel and shows the false pretense of the king of Ammon.
v. 23. So now the Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel, by a war of extermination, and shouldest thou possess it? For Ammon had not conquered Sihon and his host.
v. 24. Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh, thy god, giveth thee to possess? They would surely consider such a procedure as just and fair, if they believed their war-god to have given them the victory in battle. So whomsoever the Lord, our God, shall drive out from before us, them will we possess, for Israel was surely entitled to the same consideration.
v. 25. And now art thou anything better than Balak, the son of Zipper, king of Moab, namely, at the time when Israel conquered the land east of Jordan? Did he ever strive, enter into litigation, against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, although he might have claimed an interest in the land with greater right than the Ammonites, Num 21:26,
v. 26. while Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? Why, therefore, if so sure of their ownership, did ye not recover them within that time? Possession, so long undisputed, could not be called in question at this late day.
v. 27. Wherefore I, Israel, have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me; the Ammonites were using their supposed claim to the land as a pretext for attacking Israel. The Lord, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon. Jephthah placed his case in the hands of Jehovah as the righteous Judge, who would render His decision by bestowing victory upon the righteous cause.
v. 28. Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him; he refused to change his plans. The fact that God occasionally suffers the wickedness of the enemies to continue as a punishment upon His people does not change the fact that their doing is still wickedness before Him.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32 Some days later
Some days later
"Some time later"
Read full note →
made war against Israel
The phrase "made war" is an idiom which means that they attacked Israel and were at war with them. Here "Israel" refers to the people of Israel. AT: "attacked the people of Israel" (See: Idiom and Metonymy)
that we may fight with
"so that we can fight against"
translationWords
Ammon
Israel
elder
Gilead
Jephthah
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.