JEPHTHAH’S VOW
(Judges 11:30-31; Judges 11:34-40)
CRITICAL NOTES.— Judges 11:30. Vowed a vow unto the Lord.] He looked entirely to Jehovah for victory (Psalms 18:2; Psalms 18:6; Psalms 18:29, etc.; Psalms 62:6-8; Psalms 46:1-7; Psalms 118:6-13; Psalms 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 (Judges 11:9-10), when he accepted the office of captain (Judges 11:11), when he spoke of the past victories of Israel (Judges 11:21; Judges 11:23-24; Judges 11:27), and now when about to contend with the enemy in battle (Judges 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.
Judges 11:31. Whatsoever cometh forth, etc.] Heb. That which coming forth shall have come forth—a doubling of the statement as in Judges 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 Exodus 21:15; 2 Samuel 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.
Judges 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 (1 Samuel 18:6; Exodus 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 (Zechariah 12:10; Genesis 22:2; Genesis 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.
Judges 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 (Leviticus 10:6; Genesis 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.” (Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Psalms 118:14; Psalms 118:18; Psalms 66:13-14). “I cannot revoke it.”
Judges 11:36. Do to me according to that which hath proceeded, etc.] The whole conversation is not here given. At the close of Judges 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).
Judges 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 (Psalms 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 Isaiah 4:1; also in Luke 1:25; Jeremiah 16:9; Jeremiah 7:34; contrasted with Psalms 127:3-5; Zach. Judges 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.
Judges 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.
Judges 11:40. Yearly.] Lit. from days to days, or from year to year (Exodus 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 (Judges 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 (Jonah 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 (Numbers 30:1-16; Numbers 6:1-12; Leviticus 27; Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Ecclesiastes 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 (Genesis 28:20), Hannah, (1 Samuel 1:11), David frequently (Psalms 61:3; Psalms 66:13; Psalms 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 (1 Chronicles 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 Judges 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 (Ecclesiastes 5:2; Leviticus 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 (Deuteronomy 12:29-31; Leviticus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 18:10; Deuteronomy 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 (Genesis 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 (Genesis 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 Judges 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 (Jeremiah 7:30-31; Deuteronomy 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 (Ecclesiastes 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 Judges 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 (Leviticus 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 (Deuteronomy 13:12-18; 1 Samuel 15:33; Numbers 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 (Leviticus 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. (Exodus 13:12-13 with Exodus 13:15, Exodus 34:20; Numbers 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 (Genesis 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 (Hebrews 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
(Judges 11:30-31; Judges 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 (Romans 8:18; John 14:27; John 16:33; 1 Peter 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.’ ”