Chapter 11

1 The covenant between Jephthah and the Gileadites, that he should be their head. 12 The treaty of peace between him and the Ammonites is in vain. 29 Jephthah’s vow. 32 His conquest of the Ammonites. 34 He performeth his vow on his daughter.

1. Jephthah. Literally, “he will open.” Some believe that the name may have been a shortened form of Jipthah-el (Joshua 19:14, 27), which means “the Lord will open.”

Harlot. His mother did not even have the status of an inferior wife or concubine. She was merely a prostitute, and because of this the father apparently took the child to his home and reared him there, thus signifying his desire to treat him as a legitimate son.

Gilead begat Jephthah. Here Gilead stands for a person. Everywhere else where the name occurs in this narrative, except in v. 2, it refers to the region of Gilead. Manasseh had a grandson named Gilead, who gave his name to this region (Num. 26:29, 30; Joshua 17:1; 1 Chron. 7:14–17). But it is highly improbable that he was the father of Jephthah. If he were, the events here recorded concerning Jephthah must be among the earliest in the book of Judges. It is difficult to extend four generations over the period from the descent into Egypt to this point in thejudges period. Jephthah’s father was probably another man of the tribe of Manasseh who bore the famous tribal name. It should be noted also that the narrative goes back a number of years to explain the family background of Jephthah.

2. Gilead’s wife. This was his lawful wife, by whom subsequently he had a number of sons.

Thrust out Jephthah. After the legitimate sons grew up, and perhaps after the death of the father, they drove Jephthah from the home, refusing to allow him any part of the inheritance even though the father, by bringing Jephthah to the home, apparently showed his intention of regarding the child as a son. The attitude of these brothers was probably in harmony with family laws and traditions of the time, which may have found support in a rigorous interpretation of the law of Moses (Deut. 23:2, 3).

A strange woman. Literally, “another woman.” Either it may merely mean another woman who was not a legal wife, or it may bear also the added connotation that she was of an alien race.

3. Tob. A place by the name of Ish-tob (“Tob,” RSV) was included with the list of the small Aramaean states to the east of Jordan from among whom the Ammonites hired mercenary troops in their wars with David (2 Sam. 10:6–8).

Vain men. Literally, “empty men,” that is, poor persons without property, employment, or training wherewith to earn a living, except their ability to fight. It does not necessarily mean that they were men without moral qualities, but rather that they were unsuccessful, discontented, needy men.

Went out with him. That is, they went out on forays together. They were in a sense soldiers of fortune making their living by hiring out as mercenaries, scouts, or guards. Like David at a later time (1 Sam. 22:1, 2; 1 Sam 25:1–35), they received gifts for protecting wealthy people from robbers, or for driving back small incursions of desert invaders. From this type of activity Jephthah gained a wide reputation for bravery, sagacity, and initiative. The epistle to the Hebrews (11:32) mentions him as a man of faith.

4. In process of time. The years rolled on till the Ammonite incursions into the territory of Israel led up to the place where the author had left his narrative (ch. 10:18) to trace Jephthah’s background.

5. Elders. These were the heads of families and clans.

Went to fetch. The elders had been seeking for someone to lead them against the Ammonites, but none of the inhabitants of Gilead had the skill or reputation to win the confidence of the elders of the tribes for the hazardous undertaking they all faced. They all had heard of the prowess of Jephthah and his group of warriors, and so their choice for a leader fell on him.

6. Captain. Heb. qasin, from the root qasah, “to decide,” “to judge.” He was probably primarily called to be a leader in war. They were willing to grant him dictatorial powers for the duration of the war. In that sense they were appealing to him as a mercenary.

7. Expel me. Jephthah had been driven not only from his home but evidently from his tribe and country also, for tribal and inheritance rights went together. Therefore, expulsion from the home made a man an outcast, a wanderer, with no clansmen to aid him in protecting himself or his belongings.

Evidently the elders of Israel had supported Jephthah’s brothers when they had driven Jephthah from home, for he charged them with formerly being animated by hatred against him, and a party to his expulsion. He still felt that he had been dealt with unjustly, perhaps not so much that they violated the letter of the law, but that they violated his father’s wishes. The pretense of legal right is often a mere cover for the foulest wrongs and deepest injuries.

8. Therefore we turn. It is not certain whether the answer of the elders refers to the first or to the last part of Jephthah’s statement. Either will make good sense. In the first case they would have said, in effect, “Yes, we acknowledge that we did not treat you in the right way, and for that reason we are now wanting to make it right and repair the old wrong.” In the second, “Exactly so, but because we are in very great distress we appeal to you for help to protect your native land.”

Be our head. In addition to the former offer of military leadership (v. 6), they now offer Jephthah the headship of all the clans in Gilead in peace as well as in war.

9. Shall I be your head? Jephthah’s patriotism was probably not entirely disinterested. But in the light of his former experience of expulsion from his tribe and deprivation of his share of his father’s goods, he was seeking for some assurances that the promise would be carried out. He wished to be sure that there would be no misunderstanding. It was prudent for him to make his bargain for the future now since he was dealing with men whom he had reason to distrust.

Though there may have been an element of self-seeking in Jephthah’s demands, his prudence in making the bargain clear before proceeding with the proposition should be emulated more often today. Christians show wisdom when they make their agreements clear and explicit, so that there may be no possibility for questioning or recrimination afterward. The Lord is a God of order and clarity, not of ambiguity.

10. The Lord be witness. Literally, “The Lord be the hearer between us,” taking note of our agreement, and watching between us when we are out of one another’s sight to the end that we live up to our word (see Gen. 31:49). The elders now call upon the Lord, to whom they have so recently renewed their allegiance, to witness to their agreement to Jephthah’s terms.

11. Made him head. The promise of the elders was confirmed by the people, who inaugurated Jephthah as the civil and military leader of the tribes east of the Jordan.

Uttered all his words. This passage is not entirely clear. It may mean that Jephthah took an oath specifying the terms of his rule; or that he told the people, in a religious assembly, the course they must follow to defeat their enemies; or that he did not wish to launch out on a campaign against the Ammonites without asking counsel from the Lord.

In Mizpeh. The place where the tribes had assembled preparing to resist the Ammonite advance (ch. 10:17).

12. Jephthah sent messengers. Before engaging in actual warfare with the Ammonites, Jephthah announced himself as the new leader of the Gileadites by exchanging messages with the king of the enemy invaders. He spoke in the name of Israel, as an acknowledged prince. In his message he launched a formal protest against the Ammonite invasion.

What hast thou? That is, “What business have we with each other?” What reason do you have for invading our country? Although Jephthah was a mighty man of valor, he did not delight in war, but preferred to avoid it by peaceable negotiation. He wanted to settle the dispute on the basis of justice. If the Ammonites could convince him that Israel had done them wrong, he was ready to restore their rights. If not, he was ready to maintain the cause of Israel even if it meant war.

13. Because Israel. The King of Ammon stated the cause of his quarrel very distinctly. He claimed that all the land of Gilead between the Arnon and the Jabbok really belonged to the Ammonites, and demanded its surrender as the only condition of peace. This was not in accordance with the facts. The Israelites had been forbidden to war against the Moabites and Ammonites (Deut. 2:9, 19), so they had passed around Moab; and also avoiding the territory of Ammon, which lay along the desert, they had crossed the Arnon into the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites. Sihon, it is true, had wrested this territory earlier from Moab and Ammon (Num. 21:21–30; Joshua 13:25), but that was a question with which the Israelites had nothing to do. When they captured the land it belonged to someone else.

From Arnon even unto Jabbok. The deep, rocky ravine of the Arnon formed the southern boundary of Israel, separating the tribe of Reuben from Moab. It is about 50 mi. from the Arnon north to the Jabbok River. The hill country and moorland of this region had been given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad because it was suited for grazing. This strip of territory between the Jordan and the desert was about 20 mi. wide.

14. Sent messengers again. It is to Jephthah’s credit, and witnesses to his peaceable disposition, that he was still trying to end this controversy by negotiation and thus avoid useless bloodshed.

15. Israel took not away. Jephthah refuted the king of Ammon’s statements. He showed that the Ammonites, and the Moabites, who seemed to be united with them in their claims against Israel, had no legal claim to the territory between the Arnon and the Jabbok. To prove his point he described in detail what had taken place when the Israelites took over that country. They had captured the land from Sihon, king of the Amorites, and they were not willing to discuss who had been the previous owners.

Land of Moab. Throughout his denial, Jephthah grouped the Moabites and the Ammonites together, as if they were one people. In v. 24 Chemosh, who was the god of the Moabites, is called the god of the king of Ammon. From this it has been thought that at this time the king of Ammon had perhaps gained control over Moab, either by force of arms or intermarriage, so that the one king ruled over both countries. The national deity of Ammon was Milcom, or Molech (see on Lev. 18:21).

16. Came to Kadesh. It was in this area that the Israelites settled during the 40-year wilderness sojourn (see Num. 20:1; cf. Num. 33:37, 38; Deut. 1:46; 2:14). This place, sometimes called Kadesh-barnea, has not yet been definitely identified, but seems to have been somewhere near ФAin Qedeis, in the Negeb about 50 mi. south of Beersheba.

17. King of Edom. See Num. 20:14–22; PP 422–432.

King of Moab. Moses does not record this incident, but does state that the Israelites did not enter the territory of Moab (Deut. 2:9). There is a suggestion in Deut. 2:29 that Moab may have refused passage just as Edom had done.

19. King of the Amorites. See Num. 21:21–24; Deut. 2:24–36. Sihon’s territory was from the Arnon northward to the Jabbok and from the Jordan eastward to the Ammonite territory (see Judges 11:22). Heshbon, his capital, and the surrounding territory had formerly been held by the Moabites (Num. 21:26). Later Heshbon is referred to by Bible writers in connection with Moab and Ammon (Isa. 15:4; 16:8, 9; Jer. 48:2, 34, 45; 49:3).

Into my place. The original plan for Israel was that they should all settle west of the Jordan (see Deut. 2:29), but the hostility of Sihon forced the Israelites to defeat him in order that they might gain access to the Jordan so as to cross into Canaan. After Sihon’s forces had been defeated and his territory was in Israelite hands, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh made a special request to Moses to be allowed to settle there (Num. 32:1–33).

20. Jahaz. This town was probably situated immediately north of the river Arnon, which the Israelites were preparing to cross to invade Sihon’s land. Centuries later the Moabite Stone mentioned Jahaz as an Israelite town.

22. All the coasts. That is, all their boundaries, their entire territory. It was this territory that Ammon was now claiming.

23. Dispossessed the Amorites. The land that the Israelites took from the Amorites became theirs, irrespective of who had been its previous owners. They had not fought against the Ammonites, or captured their land (Num. 21:24; Deut. 2:37).

Shouldest thou possess it? By the primitive law of the nations this territory was clearly Israel’s. Why do the Ammonites think they have title to it? Jephthah’s question is one of indignant surprise.

24. Chemosh thy god. Milcom was the national god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5, 33), not Chemosh. Chemosh was the god of the Moabites. The use of “Chemosh” here has been explained by the fact that at this time the king of Ammon may have ruled over both Moab and Ammon. The two nations were of kindred blood and institutions (see Gen. 19:37, 38; Judges 3:12, 13). The mention of Chemosh was particularly appropriate in that the territory in question had once belonged to the Moabites, but Chemosh had been unable to save it from the invading Amorites. In the Moabite Stone inscription, Mesha, king of Moab (2 Kings 3:4, 5), ascribes all Moabite victories to the good will of Chemosh, and all defeats to his anger.

Jephthah pointed out that if Ammon refused to recognize the rights of Israel to its territory, he at the same time undermined, in principle, his own right to the country he inhabited.

Jephthah was trying to arrange peace by diplomacy. He did not intend, under these circumstances, to claim universal dominion for the God of Israel. It is of course possible, on the other hand, that inasmuch as Jephthah had grown up in exile among heathen people, he did not understand fully that Jehovah was the God of the whole earth.

25. Balak. See Num. 22:1 to 24:25. Although Israel took over the territory of Sihon, which formerly had belonged to Moab, the king of Moab at the time had apparently not claimed Israel’s newly won land as his. He had fought Israel out of hatred rather than because he claimed the land Israel had captured from the Amorites (Joshua 24:9). How, therefore, can a valid claim be made centuries later? Quite likely the Moabite king had clearly recognized the right of conquest. If the land had rightfully been his, why had he not claimed it long before? This was a telling argument to support the justice of Israel’s cause.

26. Three hundred years. On the chronology of this period of the judges see p. 128.

27. Be judge this day. Jephthah ends his argument with an appeal to God to approve the justice of his cause. There was a difference between the conception of the Hebrews about their God and that of the heathen about theirs. The Hebrews believed theirs was a just and moral God. In the recognition of moral character, which they recognized in their God, lay one of the points of superiority of their belief over that of their heathen neighbors. Jephthah asserts that if the Ammonites want to decide the issue by force of arms, he is willing to trust God to decide justly whose cause is right, and then give the victory to that side.

The verses give evidence of the straight-forward, honest, firm, yet conciliatory diplomacy of Jephthah. He had maintained the rights of Israel on three grounds: (1) the right of direct conquest, not from Ammon but from the Amorites (vs. 15–20); (2) the decision of God (vs. 21–24), which he supported by diplomatically suggesting that even their deity had not contested the conquest of Sihon; (3) undisputed possession of the land over a long period of time (vs. 25, 26). Then he ended by an appeal to God to approve the justice of his cause.

28. Hearkened not. Apparently the king of Ammon did not even trouble to answer Jephthah’s arguments. He cared only for the argument of the sword.

29. Spirit of the Lord. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit that makes service for God effective for good. There may be much activity, much feverish anxiety, but unless the labor is sanctified by the presence and power of the Spirit, little lasting good will be accomplished.

He passed over. In succession Jephthah toured Gilead and all the territory of Manasseh recruiting additional troops. He swept through the land from end to end to kindle the torch of war and to embolden the population to resist the Ammonite invaders. Chapter 12:2 implies that even the Hebrew tribes across the Jordan in western Palestine were invited to participate in the war.

30. Jephthah vowed. The record of Jephthah’s rash vow confronts us with one of those difficult passages of Scripture where the account is too brief to permit definite conclusions as to what occurred. According to one explanation Jephthah actually offered his daughter as a burnt offering, and by so doing placed himself in an evil light. In view of the fact that God gave him success pursuant to the vow, such an act on his part appears particularly heinous and most difficult to understand. The second, view, which assumes that Jephthah devoted his daughter to a life of celibacy, exonorates him from the charge of offering her as a sacrifice (see on v. 39).

Here, as elsewhere, it is our duty to ascertain what the Bible says, and to avoid attempting to make its statements harmonize with our concept of the story. We must take the Bible as it reads and be content to let the matter rest there. Wherever possible we should, of course, give a man the benefit of the doubt, and not pass judgment on him without due cause.

A vow. The literature of early nations shows that the ancients frequently made vows to their deities. The practice was common among the Hebrews (see Gen. 28:20; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 15:8).

Jephthah’s vow was made under the stress of circumstances, as he stood at the threshold of a most perilous venture. Unfortunately it was generally in times of danger or crisis that vows like these were made, when the emotional stress contributed to the danger of making rash promises.

31. Whatsoever cometh forth. Whom should Jephthah expect to come from the doors of his house to greet him returning in victory, except his wife, or his daughter, or possibly a slave? Some have attempted to show that an animal, such as may often have been found in the homes of the ancients, could be here implied. But the Hebrew term he used for “meet” seems to rule against this. This term is most generally used of men (see Gen. 18:2; Ex. 18:7; 2 Kings 1:6; etc.). It has been observed that it would not have been an extraordinary vow to have promised to offer a lamb or an ox for a marvelous victory. Such sacrifices would have been offered by numerous Israelites.

One must remember that although Jephthah worshiped the God of Israel, and in the undertaking relied on Him, he had grown up in an alien land among heathen people. Among these heathen nations human sacrifices were offered in times of great crisis. Compare the act of the king of Moab who sacrificed his eldest son to his god Chemosh as a final act of desperation to save his city from the attacking Israelites (2 Kings 3:26, 27). The law of Moses prohibited the offering of human sacrifices (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 12:31; etc.), yet this prohibition was flouted from time to time down to the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6).

The Spirit of God came upon Jephthah in order that Israel might be saved from destruction. But the presence of the Spirit does not guarantee infallibility or omniscience. The one who receives the Spirit remains a free moral agent, and is expected to make appropriate progress in spiritual growth and knowledge. Jephthah, in his ignorance of what was right, rashly vowed an evil thing. In the same way, although the Spirit of the Lord clothed Gideon and wrought great deliverance through him, the Spirit did not prevent him from setting up an illegal worship. This narrative of Jephthah’s rash vow is related, as so many in the Scriptures are, without note or comment, indeed neither is needed. The only judgment possible in the case of Jephthah is that of condemnation.

Be the Lord’s. Apparently in the same sense that Jericho and its inhabitants had been devoted to Him (see on Joshua 6:15).

And I will offer. Some have endeavored to translate as “or” the Hebrew word for “and,” at the beginning of the phrase. They believe Jephthah to have said, in effect, “Whatever comes from the doors of my home to meet me as I return shall be devoted exclusively for the Lord’s service, if it is a human, or, if it is a clean animal, I will offer it as a burnt offering.” Since it was Jephthah’s daughter who came out to meet him, such interpreters say the first phrase applies, that is, “shall surely be the Lord’s.” Commentators who take this point of view explain Jephthah’s statement to mean that the girl never married but devoted herself to religious service for the rest of her life (see on v. 39).

It. Some commentators prefer rendering the pronoun, thus translated, as “Him,” thereby making the statement read, “I will offer [to] Him [God] a burnt offering.” It is true that the Hebrew pronoun, standing alone, may mean either “him” or “it.” But attached to the verb, as here, the pronoun must always be understood as the direct object of the verb. This invariable rule requires the translation, “I will offer it for a burnt offering.” Furthermore, Jephthah’s grief (v. 35), his daughter’s mourning (v. 37), and the impression made upon contemporaries (vs. 37, 40), require something entirely out of the ordinary, something more than a common burnt offering.

33. Aroer. There were two cities by this name in Transjordan, one (see v. 26) on the northern bank of the Arnon, and another near Rabbath-ammon, in Ammonite territory (Joshua 13:25). It is difficult to tell which city the writer intended here.

Minnith. Mentioned in (Eze. 27:17) as an exporter of wheat. Thought to have been near Heshbon.

Plain of the vineyards. “Meadow of the vineyards” or a proper name. AbelРkeramim (RSV). Eusebius puts it 7 Roman mi. from Philadelphia (Amman). An identification with Khirbet esРSuµk, south of Amman, remains uncertain.

34. To Mizpeh. After having been invited back from exile to be the ruler in Gilead, Jephthah seems to have moved his family to Mizpeh and established his residence there.

With timbrels. It was the custom for women to greet their menfolk thus upon their victorious return from war (1 Sam. 18:6; cf. Ex. 15:20). Evidently other women accompanied Jephthah’s daughter, playing small tambourines.

Only child. The Hebrew is emphatic: “She only was an only child.” Jephthah’s family would become extinct in Israel, a thing that all Hebrews deplored.

35. He rent his clothes. A usual custom among Hebrews for expressing extreme grief (Gen. 37:29; 2 Sam. 13:19, 31; etc.).

Very low. When Jephthah saw his daughter the full significance of his rash vow rendered him weak, crushed.

Trouble me. This translation is far too weak. The word used here for “trouble,”Фakar, designates unusual grief, anxiety, or distress. All of Jephthah’s life had been a continuous succession of strife and trouble. Now his own precious daughter becomes the one who brings him the most poignant grief of all.

Opened my mouth. An expression used of making a vow (see Ps. 66:13, 14). To be binding, a vow had to be uttered (Num. 30:2, 3, 7; Deut. 23:23).

I cannot go back. It was considered a terrible wrong to go back on such a serious vow. There were two kinds of vows among the Hebrews—the simple vow, neder (Lev. 27:2–27), and the “devotion” or “ban,” cherem. Anything devoted to God by the cherem was not redeemable, became “most holy” to Him, and was to be put to death (Lev. 27:28, 29; see on Lev. 27:2, 28). Jephthah’s vow was a neder. Despite its sacredness, the one who vows it is not under obligation to keep it if it binds him to perform a wrong act (see PP 506). Jephthah’s vow was contrary to the express command of the law and therefore was not binding. However he felt that it was binding, and though he had sworn to his own hurt, he would not change.

36. She said unto him. Her father’s anguish and the intent of his words enabled the daughter, with a woman’s quick presentiment, to discern immediately what the nature of the vow was. He needed not to tell her.

Lord hath taken vengeance. Only dimly understanding the nature of God, she sincerely believed that the victory had been given because of her father’s vow, and that her sacrifice was an appropriate price to pay for such a victory.

37. Let me alone. The fulfillment of vows could be postponed for a definite purpose.

Bewail my virginity. The prospect of forfeiting the joy of wedding festivities or the pleasure of rearing children would be an especially bitter experience to a Hebrew maiden, particularly to one who was an only child. To Jephthah’s daughter it would mean that she and her father’s house would lose the hope of a share in the future glories of Israel.

38. With her companions. Her youthful friends, with whom she had often talked and dreamed of future marriage, now joined her in lamenting the sad fate that had befallen her.

39. According to his vow. This seems to imply that he offered her as a burnt offering, according to his vow (see on v. 31). It has been suggested that the author of the book of Judges, with fine reserve, drew a veil over the tragic act of sacrifice.

On the other view that Jephthah did not offer up his daughter (see on v. 31) might be mentioned the following:

About 1200 a.d. Rabbi Kimchi, followed by many writers since, promulgated the view that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter. He said that the words “offer it up for a burnt offering” (v. 31) would apply only if whatever met Jephthah should be a sacrificial animal. He interpreted verse 39 to mean that Jephthah built his daughter a house where she was secluded from men the rest of her life, in sacred celibacy, in order that all her moments might be dedicated to the Lord, and that there the virgins of Israel went annually to visit her and bewail her fate.

Against this interpretation of Kimchi’s is the fact that the customs of that day knew nothing about treating women as nuns. Perpetual virginity and childlessness were looked upon as the greatest of misfortunes. There is no law, usage, or custom in all the OT that in the least intimates that a single woman was looked upon as the more holy, more the Lord’s, or more fully devoted to Him than a married woman. It was no part of the law of the priests or Nazirites. Deborah and Huldah, both prophetesses, are particularly mentioned as married women. Moreover, if the daughter were to remain unmarried in harmony with such an unknown custom, the case would not have been so tragic as it is portrayed here; neither would she have needed two months to bewail her virginity, for she would have had the rest of her life to do that. All Jewish and Christian interpreters up to the time of Kimchi held to the natural intent of the passage, namely, that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as an offering to the Lord, a thing that Abraham almost did to his son Isaac under different circumstances.

She knew no man. Or, “she had not known man.” See Gen. 24:16 for identical words in Hebrew.

It was a custom. These words really belong with the following verse.

40. To lament. The marginal reading of the KJV gives “to talk with.” This marginal reading may reflect the thinking of those who believed that the daughter was not sacrificed, but kept apart in a seclusion which was broken only once a year when virgins in Israel could talk with her. The Hebrew verb, tanah, does not mean “to talk with.” Basically it means “to recount,” with the idea of talking about some event, hence “to commemorate,” “to celebrate.” The same verb is translated “rehearse” in Judges 5:11. The Hebrew verb occurs only in these two passages in the Bible. The LXX translates tanah “to lament.”

Ellen G. White comments

29, 32 PP 558