Jephthah’s Vow and the Defeat of the Ammonites—11:29–33
In verse 29, at this crucial moment: Then the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Jephthah, which in turn caused him to pass over unto the children of Ammon, which means he took the war into enemy territory. It was a preemptive strike: Instead of waiting for the enemy to attack Israel, Jephthah launched the attack.
In verses 30 to 31, Jephthah made a vow: And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah. The content of the vow was: If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatsoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering. The reason for the vow was Jephthah’s recognition of the need for divine intervention. Jephthah had no sons and only one daughter. The only other person in that family would have been his wife if she were still living. So if Jephthah had intended a human sacrifice from the doors of my house, he would have used the feminine form and not the masculine. The use of the masculine implies he had an animal sacrifice in mind. The first floor of ancient Israelites had four rooms, and one such room was for housing animals.
Verses 32 to 33 describe the war, beginning with a summary and followed by the details. The summary, in verse 32, identifies human and divine actions or roles: Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; then, Jehovah delivered them into his hand. Verse 33 provides the details. By destroying twenty cities, victory was decisive, and the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
5. Jephthah’s Fulfillment of the Vow—11:34–40
Verse 34 describes Jephthah’s unfortunate circumstance: And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances. It was a common practice for women to go out and welcome a victorious army with music and dance (Exod. 15:20; I Sam. 18:6). The key issue was that she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. That meant that if she died childless, Jephthah would have no descendants. This was viewed as a terrible curse in biblical times—to die without leaving any descendants to continue the line. The word behold calls for special appointment: To Jephthah’s shock, it was his daughter who was the first one out of the house, and obviously he was not expecting her to do what she did.
In verse 35, realization of the impact of his vow led to Jephthah’s grieved response: And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, a common action sign of grief (cf. Gen. 37:29 and 37:34; II Sam. 13:19 and 13:31; Job 1:20). Then Jephthah declared the words of grief and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low. Literally, the Hebrew says caused me to kneel. Figuratively, the idiom means, “You took the strength out of my legs so that I am forced to my knees.” Then he added, you are one of them that trouble me. In the Hebrew text, the word you is emphatic, literally meaning you of all people. The reason Jephthah was so troubled is then given: for I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back. This was not true if the vow entailed human sacrifice; this was not a valid vow, and an invalid vow could be canceled under Mosaic Law. However, if the vow was a vow of dedication, it was valid. In the rabbinic tradition, the rabbis stated that Jephthah should have gone to Phinehas, the High Priest, who could have annulled the vow. But each one waited for the other to make the first move, and because of each other’s stubbornness on both their parts, the daughter had to suffer. So, eventually both suffered divine punishment. For Phinehas, the Divine Presence departed from him. For Jephthah, he was struck with leprosy. Again, this is purely rabbinic tradition and there is no indication of this in the text. What is true is that within the Mosaic Law, Jephthah could have had this vow canceled if it was an invalid vow (Lev. 27:1–8). But the fact that he felt it had to be kept shows that the vow was indeed valid.
Verses 36 to 37 record the daughter’s response. In verse 36, she was in full agreement with her father’s interpretation: My father, you have opened your mouth unto Jehovah; do unto me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth. She also recognized the validity of the vow and did not try to avoid it. She also understood the basis for the vow: forasmuch as Jehovah has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon. But in verse 37, she made a request: Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity. She did not bemoan her coming death but because of her virginity, she would now die childless, and in ancient times this was a major source of grief. She also adds: I and my companions; the exact meaning of this will be discussed below.
In verse 38, her request was granted: And he said, Go. This was followed by the act itself: and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
In verse 39a, Jephthah fulfilled the vow, which came at the end of two months, when she returned unto her father. The fulfillment is declared in two statements: first, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed; second, and she knew not man.
In verses 39b to 40, this led to a new tradition: And it was a custom in Israel. The new custom was that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. This celebration would last four days in a year.
The issue among interpreters is this: Did Jephthah offer his daughter up as a human sacrifice? Or was she dedicated to serve the Lord as a virgin for the rest of her life?
Interpreters who favor the human sacrifice view use eight basic arguments:
First, the Hebrew word used here is olah, which throughout the Old Testament is always used of a burnt offering, and there is no reason to take it any other way in this passage.
Second, in the Septuagint version, the same word is used of Jephthah’s daughter that was used of Isaac’s sacrifice, which initially was understood to be a human sacrifice.
Third, if he had only dedication in mind, then he should have used the language of Hannah in her dedication of Samuel in I Samuel 1:11, 1:22, 1:25, and 1:28.
Fourth, Jephthah was a son of a common prostitute since the word used here is zonah, which means a common prostitute, as over against a temple prostitute. He also spent much time with the peoples east of the Jordan (Judges 11:1–3), where such practices as human sacrifices were common (II Kg. 3:26–27), practices followed by later Jewish kings such as Ahaz (II Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (II Kg. 21:6); if later leaders of Israel engaged in such practices, it was possible that early leaders did as well.
Fifth, the fact that he was a judge does not remove the possibility of his making a rash vow, and the common philosophy of his day was that every man did that which was right in his own eyes. This was in opposition to the Law of Moses, as was the case earlier with Gideon and his golden ephod and even with Samson and his sins.
Sixth, if Jephthah could slaughter 42,000 Israelites (cf. Judges 12:1–6), he certainly had the capacity to kill his own daughter.
Seventh, his daughter’s lament over her virginity implied that there was no hope for children because of her impending death.
Eighth, the Hebrew word for lament here is tavach, which is used only one other time, in Judges 5:11, where it can be best translated as “to recount,” not “talk to” as if she were still alive.
In response to those who argue against a human sacrifice, the proponents of her being a human sacrifice would respond with the following six opposing arguments:
First, as to the argument that Jephthah knew the Law of Moses and therefore would not be ignorant of the prohibition against human sacrifice, they would answer that knowledge of the Law did not preclude disobedience to that Law. This was also true in the case of King David. Jephthah must have known that it would be a human being coming out of his house, for if it was an animal coming out of his home, it would be too small to sacrifice for such a great victory.
Second, in response to the argument that Jephthah’s name appears as a man of faith in Hebrews 11:32, they would answer that this does not mean he did not commit sin, since Rahab and Samson also appear, and both are guilty of sins.
Third, as to the argument that Jephthah could not have done this in light of the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon him, they would answer that the vow was not taken right after. There may have been a break of time between the Spirit’s coming upon him and the vow itself. Furthermore, the same was true of Samson.
Fourth, as to the argument that there were full-time women serving in the Tabernacle (Exod. 38:8; I Sam. 2:22), and so his vow was that, if he had the victory, he would dedicate to the Tabernacle one member of his household, they would respond: It is not clear that these women served as permanent residents of the Tabernacle, and even so this argument is weak because there appears to be no order of perpetual virgins in the Mosaic order.
Fifth, as to the argument that claims that the conjunction in verse 31 should be translated as “or” and not as “and,” so that the vow would then be that “whatever comes from the door of the house to meet him shall be devoted to God’s service if it was human, or if it was a clean animal, it would become a burnt offering,” they would answer: it is doubtful if the vav here is disjunctive, rather than conjunctive, and it should be “and” and not “or.”
Sixth, as to the argument that the Hebrew word for lament is translated as to talk to, which indicates that they ought to remain alive, their answer is: but a better translation would be to recount.
Interpreters who favor her being dedicated to full-time Tabernacle service for life do so for at least eleven specific reasons:
First, there was an order of devoted women working in the Tabernacle (Exod. 38:8; I Sam. 2:22).
Second, the vow was made right after he was clothed with the Holy Spirit, and this mitigates against its being a human sacrifice. There is no indication that there was a gap of time between the coming of the Spirit and the making of the vow.
Third, if it was clear that the vow was to include human sacrifice, and if God gave him victory, would God have honored such a vow? And the answer is obviously “No” because it would go against His own law.
Fourth, human sacrifice was clearly forbidden by the Law of Moses and understood to be an abomination against God (Lev. 18:21 and 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31 and 18:10).
Fifth, there is no evidence that any Israelite offered human sacrifice until it was transplanted by unbelieving kings such as Ahab and Manasseh who worshipped other gods. But Jephthah was a Jehovah-worshipper, and would not have performed such a crime and abomination. The fact that subsequent Jewish kings did so is not a valid argument here because they worshiped other gods but Jephthah did not.
Sixth, there is a constant, strong emphasis on Jephthah’s daughter’s virginity, not on her death. If she were killed, there would be no point in emphasizing her virginity; and yet she bewailed her virginity, not her coming death. To mourn one’s virginity does not necessarily mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and die as a virgin, and therefore would produce no descendants. His daughter was allowed two months of mourning, not to bewail her approaching death, but her virginity. The final phrase in the story is: and she knew not man. This does not conform well with death, but it conforms well with dedicated virginity. This statement would add nothing to the issue of her dying since it was already stated that she was a virgin. But, the statement follows, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and he did so by the fact that she remained a virgin. In other words, when the text states he did according to his vow, which is then followed by the next phrase, she knew not man, it means that he fulfilled the vow by her remaining a virgin. This statement does not harmonize with a physical sacrifice, but it does harmonize with a spiritual sacrifice to full-time service in the Tabernacle, and therefore lifetime virginity. So Jephthah fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man; i.e. he dedicated her life to the Lord as a spiritual burnt-offering in lifelong chastity.
Seventh, the narrator never actually says that Jephthah killed or sacrificed his daughter. There was no altar at that time for human sacrifice on either side of the Jordan to which he could bring her. Furthermore, no priest would perform such a sacrifice.
Eighth, the word olah or burnt offering implied “totally given to God,” and the offerer received no portion of it back, and could not derive any benefit from it. With other offerings, the offerer often did receive some benefit or got part of it back, but not with the burnt offering. So when a virgin was set apart as a spiritual olah, she totally belonged to God and remained single. She remained a virgin for the rest of her life, and Jephthah derived no benefit, meaning no seed, from her. The result was the sure extinction of Jephthah’s line since she was his only child. This was a stronger religious vow than the Nazirite Vow, which was temporary, while this one was lifetime. Judges 11:39 states that Jephthah performed his vow, and then it is followed by the statement that she knew not man. Again, this later phrase would be pointless if she had been put to death. But it has relevance if she was devoted to the service of God at the door of the Tabernacle for the rest of her life. Jephthah’s lament was based on her being an only child. They were not lamenting her dedication to God’s service, rather they were lamenting over the sure extinction of Jephthah’s line. Thus both he and she bewailed her virginity.
Ninth, Jephthah was approved by God in Samuel’s address in I Samuel 12:11, and by Hebrews 11:32, which would not have been the case if he were guilty of such a gross idolatry as human sacrifice. To say, for example, that Samson also sinned is irrelevant because Samson was not guilty of idolatry. His disobedience was to the laws of God as a Nazirite, but he did not fall into idolatry. For Jephthah to offer up his daughter would be an idolatrous act, which would not have been commended by Samuel or by the writer of Hebrews.
Tenth, Jephthah’s negotiations with the king of Ammon show Jephthah did not as a matter of habit act rashly but instead thought things out first.
Eleventh, the daughter’s virginity and dedication was in the plan of God, as the chronology shows, and thus Jephthah’s daughter would still be working in the Tabernacle when Hannah brought Samuel there to be raised. Although, according to First Samuel, some of the women working in the Tabernacle were not chaste, Jephthah’s daughter was. Therefore, Samuel would have been around a spiritual woman as he was growing up in the Tabernacle.
So, the better view is that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a human sacrifice but offered her in full-time service.
Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2006). Ariel's Bible commentary : The books of Judges and Ruth (1st ed.) (145–154). San Antonio, Tex.: Ariel Ministries.
No comments:
Post a Comment