Judges · Chapter 11

V. 1. Gileadite-So called, either from his father Gilead, or from the mountain, or city of Gilead, the place of his birth. Son of a harlot-That is, a bastard. And though such were not ordinarily to enter into the congregation of the Lord, Deuteronomy 23:2. Yet God can dispense with his own laws, and hath sometimes done honour to base-born persons, so far, that some of them were admitted to be the progenitors of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gilead-One of the children of that ancient Gilead, Numbers 32:1.

Verse 1. Now Jephthah-was the son of a harlot] I think the word hnwz zonah, which we here render harlot, should be translated, as is contended for on Joshua 2:1, viz. a hostess, keeper of an inn or tavern for the accommodation of travellers; and thus it is understood by the Targum of Jonathan on this place: atyqdnwp atta rb awhw vehu bar ittetha pundekitha, “and he was the son of a woman, a tavern keeper.” See the note referred to above. She was very probably a Canaanite, as she is called, Judges 11:2, a strange woman, trja hva ishshah achereth, a woman of another race; and on this account his brethren drove him from the family, as he could not have a full right to the inheritance, his mother not being an Israelite.

Verse 1. Jephthah the Gileadite — So called, either from his father Gilead, or from the mountain, or city of Gilead, the place of his birth. Son of a harlot — That is, a bastard. And though such were not ordinarily to enter into the congregation of the Lord, Deuteronomy 23:2; yet God can dispense with his own laws, and hath sometimes done honour to base-born persons, so far, that some of them were admitted to be the progenitors of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gilead begat Jephthah — One of the children of that ancient Gilead, Numbers 32:1.

Verse 1. Jephthah—son of a harlot. The Hebrew is the same as in Joshua 2:1. The rabbins mostly read here, as Joshua 2., son of a hostess.

ELECTION OF JEPHTHAH, 1-11.

This chapter should have begun with verse 17 of the preceding chapter, where the history of Jephthah properly begins.

1. Gileadite — Like Jair, Jephthah was a native of the land of Gilead, and, what is noticeable also, his father’s name was Gilead. He was probably a descendant of Gilead, the grandson of Manasseh. Numbers 26:29. We see no sufficient reason to take Gilead here as the name of the country, or a tribal name used in place of an unknown personal name. A mighty man of valour — Distinguished for great physical strength, skill in the use of arms, and boldness of character.

2. They thrust out Jephthah — Their father, Gilead, was a man of wealth and power, and they were unwilling that the son of a strange woman and a harlot should share with them the paternal inheritance. Compare Genesis 21:10; 25:6. The law placed a bastard on the same footing with an Ammonite or a Moabite. Deuteronomy 23:2, 3. Neither could enter the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation. Mark that he who by the law was placed in the same category with the Ammonites was called to be the conqueror of those incestuous sons of Lot. Strange woman — Hebrew, another woman. “Other is here to be taken in a bad sense, as in the expression other gods. As those are spurious gods, so another woman is a spurious wife.” — Cassel.

V. 3. Of Tob-The name either of the land, or of the man who was the owner or ruler of it. This place was in, or near Gilead, as appears by the speedy intercourse which here was between Jephthah and the Israelites. Vain men-Idle persons, who desired rather to get their living by spoil and rapine, than by honest labour. These evil persons Jephthah managed well, employing them against the enemies of God, and of Israel, that bordered upon them; and particularly upon parties of the Ammonites, which made the Israelites more forward to chuse him for their chieftain in this war. Went out-When he made excursions and attempts upon the enemy.

Verse 3. There were gathered vain men to Jephthah] µyqyr אנשים anashim reykim, empty men-persons destitute of good sense, and profligate in their manners. The word may, however, mean in this place poor persons, without property, and without employment. The versions in general consider them as plunderers.

Verse 3. Of Tob — The name either of the land, or of the man who was the owner or ruler of it. This place was in or near Gilead, as appears by the speedy intercourse which there was between Jephthah and the Israelites. Vain men — Idle persons, who desired rather to get their living by spoil and rapine, than by honest labour. These evil persons Jephthah managed well, employing them against the enemies of God, and of Israel, that bordered upon them; and particularly against parties of the Ammonites, which made the Israelites more forward to choose him for their chieftain in this war. Went out with him — When he made excursions and attempts upon the enemy.

Ver. 3. Vain men, rogues and rakes. The Hebrews is the same as for those who followed Abimelech: Judges 9:4.

3. Fled — Violence and abuse were apparently used in thrusting him out. Land of Tob — A district lying northeast of Gilead, and apparently between the Syrians and Ammonites. Compare 2 Samuel 10:6. It has not been identified with any modern name. Vain men — Loose and desperate characters like those whom Abimelech made his friends. Judges 9:4. These eastern deserts were the common resort of such characters. See note on 2 Samuel 13:37. Jephthah’s mode of life during this period has been aptly compared to that of David when he fled from the court of Saul, and gathered round him a company of lawless characters, (1 Samuel 22:2,) and also to that of a Scottish border chieftain in the Middle Ages, and that of Robin Hood in England.

V. 4. 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.

Verse 4. The children of Ammon made war] They had invaded the land of Israel, and were now encamped in Gilead. See Judges 10:17.

Verses 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.

ELECTION OF JEPHTHAH, 1-11.

This chapter should have begun with verse 17 of the preceding chapter, where the history of Jephthah properly begins.

1. Gileadite — Like Jair, Jephthah was a native of the land of Gilead, and, what is noticeable also, his father’s name was Gilead. He was probably a descendant of Gilead, the grandson of Manasseh. Numbers 26:29. We see no sufficient reason to take Gilead here as the name of the country, or a tribal name used in place of an unknown personal name. A mighty man of valour — Distinguished for great physical strength, skill in the use of arms, and boldness of character.

V. 5. Went-By direction from God, who both qualified him for, and called him to the office of a judge, otherwise they might not have chosen a bastard.

Verses 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.

Ver. 5. The land of Tob. Ish-tob is mentioned. 2 Samuel 10:8. It lay between Syria and Ammon. Here Jephthah led a species of martial life, it would seem, with his men; and being ready to hire himself to any cause, he acquired great fame as a soldier.

5. Elders of Gilead went — These were doubtless delegates from the assembly of princes of Gilead, mentioned Judges 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.

Verse 6. Come, and be our captain] The Israelites were assembled in Mizpeh, but were without a captain to lead them against the Ammonites. And we find, from the conclusion of the preceding chapter, that they offered the command to any that would accept it.

ELECTION OF JEPHTHAH, 1-11.

This chapter should have begun with verse 17 of the preceding chapter, where the history of Jephthah properly begins.

1. Gileadite — Like Jair, Jephthah was a native of the land of Gilead, and, what is noticeable also, his father’s name was Gilead. He was probably a descendant of Gilead, the grandson of Manasseh. Numbers 26:29. We see no sufficient reason to take Gilead here as the name of the country, or a tribal name used in place of an unknown personal name. A mighty man of valour — Distinguished for great physical strength, skill in the use of arms, and boldness of character.

V. 7. Expel me-And deprive me of all share in my father’s goods, which, though a bastard, was due to me. This expulsion of him was the act of his brethren; but he here ascribes it to the elders of Gilead; either because some of them were among these elders, as is very probable from the dignity of this family; or because this act, though desired by his brethren, was executed by the decree of the elders, to whom the determination of all controversies about inheritance belonged; and therefore it was their faults they did not protect him from the injuries of his brethren.

Verse 7. Did ye not hate me, and expel me — And deprive me of all share in my father’s goods, which, though a bastard, was due to me? This expulsion of him was the act of his brethren; but he here ascribes it to the elders of Gilead; either because some of his brethren were among these elders, as is very probable from the dignity of this family; or because this act, though desired by his brethren, was executed by the decree of the elders, to whom the determination of all controversies about inheritances belonged; and therefore it was their faults they did not protect him from the injuries of his brethren.

7. Did not ye hate me — Jephthah treats all the Gileadites as partakers in the abuse and violence which expelled him from his father’s house. Probably the act of Gilead’s sons in thrusting out Jephthah was generally approved by the elders, for in the next verse they seem to acknowledge their wrong.

V. 8. Therefore-Being sensible that we have done thee injury, we come now to make thee full reparation.

Verse 8. Therefore we turn again to thee now] We are convinced that we have dealt unjustly by thee, and we wish now to repair our fault, and give thee this sincere proof of our regret for having acted unjustly, and of our confidence in thee.

Verse 8. Therefore we turn again to thee — Being sensible we have done thee an injury, we come now to make thee full reparation. That thou mayest go with us — They acknowledge that they need his assistance and are humble enough to request it.

8. Therefore — Inasmuch as we did thee wrong, we turn again to thee now to repair, as far as possible, that wrong by electing thee our head, that is, our captain and chief.

V. 9. If, &c.-If you recall me from this place where I am now settled, to the place whence I was expelled. Shall I, &c.-Will you really make good this promise? Jephthah was so solicitous in this case, either from his zeal for the public good, which required that he should be so; or from the law of self-preservation, that he might secure himself from his brethren; whose ill-will he had experienced, and whose injuries he could not prevent, if, after he had served their ends, he had been reduced to his private capacity.

Verse 9. If ye bring me home — If ye recall me from this place where I am now settled to the place whence I was expelled. Shall I be your head? — Will you really make good this promise? Jephthah was so solicitous in this case, either from his zeal for the public good, which required that he should be so; or from the law of self-preservation, that he might secure himself from his brethren; whose ill-will he had experienced, and whose injuries he could not prevent, if, after he had served their ends, he had been reduced to his private capacity.

9. Shall I be your head — Better to make this a positive declaration, I will be your head; for the response of the elders in the next verse is not so much an answer to a question, as an expression of submission to Jephthah’s will.

V. 10. The Lord be witness-The Lord be an hearer: so the Hebrew word is. Whatever we speak it concerns us to remember, that God is an hearer!

Verses 10, 11. The Lord be witness — The Lord be a hearer; so the Hebrew word is. Whatever we speak, it concerns us to remember that God is a hearer! The people made him head, &c. — They confirmed in full assembly, by unanimous consent, what the elders, who had been sent to him, had promised. Jephthah uttered all his words before the Lord — That is, before the public congregation, where God was usually and then especially present. This most probably refers to the words of the people, in making him captain and head over them, which, it is likely, Jephthah repeated with an audible voice, calling God to witness to them at the same time, that the people might look upon their promise as more solemn, and that there might be no dispute afterward about the offer which they now made to him.

10. The Lord be witness — A solemn oath and covenant. According to thy words — We will accede to thy wish. See on verse 9.

V. 11. All his words-Or, all his matters, the whole business. Before the Lord-That is, before the public congregation, wherewith God was usually, and then especially present.

Verse 11. Jepthah went with the elders] The elders had chosen him for their head; but, to be valid, this choice must be confirmed by the people; therefore, it is said, the people made him head. But even this did not complete the business; God must be brought in as a party to this transaction; and therefore Jephthah uttered all his words before the Lord-the terms made with the elders and the people on which he had accepted the command of the army; and, being sure of the Divine approbation, he entered on the work with confidence.

Verses 10, 11. The Lord be witness — The Lord be a hearer; so the Hebrew word is. Whatever we speak, it concerns us to remember that God is a hearer! The people made him head, &c. — They confirmed in full assembly, by unanimous consent, what the elders, who had been sent to him, had promised. Jephthah uttered all his words before the Lord — That is, before the public congregation, where God was usually and then especially present. This most probably refers to the words of the people, in making him captain and head over them, which, it is likely, Jephthah repeated with an audible voice, calling God to witness to them at the same time, that the people might look upon their promise as more solemn, and that there might be no dispute afterward about the offer which they now made to him.

Ver. 11. Before the Lord. Jephthah, like other good men, began his work with God’s counsel and blessing.

11. The people made him head and captain — The elders made the choice, and the people confirmed it by a public election. The distinction between head and captain, if any, is that between civil and military leader and chief. The people chose him to be not only their leader in this war with Ammon, but their judge and ruler after the war was over. Jephthah uttered all his words — Publicly stated the terms and conditions on which he accepted his new position, and the vows and oaths by which both he and the people bound themselves to be governed. Before the Lord — Not before the ark, for that was at Shiloh; but by a solemn appeal to Jehovah as witness of the vows they all took upon themselves. This whole transaction was done as if all realized that they were in the very presence of Jehovah. On Mizpeh see note, Judges 10:17.

V. 12. Messengers-That is, ambassadors, to prevent blood-shed, that so the Israelites might be acquitted before God and men, from all the sad consequences of this war; herein he shewed great prudence, and no less piety. What hast thou, &c.-What reasonable cause hast thou for this invasion? In my land-He speaks this in the name of all the people.

Verse 12. Jepthah sent messengers] He wished the Ammonites to explain their own motives for undertaking a war against Israel; as then the justice of his cause would appear more forcibly to the people.

Verse 12. Jephthah sent messengers — That is, ambassadors, to prevent bloodshed, that so the Israelites might be acquitted before God and men from all the sad consequences of the war; and herein he showed great prudence, and no less piety. What hast thou to do with me, &c. — What reasonable cause hast thou for this invasion? To fight in my land — He speaks this in the name of all the people.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 13. My land-That is, this land of Gilead, which was mine, but unjustly taken from me, by Sihon and Og, the kings of the Ammonites; and the injury perpetuated by Israel’s detaining it from me. This land, before the conquests of Sihon and Og, belonged partly to the Ammonites, and partly to the Moabites. And indeed, Moab and Ammon did for the most part join their interests and their forces.

Verse 13. From Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan] That is, all the land that had formerly belonged to the Amorites, and to the Moabites, who it seems were confederates on this occasion.

Verse 13. Because Israel took away my land — The land was not theirs when the Israelites conquered it, but the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites. For as to the country of the Ammonites, God expressly charged the children of Israel not to meddle with it, Deuteronomy 2:19. It is true, this land, which they now claimed, had formerly belonged to the Moabites, but Sihon had made a conquest of it, and driven them out, as we read Numbers 21:26.

13. Israel took away my land — This was probably in a certain sense tree, for, according to Joshua 13:24, 25, Moses gave to the tribe of Gad half the land of the children of Ammon; and though Israel captured the land from Arnon even unto Jabbok, not of Moab nor of Ammon, but of Sihon, king of the Amorites, yet Sihon had previously fought against the king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand. See Numbers 21:24-26. So, though Israel strictly observed the divine order (Deuteronomy 2:9, 19) not to disturb Moab or Ammon, they took from the Amorites lands which seem to have anciently belonged to those descendants of Lot. Israel was not to blame for conquering these lands of Sihon, and fairly owned them by the right of conquest, yet both Ammonites and Moabites might feel that they were the ancient owners. But having neglected their claim for three hundred years, (verse 26,) it was idle for them to urge it now.

Ver. 14. Jephthah sent messengers. This was fair: reason is a better bar of appeal than the sword. Expostulations have often prevented war, which in every nation should be the work of dire necessity only.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

15. Israel took not — Israel took the land in question not of Ammonites or Moabites, but of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and therefore with previous owners they had nothing to do. Jephthah’s messengers proceed to state the real facts in the case. For the facts which they state, see the passages referred to in the margin. This whole message of Jephthah is a most primitive and honest piece of diplomacy, and a weighty argument for the antiquity and genuineness of the Pentateuch.

V. 16. The Red-sea-Unto which they came three times; once, Exodus 13:18, again, a little after their passage over it, and a third time, long after, when they came to Ezion Geber, which was upon the shore of the Red-Sea, from whence they went to Kadesh; of this time he speaks here.

Verses 16, 17. Unto the Red sea — Unto which they came three times; once, Exodus 13:18; again, a little after their passage over it; and a third time, long after, when they came to Ezion-geber, which was upon the shore of the Red sea, from whence they went to Kadesh; of this time he speaks here. In the like manner they sent to the king of Moab — We do not read of such a message sent to the Moabites; but when the Israelites came from Ezion-geber into the wilderness of Moab, we find a command of God given to them not to distress the Moabites, nor contend with them in battle. This intimates there was some occasion for such a command, which was probably their refusing to grant them some common civility.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 17. Abode-Peaceably, and did not revenge their unkindness as they could have done.

Verses 16, 17. Unto the Red sea — Unto which they came three times; once, Exodus 13:18; again, a little after their passage over it; and a third time, long after, when they came to Ezion-geber, which was upon the shore of the Red sea, from whence they went to Kadesh; of this time he speaks here. In the like manner they sent to the king of Moab — We do not read of such a message sent to the Moabites; but when the Israelites came from Ezion-geber into the wilderness of Moab, we find a command of God given to them not to distress the Moabites, nor contend with them in battle. This intimates there was some occasion for such a command, which was probably their refusing to grant them some common civility.

17. In like manner they sent unto the king of Moab — This fact is not recorded in the Pentateuch along with the other facts here mentioned, for it was a matter of comparatively little moment with Moses to record the refusal of Moab after he had mentioned that of Edom, but it was important for the purpose of Jephthah’s argument.

Some have wondered why so much is here said about Moab in a message to the king of Ammon; but it should be noticed that as Jephthah, who really represented only the eastern tribes of Israel, speaks as the representative of all Israel, so the king of Ammon represents the children of Lot.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 19. My place-That is, unto the land of Canaan, which God hath given me.

Verses 19-22. Let us pass through thy land unto my place — That is, unto the land of Canaan, which the Lord hath given me. But Sihon fought against Israel — He not only refused, after the example of his neighbours, to grant the Israelites a passage through his country, which they could not insist upon as their absolute right, but raised all his forces, and proudly marched to drive them away from his borders. So that, as Jephthah intends to signify, Sihon was the aggressor, and the Israelites were compelled to fight in their own defence. They possessed all the coasts — Or borders, together with all the land included within those borders. From the wilderness — Namely, the desert of Arabia; unto Jordan.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 20. Sihon fought-So Sihon was the aggressor, and the Israelites were forced to fight in their own defence.

Verses 19-22. Let us pass through thy land unto my place — That is, unto the land of Canaan, which the Lord hath given me. But Sihon fought against Israel — He not only refused, after the example of his neighbours, to grant the Israelites a passage through his country, which they could not insist upon as their absolute right, but raised all his forces, and proudly marched to drive them away from his borders. So that, as Jephthah intends to signify, Sihon was the aggressor, and the Israelites were compelled to fight in their own defence. They possessed all the coasts — Or borders, together with all the land included within those borders. From the wilderness — Namely, the desert of Arabia; unto Jordan.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

Verses 19-22. Let us pass through thy land unto my place — That is, unto the land of Canaan, which the Lord hath given me. But Sihon fought against Israel — He not only refused, after the example of his neighbours, to grant the Israelites a passage through his country, which they could not insist upon as their absolute right, but raised all his forces, and proudly marched to drive them away from his borders. So that, as Jephthah intends to signify, Sihon was the aggressor, and the Israelites were compelled to fight in their own defence. They possessed all the coasts — Or borders, together with all the land included within those borders. From the wilderness — Namely, the desert of Arabia; unto Jordan.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 22. The coasts-Or, borders; together with all the land included within those borders. Wilderness-Namely, the desert of Arabia.

Verse 22. From the wilderness even unto Jordan.] From Arabia Deserta on the east to Jordan on the west.

Verses 19-22. Let us pass through thy land unto my place — That is, unto the land of Canaan, which the Lord hath given me. But Sihon fought against Israel — He not only refused, after the example of his neighbours, to grant the Israelites a passage through his country, which they could not insist upon as their absolute right, but raised all his forces, and proudly marched to drive them away from his borders. So that, as Jephthah intends to signify, Sihon was the aggressor, and the Israelites were compelled to fight in their own defence. They possessed all the coasts — Or borders, together with all the land included within those borders. From the wilderness — Namely, the desert of Arabia; unto Jordan.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 23. So the Lord-God, the sovereign Lord of all lands, hath given us this land; this he adds, as a farther and convincing reason; because otherwise it might have been alledged against the former argument, that they could gain no more right to that land from Sihon, than Sihon himself had.

Verse 23. The Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites] Jephthah shows that the Israelites did not take the land of the Moabites or Ammonites, but that of the Amorites, which they had conquered from Sihon their king, who had, without cause or provocation, attacked them; and although the Amorites had taken the lands in question from the Ammonites, yet the title by which Israel held them was good, because they took them not from the Ammonites, but conquered them from the Amorites.

So now the Lord-hath dispossessed the Amorites.-The circumstances in which the Israelites were when they were attacked by the Amorites, plainly proved, that, unless Jehovah had helped them, they must have been overcome. God defeated the Amorites, and made a grant of their lands to the Israelites; and they had, in consequence, possessed them for three hundred years, Judges 11:26.

Verse 23. So now the Lord, &c. — God, the sovereign Lord of all lands, hath given us this land; this he adds, as a further and convincing reason; because otherwise it might have been alleged against the former argument, that they could gain no more right to that land from Sihon, than Sihon himself had. And shouldest thou possess it? — It was absurd to think that they should take pains to conquer it, and God should give it to them, only that they might reinstate the Moabites or Ammonites in the possession of it, with whom they had no alliance.

23. Shouldest thou possess it — Is it right for thee to seize upon possessions which our God has so signally given to us?

V. 24. Wilt not thou-He speaks according to their absurd opinion: the Ammonites and Moabites got their land by conquest of the old inhabitants, whom they cast out; and this success, though given them by the true God, for Lot’s sake, Deuteronomy 2:9,19, they impiously ascribe to their god Chemosh, whose gift they owned to be a sufficient title.

Verse 24. Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee] As if he had said: “It is a maxim with you, as it is among all nations, that the lands which they conceive to be given them by their gods, they have an absolute right to, and should not relinquish them to any kind of claimant. You suppose that the land which you possess was given you by your god Chemosh and therefore you will not relinquish what you believe you hold by a Divine right. Now, we know that Jehovah, our God, who is the Lord of heaven and earth, has given the Israelites the land of the Amorites; and therefore we will not give it up.” The ground of Jephthah’s remonstrance was sound and good.

1. The Ammonites had lost their lands in their contests with the Amorites.

2. The Israelites conquered these lands from the Amorites, who had waged a most unprincipled war against them.

3. God, who is the Maker of heaven and earth had given those very lands as a Divine grant to the Israelites.

4. In consequence of this they had possession of them for upwards of three hundred years.

5. These lands were never reclaimed by the Ammonites, though they had repeated opportunities of doing it, whilst the Israelites dwelt in Heshbon, in Aroer, and in the coasts of Arnon; but they did not reclaim them because they knew that the Israelites held them legally. The present pretensions of Ammon were unsupported and unjustifiable.

Verse 24. Wilt not thou possess, &c. — He does not call Chemosh a god; but only argues from the opinion that they had of him, which was such as all nations entertained of their gods, namely, that they owed their conquests to them: to whom, therefore, they gave thanks for all their victories. The Ammonites and Moabites got their land by conquest of the old inhabitants, whom they cast out; and their success, though given them by the true God, for Lot’s sake, Deuteronomy 2:9, 19, they impiously ascribed to their god Chemosh, whose gift they owned to be a sufficient title. Jephthah, therefore, here appeals to themselves, whether they would not keep what they believed their god had given them, and consider it as lawfully possessed by them. So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out, them will we possess — By the very same title whereby the Moabites and Ammonites conceived that they possessed the country in which they now lived, and from whence they had driven out the ancient inhabitants.

24. Wilt thou not — The thought involved in the previous verse is here expanded in a sort of argumentum ad hominem. You yourselves, it is urged, would most earnestly insist on possessing that which your god had given into your hands; and shall not we do the same? Chemosh — The great deity of the Moabites and Ammonites. “Jewish tradition affirms that he was worshipped under the symbol of a black star; and Maimonides states that his worshippers went bareheaded, and abstained from the use of garments sewn together by the needle. The black star, the connexion with Arabian idolatry, and the fact that Chemosh is coupled with Moloch, favour the theory that he had some analogy with the planet Saturn.” — Kitto’s Cyclopaedia. He is here spoken of as a local and national deity, but it is not necessary to assume that Jephthah himself believed in his real existence and divinity. He speaks with respect, however, of the religion of his foe, and this fact, together with the recent existence of Ammonitish idolatry in Israel, (Judges 10:6,) affords some ground to believe that there was still among the Israelites too much reverence for the gods of the heathen. {The Lord — Jehovah. Note the antithesis. Chemosh thy god — Jehovah our God. The Ammonites held both to be national deities. The more ignorant Israelites always inclined to the same view; the well-taught Israelite recognised that Jehovah was indeed the national God, but also God over all; and the truly pious held him to be sole God, all else being “a lie.”}

V. 25. Than Balak-Art thou wiser than he? Or hast thou more right than he had? Balak, though he plotted against Israel, in defence of his own land, which he feared they would invade and conquer, yet never contended with them about the restitution of those lands which Sihon took from him or his predecessors.

Verse 25. Art thou any thing better than Balak? — Art thou wiser than he? Or hast thou more right than he had? This is a third argument, that though Balak plotted against Israel, in defence of his own land, which he feared they would invade and conquer, yet he never contended with them about the restitution of those lands which Sihon took from him or his predecessors, laid no claim to them, nor ever demanded to have them restored.

25. Better than Balak — Hast thou any better claim on these lands than Balak? The… king of Moab had even a better title to the lands than Ammon, for from him the greater part of them had been taken by the Amorites, (Numbers 21:26;) and the fact that he did not strive against Israel to recover his lost possessions was further evidence of the futility of Ammon’s claim.

V. 26. Three hundred years-Not precisely, but about that time, either from their coming out of Egypt; or, from their first conquest of those lands. He urges prescription, which is by all men reckoned a just title, and it is fit it should be so for the good of the world, because otherwise the door would be opened both to kings, and to private persons, for infinite contentions and confusions.

Verse 26. Three hundred years — Not precisely, but about that time, either from their coming out of Egypt, or from their first conquest of those lands. Here he pleads prescription, which by all men is reckoned a just title, and it is fit it should be so, for the good of the world; because otherwise a door would be opened both to kings and private persons for infinite contentions and confusions. And the prescription he pleads was for a long space of time, during which none of the kings of Moab or Ammon had pretended a right to this country, much less contested it with them. Wherefore did ye not recover them within that time? — No answer could be given to this question, why, in so long a time, they never asserted their claim till now.

Ver. 26. While Israel dwelt in Heshbon—three hundred years. Though we cannot find three hundred in the book of Chronicles, yet the possession of that city by the Hebrews is not disputed.

26. Three hundred years — This of all others was the most overwhelming refutation of Ammon’s claims. The peaceful possession of a country for such a period was of itself an all-sufficient title to possession — a “statute of limitations:” “for,” says Le Clerc, “if there be no rule respecting time, and long possession is of no value, nothing could ever be safely possessed by any people, nor would there ever be an end of wars and dissensions.”

V. 27. I have not-I have done thee no wrong. Be judge-Let him determine this controversy by the success of this day and war.

Verse 27. The Lord the Judge be judge-between the children of Israel] If you be right, and we be wrong, then Jehovah, who is the sovereign and incorruptible Judge, shall determine in your favour; and to Him I submit the righteousness of my cause.

Verse 27. Wherefore I have not sinned — I have done thee no wrong. The Lord, the Judge, be judge — Let him determine this controversy by the success of this day and war. The meaning is, that if they were not moved by these reasons, but the controversy must be decided by arms, he committed his cause to God, the righteous Judge of the whole world, who, he doubted not, would do him right. Be judge this day — He does not mean that God would determine the right by giving him the victory then, when he spake these words, (for he was not yet ready to give them battle,) but that God would judge of the justice of his present plea, and accordingly give sentence when the matter came to be tried in battle. There cannot be a finer picture of justice, candour, fair reasoning, moderation, and unwillingness to proceed to the dreadful miseries of war, joined with a noble spirit to defend his country in its just rights, than that which Jephthah shows in his messages to the Ammonites. It were to be wished that all kings would follow his steps, and not rush into the shocking inhumanities and miseries of war with too much precipitation, but first try what good temper, moderation, fair reasoning, and a claim to no more than their just rights, will do with their enemies.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, 12-28.

12. Sent messengers — He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary — no one being supposed to war without provocation.” — Kitto. Me… my land — The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.

V. 29. Spirit came-Indued him with a more than ordinary courage and resolution. Manasseh-That is, Bashan, which the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan inhabited. Mizpeh of Gilead-So called to distinguish it from other cities of the same name, having gathered what forces he suddenly could, he came hither to the borders of the Ammonites.

Verse 29. Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah] The Lord qualified him for the work he had called him to do, and thus gave him the most convincing testimony that his cause was good.

Verse 29. The Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah — The people had chosen him for their leader, and promised to continue him their chief governor, as they had already made him; and now God publicly declares his approbation of their choice; and appoints him their judge, as he had others before, (Judges 3:10,) by endowing him with an extraordinary measure of courage and wisdom, and all other qualities necessary to render him fit to be a ruler of his people. He passed over Manasseh — That is, Bashan, which the half-tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan possessed. Mizpeh of Gilead — So called, to distinguish it from other cities of the same name. Having gathered what forces he could, he suddenly came hither to the borders of the Ammonites.

JEPTHTHAH’S VICTORY AND VOW, 29-40.

29. Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah — He was roused and fired for his warlike work by an extraordinary supernatural influence from on high. But this must not be imagined identical with the New Testament gift of the Holy Ghost, and thence twisted to show that Jephthah’s rash vow was uttered under divine inspiration, and therefore pleasing in the sight of God. Note, Judges 3:10. Passed over Gilead and Manasseh for the purpose of collecting troops and necessaries for the war. Gilead and Manasseh are here to be taken as a name for the territory of the trans-Jordanic tribes. Mizpeh of Gilead — See note on Judges 10:17. Having collected his warriors, Jephthah passed over the lofty eminence on which Mizpeh was situated, and soon came to the border of the children of Ammon, between whom and himself the Lord was to decide that day. Verse 27. From the heights of Mizpeh the whole camp of the enemy was visible, spread over the beautiful knolls of the undulating plateau towards Rabbah. The sight fired the soul of Jephthah, and led him to utter his rash vow.

30. Vowed a vow unto the Lord — Bound himself by a strong oath and solemn appeal to Jehovah. So Jacob did at Bethel, (Genesis 28:20,) and Hannah at the tabernacle. 1 Samuel 1:11. Although vows were not commanded in the Old Testament, they were often taken, and the law made provision for different kinds of vows. They might be pleasing or displeasing to God, according to their real character. A rash vow could never be pleasing to God, though it might be excusable from the ignorance of him that vowed.

It is not to be assumed that Jephthah uttered this vow under divine inspiration. The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and quickened him with energy and heroism to go and conquer Ammon, but not to make this vow. It is to be noted that no sacred writer commends Jephthah’s vow.

Verse 31. Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.] The text is hlw[ והעליתיהו hwhyl והיה vehayah layhovah, vehaalithihu olah; the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering; that is, “If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him.” That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough; to have been made without them, it must have been the vow of a heathen, or a madman. If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering; and if his neighbour or friend’s wife, son, or daughter, &c., had been returning from a visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites, &c., because they offered their sons and daughters to Molech in the fire, i.e., made burnt-offerings of them, as is generally supposed. That Jephthah was a deeply pious man, appears in the whole of his conduct; and that he was well acquainted with the law of Moses, which prohibited all such sacrifices, and stated what was to be offered in sacrifice, is evident enough from his expostulation with the king and people of Ammon, Judges 11:14-27. Therefore it must be granted that he never made that rash vow which several suppose he did; nor was he capable, if he had, of executing it in that most shocking manner which some Christian writers (“tell it not in Gath”) have contended for. He could not commit a crime which himself had just now been an executor of God’s justice to punish in others.

It has been supposed that “the text itself might have been read differently in former times; if instead of the words hlw[ והעליתיהו, I will offer IT a burnt-offering, we read hlw[ awh והעליתי, I will offer HIM (i.e., the Lord) a burnt-offering: this will make a widely different sense, more consistent with everything that is sacred; and it is formed by the addition of only a single letter, (a aleph,) and the separation of the pronoun from the verb. Now the letter a aleph is so like the letter [ ain, which immediately follows it in the word hlw[ olah, that the one might easily have been lost in the other, and thus the pronoun be joined to the verb as at present, where it expresses the thing to be sacrificed instead of the person to whom the sacrifice was to be made. With this emendation the passage will read thus: Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors or my house to meet me-shall be the Lord’s; and I will offer HIM a burnt-offering.” For this criticism there is no absolute need, because the pronoun wh hu, in the above verse, may with as much propriety be translated him as it. The latter part of the verse is, literally, And I will offer him a burnt-offering, hlw[ olah, not לעולה leolah, FOR a burnt-offering, which is the common Hebrew form when for is intended to be expressed. This is strong presumption that the text should be thus understood: and this avoids the very disputable construction which is put on the w vau, in והעליתיהו vehaalithihu, OR I will offer IT up, instead of AND I will offer HIM a burnt-offering. “From Judges 11:39 it appears evident that Jephthah’s daughter was not SACRIFICED to God, but consecrated to him in a state of perpetual virginity; for the text says, She knew no man, for this was a statute in Israel. larvyb qj yhtw vattehi chok beyishrael; viz., that persons thus dedicated or consecrated to God, should live in a state of unchangeable celibacy. Thus this celebrated place is, without violence to any part of the text, or to any proper rule of construction, cleared of all difficulty, and caused to speak a language consistent with itself, and with the nature of God.”

Those who assert that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter, attempt to justify the opinion from the barbarous usages of those times: but in answer to this it may be justly observed, that Jephthah was now under the influence of the Spirit of God, Judges 11:29; and that Spirit could not permit him to imbrue his hands in the blood of his own child; and especially under the pretence of offering a pleasing sacrifice to that God who is the Father of mankind, and the Fountain of love, mercy, and compassion. The versions give us but little assistance in clearing the difficulties of the text. In the Targum of Jonathan there is a remarkable gloss which should be mentioned, and from which it will appear that the Targumist supposed that the daughter of Jephthah was actually sacrificed: “And he fulfilled the vow which he had vowed upon her; and she knew no man: and it was made a statute in Israel, [that no man should offer his son or his daughter for a burnt-offering, as did Jephthah the Gileadite, who did not consult Phinehas the priest; for if he had consulted Phinehas the priest, he would have redeemed her with money.”]

The Targumist refers here to the law, Leviticus 27:1-5, where the Lord prescribes the price at which either males or females, who had been vowed to the Lord, might be redeemed. “When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord at thy estimation: the male from twenty years old even unto sixty, shall be fifty shekels of silver; and if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels; and from five years old unto twenty years, the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten.” This also is an argument that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed; as the father had it in his power, at a very moderate price, to have redeemed her: and surely the blood of his daughter must have been of more value in his sight than thirty shekels of silver.

Dr. Hales has entered largely into the subject: his observations may be seen at the end of this chapter.

Verse 31. Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering — Dr. Waterland translates it, shall be consecrated to the Lord, or, I will offer it, &c. “It is very evident,” says Dr. Dodd, “that this translation of Dr. Waterland must be right, because it was impossible that Jephthah should mean to offer for a burnt-offering whatever came forth of the doors of his house to meet him, since it was possible for him to have been met by several things which it would have been sacrilegious for him to have offered to the Lord; and indeed the event sufficiently proves the propriety of this interpretation, since he was met by that which no vow, however solemn, could justify him in offering up. This is Mr. Locke’s opinion, in his gloss upon the place.” See the note on verses 39 and 40.

Ver. 31. Whatsoever (or that which or whosoever) cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering. We now tread on controverted ground, ground on which the ancients are very much divided in opinion. The rabbins followed by Josephus, speak as the letter of the text. They make no scruple, no hesitation to say, that Jephthah offered up his daughter a burnt-offering, conformably to his vow. Tertullian, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and very many others, all eminent fathers in the primitive church, concur in belief with the rabbins. They severely censure Jephthah as a parricide, and lament the ignorance of the Israelites in those times, especially the priests who did not teach him better. The superstition of the age strongly corroborates the evidence, that their belief was founded on facts. Moloch was the god of the Ammonites, to whom human victims had been largely offered; and to whom in India they are still offered, though not so largely as aforetime. And Jephthah, more than half a heathen in his habits and religion, might wish to engage both the Lord and Moloch in his cause. Besides, nearly the whole of the seventy two clans dispersed from Babel, having Druids for their priests, did in all the nations offer up human victims, when severely pressed by calamities. The polished nations of Greece and Rome indulged, during a succession of ages, in the same abominable devotion. The persons so offered were all young; and the greater dignity they possessed in regard to birth, the more acceptable they were supposed to be to the gods. Idomeneus returning to Crete from the Trojan war, in consequence of a vow to Neptune during a storm, pierced his own son; and was expelled by his subjects for so cruel a deed.

The history also, or fable of Iphigenia, has often been adduced as illustrative of the case of Jephthah’s daughter. Agamemnon her father having killed a sacred stag belonging to Diana, the goddess excited the tempests so dreadfully as to obstruct the navigation of Greece. It was resolved, if possible, to appease her. The oracle, on being consulted, answered that this must be done by the blood of him who had offended her. Iphigenia was the victim selected, and conducted to the altar at Aulis by Ulysses, who had the address to steal her away from her mother Clytemnestra. But as she lay extended on the pile, and while the Greeks were busy in preparations for the sacrifices, the goddess, touched with the piety of the princess, surrounded the altar with a cloud and took her away, leaving a hind in her place. The goddess conducted her to mount Taurus, where Thoas the king appointed her priestess to Diana, to whom human victims were immolated, and especially Greek strangers. She remained there till Orestes arrived to purge himself from the blood of his mother, and of others. He was arrested as a stranger; and when about to be offered up to Diana, he was recognized and saved by his sister. Presently after he stole away his sister, and escaped with the image of the goddess into Italy. The image was erected in the Arcynian forests, to which human victims long continued to be offered.

I have been the more particular in translating the substance of this history or fable, because some contend that it is merely a fable founded on Jephthah’s daughter; and they would vary the orthography from Iphigenia to Jephigenia. They are the more confident in this opinion, because Jephthah was contemporary with Agamemnon. Hence, unless we allow of some force, in the fable of Iphigenia’s escape from the altar, I think the letter of the text, the wicked and superstitious manners of all the heathen nations, the opinion of the rabbins, in which the fathers of the primitive church have concurred, are decided, that Jephthah made a burnt-offering of his only child to the Lord, according to his vow.

To this many of the moderns object, that he devoted his daughter in perpetual virginity to God. Consequently, she was a nun in his own house. But that sacrifice bears no proportion to the magnitude of his danger before the battle; nor does it relieve the latter part of his vow, that the devoted object should be a burnt-offering. And why should the virgins of Israel meet annually to mourn for Jephthah’s daughter? Had she survived to give them an annual feast, surely they would have met, being all virgins, to rejoice, not to weep. Moses affirms that every one of the surrounding nations did burn their sons and daughters to their gods. Deuteronomy 12:31. And Jephthah having been exiled among them, it is most likely he would vow according to his habits and education. Besides, the scriptures, which relate every circumstance of Abraham’s offering up Isaac, refuse here to narrate the horrors of the scene.

31. Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me — Rather, whosoever comes forth. It is hardly possible to avoid the conviction that Jephthah had a human being in his mind. For what else could he expect to come out of the doors of his house to meet him? Surely not a cow, nor a sheep, nor a goat, nor a herd of these animals, for their place was not in his house, or else, as Hengstenberg remarks, “the house of the Gileadite chieftain must have been a kind of Noah’s Ark — cattle and men in one room, going out and in at the same door, stall-fed alike — a thing surely not to be seriously thought of. Every thing that we know of the arrangements of houses among the Hebrews is against it.” And surely not a dog, or any unclean animal. No animal, clean or unclean, would be dignified with such lofty emphasis, for “how strange it would be,” says Pfeiffer, “if some great prince or general should say, ‘O God, if thou wilt grant me this victory, the first calf that comes to meet me shall be thine!’” If he meant to offer an animal, would he not have selected the best of his flocks, and have offered, not a single victim, and the first he found, but many sacrifices? Every feature of the passage indicates that Jephthah consciously vowed the sacrifice of a human being, and the tremendous force and awful solemnity of the vow appear in the very fact that not a common but an uncommon offering is pledged, and the victim is to be taken from the members of his own household. And as the most loving and affectionate would be likely to be the first to come and meet him, he hazards even that contingency, holding nothing back, but leaving it, as it were, for the Lord to select the victim. When I return in peace — Having conquered the enemy, and thus secured a lasting peace. Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering — Some have construed this passage so as to give the suffix pronoun it or him (wh) a dative sense, and refer it to the Lord. Thus, I will offer HIM (that is, to Jehovah) a burnt offering. In this case the vow is made to contemplate two distinct things, (1) a person to be consecrated to Jehovah, and (2) the additional offering of a burnt sacrifice. But such a construction would be a solecism in Hebrew. Were the sense dative, as above indicated, wl, to him, would have been used, for the suffix to the verb is always the accusative. In 2 Kings 3:27, where it is said the king of Moab took his son and offered him a burnt offering upon the wall, we have precisely the same construction. Compare also 1 Samuel 7:9. This explanation must therefore be rejected as critically untenable.

The marginal reading, OR I will offer, etc., is also untenable. According to this reading the import of the vow would be, as Kimchi and others have paraphrased it, “I will offer it for a burnt offering if it be fit for such a purpose, or, if not fit, I will consecrate it to the Lord.” But every passage in which Vav (w) is supposed to be used disjunctively is capable of a different explanation. The notion that the Hebrew language is so destitute of connecting particles that Vav must be often used in a disjunctive sense is an almost inexcusable blunder, especially when it is brought to bear on the simple and positive phraseology of Jephthah’s vow. It does not appear that this vow was uttered in the heat of battle or in a moment of confusion. If Jephthah contemplated divers methods of fulfilling it, the Hebrew language did not lack words by which to express precisely his intention. If he meant to say or, there was the proper disjunctive wa, which is used more than a hundred times in the Old Testament in the sense of or.

Another attempt to escape the obvious import of the vow is to take the word hlw[, burnt offering, in a figurative or spiritual sense. But such a deep spiritual sense of burnt offerings as this passage would involve was alien to the age of the Judges, and no passage in the whole Old Testament can be found where the word in question has such a meaning. Every passage cited in Hengstenberg’s essay on this subject fails most signally to help his argument. Hosea 14:2; Psalm 40:7-9; 51:17; 119:108. Take, for instance, the passage oftenest quoted, Psalm 51:16, 17, where the spiritual idea of sacrifices in general is expressed, and the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, so far from being identified with burnt offering, is put in direct opposition to it. The whole attempt to put a figurative or spiritual sense upon the word hlw[, especially in our text, is a manifest striving after something which the Scriptures nowhere offer, and a prodigious effort to get rid of the common meaning of an oft-recurring word.

It follows, then, that the only translation of this verse that will bear the test of criticism is substantially the following: “Whosoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, shall be for Jehovah, and I will offer him for a burnt offering.” The last sentence is not tautological nor superfluous, but epexegetical of what immediately precedes, and shows the manner in which he meant to consecrate to the Lord the first person that came to meet him on his return home. So the language of Jephthah’s vow, according to the only defensible meaning of the words, clearly involved a human sacrifice.

32. The Lord delivered them into his hands — The time was full for judgment to break upon the idolatrous Ammonites, and Jephthah was the chosen instrument for this work. The penitence and reformation in Israel, and the prayers for help that touched Jehovah’s heart, (Judges 10:15, 16,) soon brought them this great deliverance. Strangely have some thought that deliverance came because of Jephthah’s vow, or as a token of the divine approval of that pious act. As if his vow, at best of doubtful morality, moved God more than the reformation, prayers, and public interests of all Israel! As well might one argue that Saul’s rash oath (1 Samuel 14:24) brought victory to Israel’s arms that day when Jonathan offended. {Yet Jehovah may hear a prayer, clothed in mistaken form, coming from a reverent heart. Jephthah had the faith of Abraham, willing to sacrifice his child, under the sincere supposition that it was Jehovah’s will. So that he was worthily written in the glorious roll of Hebrews 11.}

V. 33. Minnith-A place not far from Rabbah, the chief city of the Ammonites. Subdued before Israel-It does not appear, that he offered to take possession of the country. Tho’ the attempt of others to wrong us, will justify us in the defence of our own right, yet it will not authorize us to do them wrong.

Verse 33. Twenty cities] That is, he either took or destroyed twenty cities of the Ammonites, and completely routed their whole army.

Verse 33. Till thou come to Minnith — A place not far from Rabbah, the chief city of the Ammonites. The children of Ammon were subdued before Israel — It does not appear that Jephthah offered to take possession of their country. Though the attempt of others to wrong us will justify us in the defence of our own right, yet it will not authorize us to do them wrong.

33. Aroer — See at Joshua 13:25. Minnith — A place that was noted for its wheat, (Ezekiel 27:17;) but its exact site is unknown. Plain of the vineyards — This is a literal translation of a Hebrew proper name — Abel-keramim — so called, probably, because of its vineyards. The place is mentioned by Eusebius as lying six miles from Rabbah, and was still rich in vineyards in his day.

For want of precise details of the battle, and from uncertainty as to the exact sites of Aroer and Minnith, we find it impossible to trace the course of Jephthah’s victory. We most naturally suppose that from the height of Mount Gilead he marched southward and encountered the Ammonites near Aroer, somewhere between Jordan and Rabbah, probably at Ayra on the Wady Nimrin. Here he put them to flight, and chased them towards the south and east, probably capturing Rabbah, their capital, among the twenty cities which fell into his hands by this great victory. See the map of Gilead, page 234.

V. 34. His daughter-In concert with other virgins, as the manner was.

Verse 34. With timbrels and with dances] From this instance we find it was an ancient custom for women to go out to meet returning conquerors with musical instruments, songs, and dances; and that it was continued afterwards is evident from the instance given 1 Samuel 18:6, where David was met, on his return from the defeat of Goliath and the Philistines, by women from all the cities of Israel, with singing and dancing, and various instruments of music.

Verses 34, 35. Behold his daughter came out to meet him — In concert with other virgins, as the manner was. Alas, my daughter! thou art one of them that trouble me — Before this I was troubled by my brethren, and since by the Ammonites, and now most of all, though but occasionally, by thee. I have opened my mouth — That is, I have vowed. I cannot go back — That is, not retract my vow; I am indispensably obliged to perform it.

34. His daughter came… with timbrels and with dances — She had, doubtless, heard from some swift messenger of her father’s victory, and of his approach towards home, and with a band of her young female companions she went forth to celebrate the great triumph over Ammon. Such celebrations of victory were a common custom in Israel. See marginal reference. Only child — This fact is here emphasized to explain the intensity of Jephthah’s agony, which is described in the next verse.

V. 35. Trouble me-Before this, I was troubled by my brethren; and since, by the Ammonites; and now most of all, tho’ but occasionally, by thee. Opened my mouth-That is, I have vowed. Cannot go back-That is, not retract my vow; I am indispensably obliged to perform it.

Verse 35. Thou hast brought me very low] He was greatly distressed to think that his daughter, who was his only child, should be, in consequence of his vow, prevented from continuing his family in Israel; for it is evident that he had not any other child, for besides her, says the text, he had neither son nor daughter, Judges 11:34. He might, therefore, well be grieved that thus his family was to become extinct in Israel.

Verses 34, 35. Behold his daughter came out to meet him — In concert with other virgins, as the manner was. Alas, my daughter! thou art one of them that trouble me — Before this I was troubled by my brethren, and since by the Ammonites, and now most of all, though but occasionally, by thee. I have opened my mouth — That is, I have vowed. I cannot go back — That is, not retract my vow; I am indispensably obliged to perform it.

35. Rent his clothes — A sign of intense agony and grief. He had, probably, hoped to meet first some other less cherished member of his family. Thou hast brought me very low — The idea here is, that of one bent down under the pressure of an almost crushing burden. One of them that trouble me — Literally, thou art among my troublers; that is, like one whose work is to give me trouble and anguish. To sacrifice her is to end his family, since he had no other child. Verse 34. I cannot go back — They who took upon themselves a solemn oath were expected to keep their word, (Numbers 30:2;) but he who swore to some one’s hurt was under condemnation if he did not change, (Psalm 15:4,) and the law (Leviticus 27) provided for the redemption of singular vows.

V. 36. Do to me-Do not for my sake make thyself a transgressor; I freely give my consent to thy vow.

Verse 36. And she said unto him] What a pattern of filial piety and obedience! She was at once obedient, pious, and patriotic. A woman to have no offspring was considered to be in a state of the utmost degradation among the Hebrews; but she is regardless of all this, seeing her father is in safety, and her country delivered.

Verse 36. Do to me according, &c. — Do not for my sake make thyself a transgressor; I freely give my consent to thy vow. Forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance, &c. — What a generous, noble, and pious answer is this of this virgin! It expresses such a noble love for her country, such true piety and filial obedience, as can scarcely be exceeded.

36. My father — Her mission and devotion were in the highest degree touching and beautiful. Forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee — Here was a point of view from which hers would be a sublime and enviable death. It was dying for her father, her country, and her God, inasmuch as her memory would be associated sublimely with one of Israel’s greatest national triumphs.

V. 37. Mountains-Which she chose as a solitary place, and therefore fittest for lamentation. Bewail-That I shall die childless, which was esteemed both a curse and a disgrace for the Israelites, because such were excluded from that great privilege of increasing the holy seed, and contributing to the birth of the Messiah.

Verse 37. I and my fellows] Whether she meant the young women of her own acquaintance, or those who had been consecrated to God in the same way, though on different accounts, is not quite clear; but it is likely she means her own companions: and her going up and down upon the mountains may signify no more than her paying each of them a visit at their own houses, previously to her being shut up at the tabernacle; and this visiting of each at their own home might require the space of two months. This I am inclined to think is the meaning of this difficult clause.

Verse 37. That I may go up and down upon the mountains — Which she chose as a solitary place, and therefore fittest for lamentation. Bewail — That I shall die childless, which was esteemed both a curse and a disgrace for the Israelites, because such were excluded from that great privilege of increasing the holy seed, and contributing to the birth of the Messiah.

37. Bewail my virginity — Mark, not to bewail her death, for that, by itself considered, might be regarded as a glorious end. Die she must, sooner or later, and no more honourable death could ever be her lot. But she would bewail that which gave her death its only woful pang, and was to her far worse than death itself; a thing above all others deplorable in the estimation of that age and race — the fact that, in the flower of youthful womanhood, she must close life without a husband and without a child, leaving no heir to her father’s house. It is difficult for us, with our loose attachments to the coming ages, and familiar with the modern prevalent lack of interest in posterity, and the noticeable desire among multitudes of females to remain childless, to appreciate the depth of feeling on this subject among the Hebrew women. A husbandless and childless state was a reproach to any marriageable female. Keil makes a misleading assertion when he says, “To mourn one’s virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin.” More truly should it be said, that the expression has as much respect to the past as to the future, but contemplates not specially life or death, but the fact of virginity. Could Jephthah’s daughter only have perpetuated her father’s house and name; could it only have been that sons and daughters survived her, to take away her reproach among women, there would have been no pang in her death.

But why, some ask, if she was doomed to death, did she not rather spend those two months at home, and enjoy all the comfort she could during the short respite of her life? To one thus appointed to death, we answer, home affords no soul comforts, and earth’s festal scenes and sociality no pleasure. It is not human, under such circumstances, to find entertainment in the common joys of home. Far more congenial to the feelings of the dying maiden would be the mountain solitudes than any thing her father’s house could furnish. Then, also, the two months were asked, not for one more round of pleasures, but for mourning her virginity; and for that purpose the solitudes of the mountains, not the peopled town, with the presence of men, were appropriate.

But if, on the other hand, she knew she was to live and remain a virgin, and be shut up in seclusion for the rest of life, what sense or object in taking those two months to mourn? And in what sense would she be more really consecrated to celibacy after than during the two months of sorrow? Much more natural, as we conceive, would it have been for her, in that case, to have said: Let me stay at home, and enjoy the scenes of common life yet a month or two, since I must give all after-life to tears and solitude.

JEPTHTHAH’S VICTORY AND VOW, 29-40.

29. Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah — He was roused and fired for his warlike work by an extraordinary supernatural influence from on high. But this must not be imagined identical with the New Testament gift of the Holy Ghost, and thence twisted to show that Jephthah’s rash vow was uttered under divine inspiration, and therefore pleasing in the sight of God. Note, Judges 3:10. Passed over Gilead and Manasseh for the purpose of collecting troops and necessaries for the war. Gilead and Manasseh are here to be taken as a name for the territory of the trans-Jordanic tribes. Mizpeh of Gilead — See note on Judges 10:17. Having collected his warriors, Jephthah passed over the lofty eminence on which Mizpeh was situated, and soon came to the border of the children of Ammon, between whom and himself the Lord was to decide that day. Verse 27. From the heights of Mizpeh the whole camp of the enemy was visible, spread over the beautiful knolls of the undulating plateau towards Rabbah. The sight fired the soul of Jephthah, and led him to utter his rash vow.

V. 39. Did with her-Jephthah’s daughter was not sacrificed, but only devoted to perpetual virginity. This appears,

1. From ver. 37,38, where we read, that she bewailed not her death, which had been the chief cause of lamentation, if that had been vowed, but her virginity:

2. From this ver. 39, where, after he had said, that he did with her according to his vow; he adds, by way of declaration of the matter of that vow, and she knew no man.

It is probably conceived, that the Greeks, who used to steal sacred histories, and turn them into fables, had from this history their relation of Iphigenia (which may be put for Jephtigenia) sacrificed by her father Agamemnon, which is described by many of the same circumstances wherewith this is accompanied.

Verse 39. And she knew no man] She continued a virgin all the days of her life.

Verse 39. Did with her — That Jephthah’s daughter was not sacrificed, but only devoted to perpetual virginity, appears, 1st, From verses 37, 38, where we read that she bewailed, not her death, which had been the chief cause of lamentation, if that had been vowed, but her virginity; 2d, From this verse, where, after the sacred writer had said, that he did with her according to his vow; he adds, by way of declaration of the matter of that vow, and she knew no man.

Ver. 39. At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow, as in ver. 31. hlw[ whytyl[hw vehaâlithíhoo ôlah. I will offer it up, says Montanus, in holocaustum, in burnt-offering. The elders of Israel were so shocked at this deed, as to have enacted a law that no man in future should make a vow of the oblation of human victims; proof sufficient that Jephthah performed his vow.

Those who try various versions of the text, and make it a vow of virginity, forget the uncertainty of Jephthah, whether it might not be a male that might run with joyful salutations to the conquering hero. This was most likely. It was Jonadab who came to meet Jehu; and Melchizedek who came to meet Abraham.

It is said also, that Jephthah was now inspired, and in too good a frame to make such a tragic vow. It is replied, that he was inspired with courage to fight; but the opinion of holy men is, that the catalogue of the worthies mentioned in Hebrews 11., refers to their virtues, not their errors, as models of christian conduct.

39. Did with her according to his vow — Literally, Did to her his vow which he had vowed. This plain and positive statement throws us back for the meaning of Jephthah’s act to verse 31, where the language of his vow is carefully recorded. Whatever act his vow contemplated, that certainly he did. Nothing more, nothing less. He devoutly kept his word. He had opened his mouth unto the Lord, and, notwithstanding all his anguish, he went not back from his solemn oath. So, according to the previous exposition of his language, we can understand nothing else than that he offered her for a burnt offering unto the Lord. And she knew no man — This fact the sacred writer adds as that alone which, in the estimation of that age, was the sting of death to the heroic maiden. It is very natural that those expositors who seek to show that Jephthah’s daughter was not put to death at all, should regard these words as indicating the manner in which he fulfilled his vow. Why else, they ask, is this fact of her virginity again mentioned? If she was sacrificed, they affirm, the record would have been: “He did to her his vow which he had vowed, and offered her for a burnt offering.” Such an addition, we reply, was not necessary, and, after the full and careful statement of his vow in verse 31, would have been superfluous. But if, as we have shown above, and as most modern scholars are constrained to admit, he contemplated a human sacrifice, and if, instead of offering her as a burnt offering, he devoted her to a life of celibacy, then plainly he did NOT according to his vow which he had vowed, but contrary to it; and the mere addition, she knew no man, would be a most inexplicably strange way of informing us that Jephthah failed to keep his word. The sacred historian uses no needless word, nor does he attempt to picture the sad spectacle of the sacrifice; but he records, not as the manner in which Jephthah fulfilled his vow, but as the most fearful knell that, in the ears of her father and companions, sounded over that daughter’s funeral pile, and sent its lingering echo into the after-times — she knew no man. It was a custom in Israel — What was a custom in Israel? For fathers to sacrifice daughters, after the example of Jephthah? This no one will pretend. To offer human sacrifices to Jehovah? No; for such a custom never prevailed to any considerable extent in Israel, and least of all was it occasioned by Jephthah’s example. To consecrate young maidens to perpetual virginity? There is not a particle of evidence that such a custom prevailed after this time more than before, and no certain evidence that it was ever a custom in Israel. On the contrary, the whole tendency of Hebrew laws and civilization was against a forced celibacy on the part of either sex. — What custom, then, sprang up in Israel on this occasion? Clearly, the custom described in the next verse, of the yearly celebration of Jephthah’s daughter. The Hebrew is, She became a custom in Israel; that is, her heroism and sublime submission to be sacrificed made such an impression on the daughters of Israel that they instituted a yearly celebration of her memory.

V. 40. The daughter of Jephthah-It is really astonishing, that the general stream of commentators, should take it for granted, that Jephthah murdered his daughter! But, says Mr. Henry, “We do not find any law, usage or custom, in all the Old Testament, which doth in the least intimate, that a single life was any branch or article of religion.” And do we find any law, usage or custom there, which doth in the least intimate, that cutting the throat of an only child, was any branch or article of religion? If only a dog had met Jephthah, would he have offered up that for a burnt-offering? No: because God had expressly forbidden this. And had he not expressly forbidden murder? But Mr. Poole thinks the story of Agamemnon’s offering up Iphigenia took its rise from this. Probably it did. But then let it be observed, Iphigenia was not murdered. Tradition said, that Diana sent an hind in her stead, and took the maid to live in the woods with her.

Verse 40. To lament the daughter of Jephthah] I am satisfied that this is not a correct translation of the original jtpy tbl twntl lethannoth lebath yiphtach. Houbigant translates the whole verse thus: Sed iste mos apud Israel invaluit, ut virgines Israel, temporibus diversis, irent ad filiam Jepthe-ut eam quotannis dies quatuor consolarentur; “But this custom prevailed in Israel that the virgins of Israel went at different times, four days in the year, to the daughter of Jephthah, that they might comfort her.” This verse also gives evidence that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed: nor does it appear that the custom or statute referred to here lasted after the death of Jephthah’s daughter.

THE following is Dr. Hales’ exposition of Jephthah’s vow:— “When Jephthah went forth to battle against the Ammonites, he vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, ‘If thou wilt surely give the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall either be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up (for) a burnt-offering,’ Judges 11:30, 31. According to this rendering of the two conjunctions, w vau in the last clause ‘either,’ ‘or,’ (which is justified by the Hebrew idiom thus, ‘He that curseth his father and his mother,’ Exodus 21:17, is necessarily rendered disjunctively, ‘His father or his mother,’ by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldee, and English, confirmed by Matthew 15:4, the paucity of connecting particles in that language making it necessary that this conjunction should often be understood disjunctively,) the vow consisted of two parts: 1. That what person soever met him should be the Lord’s or be dedicated to his service; and, 2. That what beast soever met him, if clean, should be offered up for a burnt-offering unto the Lord.

“This rendering and this interpretation is warranted by the Levitical law about vows.

“The rdn neder, or vow, in general, included either persons, beasts, or things dedicated to the Lord for pious uses; which, if it was a simple vow, was redeemable at certain prices, if the person repented of his vow, and wished to commute it for money, according to the age or sex of the person, Leviticus 27:1-8: this was a wise regulation to remedy rash vows. But if the vow was accompanied with חרם cherem, devotement, it was irredeemable, as in the following case, Leviticus 27:28. “Notwithstanding, no devotement which a man shall devote unto the Lord, (either) of man, or beast, or of land of his own property, shall be sold or redeemed. Every thing devoted is most holy to the Lord.

“Here the three w vaus in the original should necessarily be rendered disjunctively, or as the last actually is in our translation, because there are three distinct subjects of devotement to be applied to distinct uses, the man to be dedicated to the service of the Lord, as Samuel by his mother Hannah, 1 Samuel 1:11; the cattle, if clean, such as oxen, sheep, goats, turtle-doves, or pigeons, to be sacrificed; and if unclean, as camels, horses, asses, to be employed for carrying burdens in the service of the tabernacle or temple; and the lands, to be sacred property. “This law therefore expressly applied in its first branch to Jephthah’s case, who had devoted his daughter to the Lord, or opened his mouth to the Lord, and therefore could not go back, as he declared in his grief at seeing his daughter and only child coming to meet him with timbrels and dances: she was, therefore necessarily devoted, but with her own consent to perpetual virginity in the service of the tabernacle, Judges 11:36, 37; and such service was customary, for in the division of the spoils taken in the first Midianitish war, of the whole number of captive virgins the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons, Numbers 31:15-40. This instance appears to be decisive of the nature of her devotement.

“Her father’s extreme grief on the occasion and her requisition of a respite for two months to bewail her virginity, are both perfectly natural. Having no other issue, he could only look forward to the extinction of his name or family; and a state of celibacy, which is reproachful among women everywhere, was peculiarly so among the Israelites, and was therefore no ordinary sacrifice on her part; who, though she generously gave up, could not but regret the loss of, becoming ‘a mother in Israel.’ And he did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man, or remained a virgin, all her life, Judges 11:34-39. “There was also another case of devotement which was irredeemable, and follows the former, Leviticus 27:29. This case differs materially from the former.

“1. It is confined to PERSONS devoted, omitting beasts and lands. 2. It does not relate to private property, as in the foregoing. And, 3. The subject of it was to be utterly destroyed, instead of being most holy unto the Lord. This law, therefore, related to aliens, or public enemies devoted to destruction either by GOD, the people, or by the magistrate. Of all these we have instances in Scripture.

“1. The Amalekites and Canaanites were devoted by God himself. Saul was, therefore, guilty of a breach of the law for sparing Agag the king of the Amalekites, as Samuel reproached him, 1 Samuel 15:33: ‘And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord;’ not as a sacrifice, according to Voltaire, but as a criminal, whose sword had made many women childless. By this law the Midianitish women who had been spared in battle were slain, Numbers 31:14-17.

“2. In Mount Hor, when the Israelites were attacked by Arad, king of the southern Canaanites, who took some of them prisoners, they vowed a vow unto the Lord that they would utterly destroy the Canaanites and their cities, if the Lord should deliver them into their hand, which the Lord ratified; whence the place was called Hormah, because the vow was accompanied by cherem, or devotement to destruction, Numbers 21:1-3; and the vow was accomplished, Judges 1:17. “3. In the Philistine war Saul adjured the people, and cursed any one who should taste food till the evening. His own son Jonathan inadvertently ate a honey-comb, not knowing his father’s oath, for which Saul sentenced him to die. But the people interposed, and rescued him for his public services; thus assuming the power of dispensing, in their collective capacity, with an unreasonable oath. This latter case, therefore, is utterly irrelative to Jephthah’s vow, which did not regard a foreign enemy or a domestic transgressor devoted to destruction, but on the contrary was a vow of thanksgiving, and therefore properly came under the former case. And that Jephthah could not possibly have sacrificed his daughter, (according to the vulgar opinion,) may appear from the following considerations:— “1. The sacrifice of children to Molech was an abomination to the Lord, of which in numberless passages he expresses his detestation, and it was prohibited by an express law, under pain of death, as a defilement of God’s sanctuary, and a profanation of his holy name, Leviticus 20:2, 3. Such a sacrifice, therefore, unto the Lord himself, must be a still higher abomination, and there is no precedent of any such under the law in the OLD TESTAMENT.

“2. The case of Isaac before the law is irrelevant, for Isaac was not sacrificed, and it was only proposed for a trial of Abraham’s faith. “3. No father, merely by his own authority, could put an offending, much less an innocent, child to death upon any account, without the sentence of the magistrate, (Deuteronomy 21:18-21,) and the consent of the people, as in Jonathan’s case.

“4. The Mischna, or traditional law of the Jews is pointedly against it; ver.

212. ‘If a Jew should devote his son or daughter, his man or maid servant, who are Hebrews, the devotement would be void, because no man can devote what is not his own, or whose life he has not the absolute disposal of.’ These arguments appear to be decisive against the sacrifice; and that Jephthah could not have devoted his daughter to celibacy against her will is evident from the history, and from the high estimation in which she was always held by the daughters of Israel for her filial duty and her hapless fate, which they celebrated by a regular anniversary commemoration four days in the year; Judges 11:40.” -New Analysis of Chronology, vol. iii., p. 319.

The celebrated sacrifice of Iphigenia has been supposed by many learned men to be a fable founded on this account of Jephthah’s daughter; and M. Deuteronomy Lavaur, Conference de la Fable avec l’ Histoire Sainte, has thus traced the parallel:—

“The fable of Iphigenia, offered in sacrifice by Agamemnon her father, sung by so many poets, related after them by so many historians, and celebrated in the Greek and French theatres, has been acknowledged by all those who knew the sacred writings, and who have paid a particular attention to them, as a changed copy of the history of the daughter of Jephthah, offered in sacrifice by her father. Let us consider the several parts particularly, and begin with an exposition of the original, taken from the eleventh chapter of the book of Judges.

“The sacred historian informs us that Jephthah, the son of Gilead, was a great and valiant captain. The Israelites, against whom God was irritated, being forced to go to war with the Ammonites, (nearly about the time of the siege of Troy,) assembled themselves together to oblige Jephthah to come to their succour, and chose him for their captain against the Ammonites. He accepted the command on conditions that, if God should give him the victory, they would acknowledge him for their prince. This they promised by oath; and all the people elected him in the city of Mizpeh, in the tribe of Judah. He first sent ambassadors to the king of the Ammonites to know the reason why he had committed so many acts of injustice, and so many ravages on the coast of Israel. The other made a pretext of some ancient damages his people had suffered by the primitive Israelites, to countenance the ravages he committed, and would not accord with the reasonable propositions made by the ambassadors of Jephthah. Having now supplicated the Lord and being filled with his Spirit, he marched against the Ammonites, and being zealously desirous to acquit himself nobly, and to ensure the success of so important a war, he made a vow to the Lord to offer in sacrifice or as a burnt-offering the first thing that should come out of the house to meet him at his return from victory. “He then fought with and utterly discomfited the Ammonites; and returning victorious to his house, God so permitted it that his only daughter was the first who met him. Jephthah was struck with terror at the sight of her, and tearing his garments, he exclaimed, Alas! alas! my daughter, thou dost exceedingly trouble me; for I have opened my mouth against thee, unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. His daughter, full of courage and piety, understanding the purport of his vow, exhorted him to accomplish what he had vowed to the Lord, which to her would be exceedingly agreeable, seeing the Lord had avenged him of his and his country’s enemies; desiring liberty only to go on the mountains with her companions, and to bewail the dishonour with which sterility was accompanied in Israel, because each hoped to see the Messiah born of his or her family. Jephthah could not deny her this request. She accordingly went, and at the end of two months returned, and put herself into the hands of her father, who did with her according to his vow.

“Several of the rabbins, and many very learned Christian expositors, believe that Jephthah’s daughter was not really sacrificed, but that her virginity was consecrated to God, and that she separated from all connection with the world; which indeed seems to be implied in the sacred historian’s account: And she knew no man. This was a kind of mysterious death, because it caused her to lose all hope of the glory of a posterity from which the Messiah might descend. From this originated the custom, observed afterwards in Israel, that on a certain season in the year the virgins assembled themselves on the mountains to bewail the daughter of Jephthah for the space of four days. Let us now consider the leading characters of the fable of Iphigenia. According to good chronological reckonings, the time of the one and of the other very nearly agree. The opinion that the name of Iphigenia is taken from the daughter of Jephthah, appears well founded; yea, the conformity is palpable. By a very inconsiderable change Iphigenia makes Iphthygenia, which signifies literally, the daughter of Jephthah. Agamemnon, who is described as a valiant warrior and admirable captain, was chosen by the Greeks for their prince and general against the Trojans, by the united consent of all Greece, assembled together at Aulis in Bæotia.

“As soon as he had accepted the command, he sent ambassadors to Priam, king of Troy, to demand satisfaction for the rape of Helen, of which the Greeks complained. The Trojans refusing to grant this, Agamemnon, to gain over to his side the gods, who appeared irritated against the Greeks and opposed to the success of their enterprise, after having sacrificed to them went to consult their interpreter, Chalchas, who declared that the gods, and particularly Diana, would not be appeased but by the sacrifice of Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon.

“Cicero, in his Offices, says that Agamemnon, in order to engage the protection of the gods in his war against the Trojans, vowed to sacrifice to them the most beautiful of all that should be born in his kingdom; and as it was found that his daughter Iphigenia surpassed all the rest in beauty, he believed himself bound by his vow to sacrifice her. Cicero condemns this, rightly judging that it would have been a less evil to have falsified his vow than to have committed parricide. This account of Cicero renders the fable entirely conformable to the history.

“Agamemnon was at first struck with and troubled at this order, nevertheless consented to it: but he afterwards regretted the loss of his daughter. He is represented by the poets as deliberating, and being in doubt whether the gods could require such a parricide; but at last a sense of his duty and honour overcame his paternal affection, and his daughter, who had warmly exhorted him to fulfil his vow to the gods, was led to the altar amidst the lamentations of her companions; as Ovid and Euripides relate, see Met., lib. 13.

“Some authors have thought she really was sacrificed; but others, more humane, say she was caught up in a cloud by the gods, who, contented with the intended sacrifice, substituted a hind in her place, with which the sacrifice was completed. Dictys Cretensis says that this animal was substituted to save Iphigenia.

“The chronology of times so remote cannot, in many respects, but be uncertain. Both the Greeks and Romans grant that there was nothing else than fables before the first Olympiad, the beginning of which was at least four hundred and fifty years after the destruction of Troy, and two hundred and forty years after Solomon. As to the time of Solomon, nothing can be more certain than what is related in the sixth chapter of the first book of Kings, that from the going out of Egypt, under Moses, till the time in which he began to build the temple, was four hundred and eighty years. “According to the common opinion, the taking of Troy is placed one hundred and eighty years before the reign of Solomon; but his reign preceded Homer three centuries, according to some learned men, and always at least one century by those who related it lowest. Indeed, there is much uncertainty in fixing the express time in which Homer flourished. “Pausanias found so much difference concerning this in authors, that he was at a loss how to judge of it. However, it is sufficient for us that it was granted that Solomon was at least a century before Homer, who wrote more than two centuries after the taking of Troy and who is the most ancient historian of this famous siege.”

JUDGES

Verse 40. The daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah — The Hebrew word twntl, lethannoth, here rendered, to lament, occurs nowhere else in Scripture, but Judges 5:11, where it is rendered rehearse, or celebrate, namely, There shall they rehearse, says Deborah, the righteous acts of the Lord, surely not lament them. And the word might certainly be much more properly rendered to celebrate, or talk with, here, than to lament. Buxtorf interprets it thus, on the authority of the Jewish rabbi, Kimchi, allowed to be the best Hebrew grammarian the Jews ever had, and famous as a commentator on the Old Testament. His words on the passage are — “Ad confabulandum juxta Kimchium, ut amicis colloquiis eam de virginitate et statu vitæ solitario consolarentur.” To converse with her, according to Kimchi, namely, that by friendly discourses they might comfort her concerning her virginity, and the solitary condition of her life. Houbigant translates the words, They went to the daughter of Jephthah to console her, four days in a year. If we render the clause thus, the matter is put beyond dispute; for they could neither converse with, nor console her, after she was sacrificed: but if we translate the expression, to celebrate, or even to lament, its being repeated four times every year, plainly indicates that she was alive, because we nowhere find that the Israelites ever had any custom of celebrating or lamenting the dead after the funeral obsequies were performed. Their law rather tended to prohibit every thing of the kind, and inspire them with an abhorrence of it, by representing the dead as unclean, and those who came near and touched them as defiled thereby. So that there is not the least reason to conclude that the daughters of Judah went yearly, much less four times every year, either to lament or praise the daughter of Jephthah after she was dead; but rather that they went while she lived, to visit and converse with her, and comfort her with their company and discourses. All, therefore, that Jephthah did with his daughter, according to his vow, was to devote her to a single state, as a Nazarite, or consecrated person, to be employed in the service of God in the tabernacle, under the care of the high-priests, probably in making the hangings and other ornaments of it, the habits of the priests, the show-bread, the cakes used in sacrifices, and other such like offices, and to continue in a virgin state till the day of her death. Thus Samuel was vowed to the Lord by his mother, 1 Samuel 1:11. That his daughter must live and die single was felt by Jephthah as the greater calamity, because she was his only child, verse 34, a circumstance which the sacred historian dwells upon, observing that besides her he had neither son nor daughter. But, says Mr. Henry, “we do not find any law, usage, or custom, in all the Old Testament, which doth in the least intimate that a single life was any branch or article of religion.” “And do we find,” replies Mr. Wesley, “any law, usage, or custom there, which does in the least intimate that cutting the throat of an only child was any branch or article of religion?” If only a dog had met Jephthah, would he have offered up that for a burnt-offering? No, because God had expressly forbidden this. And had he not expressly forbidden murder? But Mr. Pool thinks the story of Agamemnon’s offering up Iphigenia (put for Jephtigenia) took its rise from this. Probably it did, as the Greeks used, as he observes, “to steal sacred histories and turn them into fables.” But then let it be observed Iphigenia was not murdered. Tradition says that Diana sent a hind in her stead, and took the maid to live in the woods with her. Upon the whole, this one single circumstance, mentioned above, that, when the sacred writer had informed us, Jephthah did with his daughter according to his vow, he adds, and she knew no man, renders it as “clear as the light,” as Dr. Dodd observes, that her father’s vow was thus fulfilled; “for if she had been slain as a burnt-offering, it would have been absurd enough to have told us that she afterward knew no man. And indeed,” adds he, “the passage is so plain, that one would wonder it could ever have come into the heads of writers, to conceive that her father, who was a truly pious man, (verse 11,) could have thought of offering up his daughter as a sacrifice to that God who never allowed or admitted such horrid sacrifices, and whose great quarrel against the baneful idols of the heathen was, that they called for and accepted the sacrifices of sons and daughters:” see Leviticus 18:21; 20:2; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10.

40. Went yearly — Went, probably, into the solitudes of the mountains. Those that lived near Mizpeh would naturally go to the same mountains where Jephthah’s daughter had bewailed her virginity. To lament the daughter of Jephthah — So all the ancient versions, but, doubtless, incorrectly. The word is better rendered rehearse, as in Judges 5:11; that is, to commemorate, to celebrate, to praise. After her death they ceased to bewail her virginity, and only celebrated the sublime heroism which led her, as she and they conceived, to die for God, her country, and her sire. Before her death she and her friends went to the mountains and bewailed all that they thought lamentable in her lot; and two months were deemed enough to mourn the dark side of her history, and that mourning they would have before her death, so that afterwards they need speak only of the bright side, and commemorate her lofty devotion.

It has been sometimes asked: “If she were really put to death, is it not strange that the fact of her death is not once spoken of?” The fact of her death, we answer, is sufficiently indicated in the statement, “He did to her his vow which he had vowed;” and as for the silence of the other parts of Scripture on this subject, that is no more strange than its silence on a hundred other things. With more show of reason may we ask, How is it, if she were not slain, that we have no mention of her subsequent life? The marginal reading, to talk with, is certainly untenable. It was natural for the daughters of Israel to go yearly and celebrate the sublime devotion and lofty heroism that haloed around the memory of the saintly maiden; but if she were still alive, it is inexplicably strange that no intimation of that fact is given.

Another exposition of Jephthah’s vow, at war with that presented in the foregoing notes, has largely prevailed among both Jews and Christians. It maintains that the maiden was not put to death at all, but was consecrated to a life of celibacy. Most of the arguments by which it is supported, and the objections and difficulties which it raises against our exposition, have been as fully met and answered in the foregoing notes as the limits of this work will allow. For more full and thorough discussion of the subject the reader is referred to the author’s article in the Methodist Quarterly Review for April, 1873. It remains for us to notice in this place the arguments; and objections which, for the sake of unity and clearness, we omitted to notice above.

The great objection against the literal interpretation is, that the offering of a human sacrifice was incompatible with Jephthah’s faith, piety, and knowledge of the law. But how is this to be shown? It is alleged that an inspired writer of the New Testament, in Hebrews 11:32, commends Jephthah’s faith. But be it noted that he does not commend Jephthah’s vow. Mark his words: “The time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and Barak, and Samson, and Jephthah; David also, and Samuel, and the prophets.” What parts or acts of their lives, now, shall we suppose this verse commends? All they ever did, or said, or were? Then must we include Barak’s cowardice, and Gideon’s idolatry and polygamy, and Samson’s lewdness with Delilah, and David’s lies, and adultery, and murder of Uriah! The six verses following, through which the writer to the Hebrews goes on to specify particular instances of faith, which distinguished those ancient worthies, contain no allusion which can with any rational probability be made to mean the consecration of one’s daughter to perpetual celibacy. Did it ever occur to the advocates of this consecration theory that for a father to doom his daughter, in the bloom of her youthful beauty, to a life of seclusion and celibacy, and thus rob her of the honour and joys of Hebrew womanhood, could scarcely be the ground of an apostle’s commendation? The faith which the inspired writer praises in the ancient worthies is not to be confounded with all the acts which, because of ignorance, may have sometimes sprung from their faith. It is well to observe that the faith of the harlot Rahab, ex-tolled by the same sacred writer, was compatible with what the ethics of the New Testament would pronounce a life of shame and an act of falsehood. Jephthah’s vow, as we view it, was an act at once of mighty faith and fearful ignorance. Our Christian instinct revolts both from the vow and the fulfilling of it. But we must not ignore and deny the spirit of exalted faith and piety from which his action sprang. The correctness of one’s doctrinal opinions is no sure criterion of his heart’s faith in God. The Lord Jesus found among the Gentiles a faith unparalleled in Israel.

But the main strength of the consecration hypothesis lies in the supposition that a judge in Israel must needs have been acquainted with the law against human sacrifices, (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10.) But let it be observed that this is only a supposition; it has no positive evidence to support it, and may be opposed by considerations which make the very contrary supposition much more probable. First, the fact, which the Book of Judges makes no secret, that that was a lawless and degenerate period of Hebrew history. “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 17:6; 21:25; 2:16-19. Then consider Jephthah’s early exile from his father’s house, and the fact that about the time of his expulsion the multiplied idolatry described in Judges 10:6. must have been at its height in Israel. They had even gone so far as to serve “the gods of Moab and the gods of the children of Am-mon.” To what extent they worshipped Chemosh and Moloch we are not told; but let the impartial student of history judge whether it is safe to affirm, that while they shamefully apostatized from the Lord and openly served those gods whose most signal honour was a human sacrifice, they could never, even in a single instance, be supposed to have shown them such signal honour. And how natural for the youthful Gileadite, under all the circumstances of his lot, to suppose that the substance and methods of religion were about the same among all the nations; and, since human sacrifices were offered by some, and he had possibly known of instances even in Israel, they entered into and helped to form his notions of what would be most specially noble and pleasing in the sight of God. What supposable opportunities did his wild border life afford him for becoming acquainted with the law of Moses? It there was great ignorance of the law in the very heart of Israel, and near to Shiloh, the seat of the tabernacle, what greater ignorance must have prevailed far off on the border of Ammon! These considerations lead us to conclude that, so far from being absurd or impossible, it was both natural and probable that Jephthah’s knowledge of the law was exceedingly meagre and confused, and that the savage discipline of his border life, often in contact with the Ammonites, had led him to suppose that the sacrifice of a human being was the noblest possible offering to God.

The hypothesis of Bush demands a passing notice. He supposes that during the two months’ mourning the affair became notorious throughout the land, and the subject of great lamentation and discussion. He imagines that when the vow passed Jephthah’s lips it had more of the character of a devotement (cherem, Leviticus 27:28) than of a vow, (neder,) but that he was subsequently instructed by the priests that a burnt offering was incompatible with the nature of a devoted thing, “and that the law having made no provision for the latter being substituted for the former, he was even, according to the very terms of his vow, rightly understood, not only released, but prohibited from performing it. Accordingly, he conceives that Jephthah executed his vow by devoting his daughter to perpetual celibacy — “a mode of execution which did not, in the first instance, enter his thoughts.” The one and all-sufficient answer to this hypothesis is that from beginning to end it is a tissue of conjectures, and can claim no support from the sacred narrative. It may do for poets and romancers to weave such fancies around the facts of Scripture, but not for a commentator sagely to give us such conjectures for exposition.

Some have been puzzled to know by whose hand Jephthah’s daughter could have been sacrificed. It would have been unlawful, they urge, for Jephthah to have done it, for he was not a priest, and the priests at Shiloh would surely have not polluted the tabernacle with a human sacrifice. This difficulty is all imaginary. A reference to Judges 6:19, 20, 26, 27, and 13:19, will show that in that age it was no uncommon thing for persons to offer sacrifices without the aid of priests, and at places far from the tabernacle. And a man who, like Jephthah, thought that a human sacrifice would be pleasing to God, would not be likely to scruple over forms; and to suppose that between the time he was made judge and the time he performed his vow he must have become acquainted with the regulations of the Levitical priesthood, is to suppose what has no evidence in Scripture. The same remarks will apply to the objection that none but a male victim could be offered in sacrifice, according to the law. Is it assumed, then, that Jephthah might have legally offered his son, if he had had one?

Finally, it is said that our exposition enables the oppugners of a divine revelation to urge a capital objection against the morality of the Bible. But how is this possible when the Bible nowhere approves or sanctions Jephthah’s vow? Must we accept as sanctioned of God every action in Bible history that is not specifically condemned by some sacred writer? Or will it be pretended that the Bible anywhere sanctions human sacrifices? Amazingly shallow are they who presume to oppugn divine revelation with such logic, or they who seriously fear the attacks of such objectors. We shudder at Jephthah’s ignorance and superstition, and revolt from his bloody deed: but with the daughters of Israel, who lived in that darkest of historic ages, we cannot but commemorate the mighty faith and zeal of Jephthah, and the sublime devotion of his daughter.