one of the judges of Israel, was the son of Gilead by a
concubine, Judges xi, 1, 2. His father having several other children by
his lawful wife, they conspired to expel Jephthah from among them,
insisting that he who was the son of a strange woman should have no part
of the inheritance with them. Like Ishmael, therefore, he withdrew, and
took up his residence beyond Jordan, in the land of Tob, where he
appears to have become the chief of a banditti, or marauding party, who
probably lived by plunder, Judges xi, 3. In process of time, a war broke
out between the Ammonites and the children of Israel who inhabited the
country beyond Jordan; and the latter, finding their want of an intrepid
and skilful leader, applied to Jephthah to take the command of them. He
at first reproached them with the injustice they had done him, in
banishing him from his father’s house; but he at length yielded to their
importunity, on an agreement that, should he be successful in the war
against the Ammonites, the Israelites should acknowledge him for their
chief, Judges xi, 4–11.
As soon as Jephthah was invested with the command of the Israelites he
sent a deputation to the Ammonites, demanding to know on what principle
the latter had taken up arms against them. They answered that it was to
recover the territory which the former had taken from them on their
first coming out of Egypt. Jephthah replied that they had made no
conquests in that quarter but from the Amorites; adding, “If you think
you have a right to all that Chemosh, your god, hath given you, why
should not we possess all that the Lord our God hath conferred on us by
right of conquest?” Jephthah’s reasoning availed nothing with the
Ammonites; and as the latter persisted in waging war, the former
collected his troops together and put himself at their head. The Spirit
of the Lord is said to have now come upon Jephthah; by which we are here
to understand, that the Lord endowed him with a spirit of valour and
fortitude, adequate to the exigence of the situation in which he was
placed, animating him with courage for the battle, and especially
inspired him with unshaken confidence in the God of the armies of
Israel, Judges xi, 17; Heb. xi, 32; 1 Sam. xi, 6; Num. xxiv, 2. Jephthah
at this time made a vow to the Lord that if he delivered the Ammonites
into his hand, whatever came forth out of the doors of his house to meet
him when he returned should be the Lord’s; it is also added in our
English version, “and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,” Judges
xi, 31. The battle terminated auspiciously for Jephthah; the Ammonites
were defeated, and the Israelites ravaged their country. But on
returning toward his own house, his daughter, an only child, came out to
meet her father with timbrels and dances, accompanied by a chorus of
virgins, to celebrate his victory. On seeing her, Jephthah rent his
clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low;
for I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and cannot go back.” His
daughter intimated her readiness to accede to any vow he might have made
in which she was personally interested; only claiming a respite of two
months, during which she might go up to the mountains and bewail her
virginity with her companions. Jephthah yielded to this request, and at
the end of two months, according to the opinion of many, her father
offered her up in sacrifice, as a burnt-offering to the Lord, Judges xi,
34–39. It is, however, scarcely necessary to mention, that almost from
the days of Jephthah to the present time, it has been a subject of warm
contest among the critics and commentators, whether the judge of Israel
really sacrificed his daughter, or only devoted her to a state of
celibacy. Among those who contend for the former opinion, may be
particularly mentioned the very learned Professor Michaëlis, who insists
most peremptorily that the words, “did with her as he had vowed,” cannot
mean any thing else but that her father put her to death, and burned her
body as a burnt-offering. On this point, however, the remarks of Dr.
Hales are of great weight:--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 xi, 30, 31. According
to this rendering of the two conjunctions, ו, in the last clause,
_either_, _or_, which is justified by the Hebrew idiom, 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. 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 נדר, 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 and sex of the person, Lev. xxvii, 1–8. This was a wise
regulation to remedy rash vows. But if the vow was accompanied with חרם,
_devotement_, it was irredeemable, as in the following cases:
“Notwithstanding, no devotement which a man shall devote unto the Lord,
[either] of man, or of beast, or of land of his own property, shall be
sold or redeemed. Every thing devoted is most holy unto the Lord,” Lev.
xxvii, 28. Here the three _vaus_ in the original should necessarily be
rendered disjunctively, _or_, as the last actually is in our public
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 Sam. i, 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 unto the Lord,
and therefore could not go back; as he declared in his grief at seeing
his daughter, and his 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 xi, 36, 37. And such service was customary; for in the division
of the spoils taken in the first Midianite war, of the whole number of
captive virgins, “the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons,” Num. xxxi,
35–40. This instance appears to be decisive of the nature of her
devotement. Her father’s extreme grief on this occasion, and her
requisition of a respite of 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 every where, 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 xi, 34–49. There was also another case of devotement which was
irredeemable, and follows the former: “No one devoted, who shall be
devoted of man, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death,”
Levit. xxvii, 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. 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, by the people, or by the magistrate. Of all
these we have instances in the Scriptures: 1. The Amalekites and
Canaanites were devoted by God himself. Saul, therefore, was guilty of a
breach of this law for sparing Agag, the king of the Amalekites, as
Samuel reproached him, 1 Sam. xv, 23: 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
Midianite women, who had been spared in battle, were slain, Num. xxxi,
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 these Canaanites,
and their cities, if the Lord should deliver them into their hand; which
the Lord ratified. Whence the place was called Hhormah, because the vow
was accompanied by _cherem_, or devotement to destruction, Num. xxi,
1–3. And the vow was accomplished, Judges i, 17. 3. In the Philistine
war, Saul adjured the people, and cursed any one that should taste food
until the evening. His own son, Jonathan, inadvertently ate a honey
comb, not knowing of 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, 1 Sam. xiv, 24–45. 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, founded on incorrect translation, may appear from the following
considerations: 1. The sacrifice of children to Moloch 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,” Levit. xx, 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 magistrates,
Deut. xxi, 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:
“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 of whose life he has not the absolute disposal.”
These arguments appear to be decisive against the sacrifice; and that
Jephthah could not even 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 xi, 40. We may,
however, remark, that, if it could be more clearly established that
Jephthah actually immolated his daughter, there is not the least
evidence that his conduct was sanctioned by God. Jephthah was manifestly
a superstitious and ill-instructed man, and, like Samson, an instrument
of God’s power, rather than an example of his grace.
concubine, Judges xi, 1, 2. His father having several other children by
his lawful wife, they conspired to expel Jephthah from among them,
insisting that he who was the son of a strange woman should have no part
of the inheritance with them. Like Ishmael, therefore, he withdrew, and
took up his residence beyond Jordan, in the land of Tob, where he
appears to have become the chief of a banditti, or marauding party, who
probably lived by plunder, Judges xi, 3. In process of time, a war broke
out between the Ammonites and the children of Israel who inhabited the
country beyond Jordan; and the latter, finding their want of an intrepid
and skilful leader, applied to Jephthah to take the command of them. He
at first reproached them with the injustice they had done him, in
banishing him from his father’s house; but he at length yielded to their
importunity, on an agreement that, should he be successful in the war
against the Ammonites, the Israelites should acknowledge him for their
chief, Judges xi, 4–11.
As soon as Jephthah was invested with the command of the Israelites he
sent a deputation to the Ammonites, demanding to know on what principle
the latter had taken up arms against them. They answered that it was to
recover the territory which the former had taken from them on their
first coming out of Egypt. Jephthah replied that they had made no
conquests in that quarter but from the Amorites; adding, “If you think
you have a right to all that Chemosh, your god, hath given you, why
should not we possess all that the Lord our God hath conferred on us by
right of conquest?” Jephthah’s reasoning availed nothing with the
Ammonites; and as the latter persisted in waging war, the former
collected his troops together and put himself at their head. The Spirit
of the Lord is said to have now come upon Jephthah; by which we are here
to understand, that the Lord endowed him with a spirit of valour and
fortitude, adequate to the exigence of the situation in which he was
placed, animating him with courage for the battle, and especially
inspired him with unshaken confidence in the God of the armies of
Israel, Judges xi, 17; Heb. xi, 32; 1 Sam. xi, 6; Num. xxiv, 2. Jephthah
at this time made a vow to the Lord that if he delivered the Ammonites
into his hand, whatever came forth out of the doors of his house to meet
him when he returned should be the Lord’s; it is also added in our
English version, “and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,” Judges
xi, 31. The battle terminated auspiciously for Jephthah; the Ammonites
were defeated, and the Israelites ravaged their country. But on
returning toward his own house, his daughter, an only child, came out to
meet her father with timbrels and dances, accompanied by a chorus of
virgins, to celebrate his victory. On seeing her, Jephthah rent his
clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low;
for I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and cannot go back.” His
daughter intimated her readiness to accede to any vow he might have made
in which she was personally interested; only claiming a respite of two
months, during which she might go up to the mountains and bewail her
virginity with her companions. Jephthah yielded to this request, and at
the end of two months, according to the opinion of many, her father
offered her up in sacrifice, as a burnt-offering to the Lord, Judges xi,
34–39. It is, however, scarcely necessary to mention, that almost from
the days of Jephthah to the present time, it has been a subject of warm
contest among the critics and commentators, whether the judge of Israel
really sacrificed his daughter, or only devoted her to a state of
celibacy. Among those who contend for the former opinion, may be
particularly mentioned the very learned Professor Michaëlis, who insists
most peremptorily that the words, “did with her as he had vowed,” cannot
mean any thing else but that her father put her to death, and burned her
body as a burnt-offering. On this point, however, the remarks of Dr.
Hales are of great weight:--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 xi, 30, 31. According
to this rendering of the two conjunctions, ו, in the last clause,
_either_, _or_, which is justified by the Hebrew idiom, 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. 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 נדר, 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 and sex of the person, Lev. xxvii, 1–8. This was a wise
regulation to remedy rash vows. But if the vow was accompanied with חרם,
_devotement_, it was irredeemable, as in the following cases:
“Notwithstanding, no devotement which a man shall devote unto the Lord,
[either] of man, or of beast, or of land of his own property, shall be
sold or redeemed. Every thing devoted is most holy unto the Lord,” Lev.
xxvii, 28. Here the three _vaus_ in the original should necessarily be
rendered disjunctively, _or_, as the last actually is in our public
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 Sam. i, 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 unto the Lord,
and therefore could not go back; as he declared in his grief at seeing
his daughter, and his 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 xi, 36, 37. And such service was customary; for in the division
of the spoils taken in the first Midianite war, of the whole number of
captive virgins, “the Lord’s tribute was thirty-two persons,” Num. xxxi,
35–40. This instance appears to be decisive of the nature of her
devotement. Her father’s extreme grief on this occasion, and her
requisition of a respite of 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 every where, 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 xi, 34–49. There was also another case of devotement which was
irredeemable, and follows the former: “No one devoted, who shall be
devoted of man, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death,”
Levit. xxvii, 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. 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, by the people, or by the magistrate. Of all
these we have instances in the Scriptures: 1. The Amalekites and
Canaanites were devoted by God himself. Saul, therefore, was guilty of a
breach of this law for sparing Agag, the king of the Amalekites, as
Samuel reproached him, 1 Sam. xv, 23: 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
Midianite women, who had been spared in battle, were slain, Num. xxxi,
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 these Canaanites,
and their cities, if the Lord should deliver them into their hand; which
the Lord ratified. Whence the place was called Hhormah, because the vow
was accompanied by _cherem_, or devotement to destruction, Num. xxi,
1–3. And the vow was accomplished, Judges i, 17. 3. In the Philistine
war, Saul adjured the people, and cursed any one that should taste food
until the evening. His own son, Jonathan, inadvertently ate a honey
comb, not knowing of 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, 1 Sam. xiv, 24–45. 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, founded on incorrect translation, may appear from the following
considerations: 1. The sacrifice of children to Moloch 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,” Levit. xx, 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 magistrates,
Deut. xxi, 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:
“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 of whose life he has not the absolute disposal.”
These arguments appear to be decisive against the sacrifice; and that
Jephthah could not even 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 xi, 40. We may,
however, remark, that, if it could be more clearly established that
Jephthah actually immolated his daughter, there is not the least
evidence that his conduct was sanctioned by God. Jephthah was manifestly
a superstitious and ill-instructed man, and, like Samson, an instrument
of God’s power, rather than an example of his grace.