Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 11:29 - 11:33
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_11:29-33
Jdg_11:30-32. This vow has been the subject of the most singular misapprehensions; and yet, rightly understood, it crowns the deep piety of this hero of God. Jephthah perceives the full significance of the course on which he decides. He knows how greatly victory will strengthen faith in God throughout all the tribes. He sees a new Israel rise up. The people have trustingly committed themselves to his leadership, and he has uttered all his “words before Jehovah.” In this state of mind, he bows himself before his God (1Sa_1:28), and makes a vow. To the national spirit which expresses itself in the Bible, vows are the signs and expression of the deepest self-surrender to God. Jacob makes vows to be fulfilled on his prosperous return home (Gen_28:20 ff.). In the Psalms, “to pay one’s vows,” has become synonymous with “to live in God” (Psa_61:8; Psa_116:16 ff). The prophet describes the coming salvation of the nations by saying that they shall “make vows and perform them” (Isa_19:21). And this idea is deeply grounded in truth: for in the vows which man makes to God, there is evidently expressed a living faith in the divine omnipotence and omniscience. Man expects from Him, and would fain give to Him. The more one feels himself to have received from God, the more will he desire to consecrate to Him. Such is the feeling under which Jephthah makes his vow to Jehovah. He promises that if God grant him victory, and he return home crowned with success, “then that which goeth forth from the doors of my house to meet me, shall be Jehovah’s, and I will present it as a whole burnt-offering.” He makes this vow from the fullness of his conviction that victory belongs to God alone, and from the fullness of his love, which would give to God that which belongs to Him as the author of success. He would make it known to God, that he regards Him, and not himself, as the commander-in-chief. There exists, therefore, a profound connection between the words, “when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon,” and the expression, “whatsoever cometh forth to meet me;” and it is essential to the right understanding of the vow that this be borne in mind. Victory will awaken great rejoicings among the people. They will meet the returning victor with loud acclamations of gladness. They will receive him with gifts and adornments, with garlands and dances. Such receptions were customary among all nations. The multitude scattered roses, myrtles, and perfumes. Similar customs obtained in Israel (1Sa_18:6). Jephthah will be celebrated and praised. But not to him—to God, belongs the honor! That which is consecrated to him, belongs, wholly and entirely, to God. This is the first ground of his vow. Jephthah’s overflowing heart knows not what to consecrate. He feels that nothing is sufficient to be presented to God. But all things are subject to God’s disposal. Therefore, whatever comes forth over the threshold of his house to meet him, when he returns victorious,—it shall be for God. He will have no part in it. By this first ground of the vow, its analogy with heathen narratives is so far limited, that there is here no talk of a sacrifice to consist of just the first whom he meets, and the first alone. Nor is it necessary to assume that äַéּåֹöֵà àֶùֶׁø éֵöֵà , “that which goeth forth,” must be understood to mean only one person. It is as little necessary as that in Num_30:3 (2), where vows are treated of, the words äַéּåֹöֵà îִôִּéå , “that which proceedeth out of his mouth,” must mean one word. The participle is in the singular on account of its neutral signification. This indefiniteness is the peculiar characteristic of the votive formula. Equally indefinite is the meaning of the verb éֵöֵà (“goeth forth”), which may be used of persons and things, men and animals (cf. Gen_9:10). But the occasion of the vow shows also that Jephthah must have thought of persons as coming forth to meet him. At all events, he cannot have thought that precisely a lamb or an ox would come forth from his doors to meet him. Notwithstanding the breadth of the vow, notwithstanding all its indefiniteness, which is left, as it were, to be filled out by God himself, the chieftain must have thought of persons coming to meet him; for they come forth on account of the victory, and for that reason may be given to God who gives the triumph. Doubtless, the abundance of his love is as boundless as that of his faith. As little as he analyzes the latter, by which God’s victorious might enters his heart, so little does his vow separate and individualize the objects of the former. He calculates not—raises no difficulties: whatever comes to meet him, that he will give to God. But as surely as this does not include things beyond the range of possible contingencies, so surely must he have had some thoughts as to who might meet him on a victorious return home. And if he was aware that not only oxen and lambs might come out to meet him—for such a limitation would contradict the breadth of the vow itself—he was equally aware that not everything which might come forth, could be offered up like oxen and lambs.
Due stress being laid on the fact that the meeting is contemplated as one taking place in consequence of victory, there is suggested, for the further understanding of the vow, a second point of view, not yet properly considered. Jephthah’s war is a national war against Ammon. The freedom and rights, which Israel had received from Jehovah, are thereby vindicated. The negotiations about the claims to certain lands, set up by Ammon, and refuted by Jephthah, have not been related in vain. They exhibit the God of Israel in his absolute greatness, over against Chemosh, the false deity of the Ammonites. Israel has repented; and it is not one man, but the whole tribe, that is represented as beseeching Jehovah for help. To bring out this contrast between Jehovah and the gods of the heathen, the history of Israel, which rests on the power and will of Jehovah, is referred to in a free and living way. Jephthah is conversant with the divine record. He calls on Jehovah to decide as judge between himself and Ammon (Jdg_11:27), just as in his dealings with the Gileadites he appeals to Him as “Hearer” (ver.11). He utters his words “before Jehovah,” and the “Spirit of Jehovah” comes upon him. The name “Elohim” is not used,—for that Ammon considers applicable to his gods also,—but always that name which involves the distinctive faith of Israel, namely, Jehovah. All through, Jephthah is represented as familiar with the Mosaic institutes, and imbued with their spirit; and this just because the history deals with a national war against Ammon. The vow also, which Jephthah makes, is modeled by this contrast between Israel and Ammon. The tribes descended from Lot are especially notorious for the nature of their idolatrous worship. The abominations practiced by Ammon and Moab in honor of Milcom (as they called Molech) and Chemosh, are sufficiently familiar from the history of Israel under the kings (1Ki_11:7, etc.). The sacrifice of human beings, particularly children, formed a terrible part of their worship. They burned and slaughtered those whom they loved, in token of devotion and surrender to the dreaded demon. The same practices were generally diffused among the Phœnicians (cf. Movers, i. 302). On great national occasions, such as war or pestilence, parents vowed to sacrifice their children on the public altars. In the Second Book of Kings (Jdg_3:27) we have the horrible story of the king of Moab, who slaughtered his eldest son on the walls of his city. Without entering farther into this terrible superstition, the explanation of which by Movers is not exhaustive, thus much it is necessary to say here: that the sacrifices it required were regarded by the nations who offered them, as the highest expression of their self-surrender to the idol-god. Hence, it is only upon the background of this practice, that the offering of Isaac by Abraham can be rightly understood. Abraham is put to the proof, whether he will show the same free and obedient self-surrender. As soon as he has done that, it is made clear that such sacrifices God does not desire.
A similar contrast is unquestionably exhibited in the vow of Jephthah; only, here the reference is specially to Ammon. Jephthah appears before Jehovah with devotion and readiness to make sacrifices not inferior to that of which idolaters boast themselves. He promises to present to God whatever shall come to meet him. In the form of a vow, and with indefinite fullness, he declares his readiness to resign whatsoever God himself, by his providential orderings, shall mark out. It is precisely in this that the conscious opposition of the vow to the abominable sacrifices of the Ammonites expresses itself. The highest self-abnegation is displayed; but in connection with it, the will of God is sought after. God himself will determine what is acceptable to Him; and Jephthah knows that this God has said: “When thou art come into the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire (which was the Molech-worship of the Ammonites); .… for every one that doeth these things, is an abomination unto Jehovah; and because of these abominations doth Jehovah thy God drive them out from before thee” (Deu_18:9 ff). To the expulsion of the nations by God, in favor of Israel, Jephthah himself formerly appealed. We conclude, therefore, that the very formula of this vow, made on the eve of war with Ammon, excludes the idea of a human sacrifice.
The sacrificial system of Israel stands throughout in marked contrast with the Canaanitish Molech service. Its animal sacrifices are the spiritual symbols which it opposes to the abominations of Canaan. To see this, it is only necessary to refer once more to the sacrifice of Abraham. God says to him: Offer me Isaac for a whole burnt-offering ( ìְòֹìָä ); and when Abraham is about to give Isaac wholly up, an animal is substituted for him (Gen_22:2; Gen_22:10 ff.). Since that time, òֹìָä (burnt-offering or whole burnt-offering) is the typical and technical term for an animal sacrifice, symbolical of perfect surrender and consecration to God. The offerings which were thus named, were wholly consumed by fire. Nothing was left of them. Hence, precisely òֹìָä , in its sense of animal sacrifice, presented a strong contrast with the worship of the Ammonites, for among them human beings were offered up in the same manner as the Israelites offered animals.
When Gideon is directed to destroy the altar of Baal, he is at the same time commanded to offer a bullock as a whole burnt-offering ( òåֹìָä ) on an altar to be erected by himself, and to consume it with the wood of the Asherah (Jdg_6:26). Such also is the whole burnt-offering ( òֹìָä ), to offer which permission is given to Manoah, the father of Samson, without any mention being made of the animal (Jdg_13:16). The influence of worship on language in Israel, brought it about that òָìָä , to offer, signifies the offering of an animal which is to be wholly consumed in the sacred fire. It is therefore significant and instructive, when in Jephthah’s vow we find the expression: “It shall be Jehovah’s, and I will present it as a whole burnt offering ( òֹìָä ). in no other instance in which the bringing of a whole burnt-offering is spoken of, is the additional expression, “it shall be Jehovah’s,” made use of, not even in the instances of Gideon and Manoah, although this of Jephthah is chronologically enclosed between them. How strangely would it have sounded, if it had been said to Gideon: “Take the bullock; it shall belong to Jehovah, and thou shalt present it as a whole burnt-offering. For the bullock is presented in order that Gideon may belong to God. It is offered, not for itself, but for men. It is placed on the altar of God, just because it is the property of man. It is foreign to the spirit of Biblical language and life to say of a sacrificial animal, “it shall belong to God,” for the reason that the animal comes to hold a religious relation to God, only because it belongs to man, and is offered in man’s behalf. An animal belonging to God, in s religious sense, without being offered up, is inconceivable. At least, it cannot be permitted to live.
Very important for this subject, is the passage in Exo_13:12-13. It is there commanded that, when Israel shall have come into Canaan, every first-born shall be set apart unto Jehovah, both the firstlings of every beast “which thou hast” ( àֲùֶׁø éִäְéֶä ìְêָ ), and the first-born of man. The firstling of such animals as cannot be offered, the ass, for instance, is to be redeemed with money; or, if the owner do not wish to redeem it, he must kill it. The first-born of man, however, must be redeemed. The first-born animal is moreover set apart for God only on account of man, its owner. This substitutionary “belonging to God,” it can only represent in death. Hence the expression, “it shall belong to God,” is never used of animals, but they are said to be “offered.” On the contrary, it can be applied only to human beings; “he shall belong to God,” shall live for God, conscious of his own free will and of the divine Spirit, which consciousness is wanting in animals. Scripture itself gives this explanation, Num_3:12, where it is said: “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel, instead of all the first-born; therefore, the Levites belong to me ( ìִé äַìְåִéִּí åְäָéåּ ).” The Levites belong to God for all Israel through their life; the first-born of animals, through their sacrificial death. Accordingly, Hannah also, when she makes her vow to God, says, that if a son be granted her, she will give him unto Jehovah; and when she brings him to the tabernacle, that he is “lent unto Jehovah ( ùָׁàåּì ìַéäåָֹä , 1Sa_1:28) as long as he liveth.”
We perceive, therefore, that in the words of Jephthah, “it shall be Jehovah’s, and I will present it as a whole burnt-offering,” there can be no mere tautology. The two clauses do not coincide in meaning; they cannot stand the one for the other.
It is necessary, however, to attend to every word of this remarkable verse. For the vow is a contract, every point of which has its importance, and in which not only one being is thought of, but in which all creatures, human beings as well as brute beasts, the few or the many, that may come forth to meet Jephthah, are included, and each is consecrated as his kind permits. The vow speaks of whatsoever cometh forth “out of the doors of my house.” Many will come to meet him, but he can offer only of that which is his; over the rest he has no power of disposition. His promise extends to what comes out of his own house; and not to anything that comes accidentally, but to what comes “to meet him.” It must come forth for the purpose of receiving him. But even then, the vow becomes binding only when he returns crowned with victory and salvation ( áְּùָׁëåֹí ), and that, not over any and every foe, but over Ammon. If thus he be permitted to return, then whatever meets him “shall be Jehovah’s, and he will present it as a whole burnt-offering.”
The promise must necessarily be expressed with the greatest exactitude. This was demanded by the requirement of the law, that he who makes a vow “shall keep and perform that which is gone out of his lips, even as he vowed” (Deu_23:24 [23]; Num_30:2). Had Jephthah thought only of animals, he would merely have employed the formula usual in such cases—“and I will present it unto thee as a whole burnt-offering.” It would not have been sufficient to have said, “it shall belong to Jehovah,” because an animal belongs to God in this sense only when sacrificed for men. Precisely the insertion of the words, “it shall belong to Jehovah,” proves, therefore, that he thought also of human beings. The generality and breadth of the vow makes both clauses necessary, since either one alone would not have covered both men and animals. The first was inapplicable to animals, the second to human beings. Both being used, the one explains and limits the other. The main stress lies on the words, “it shall belong to Jehovah,” for therein is suggested the ground of the vow. They also stand first. Were human beings in question? then the first clause went into full operation; and the second taught that a life “belonging to God” must be one as fully withdrawn from this earthly life as is the sacrificial victim not redeemed according to law; while the first limited the second, by intimating that a human being need not be actually offered up, as the letter of the promise seemed to require, but that the important point is that it belong wholly to God.
God demands no vows. It is no sin, when none are made. But when one has been made, it must be kept. Jephthah obtains the victory: God does his part; and the trying hour soon comes in which Jephthah must do his. But, as in battle, so in the hour of private distress, he approves himself, and triumphs, albeit with tears.
So deeply, also, does every truly humble man feel his calling as Christian and as citizen. “It is difficult to be a Christian,” says the heart, terrified at itself. And yet, for him who has been redeemed through penitence and faith, it is so easy. He only would give all, who knows that he must receive all. But the love of the soul that gives itself up, is stronger than its own strength. No true vow is made to the Lord without self-crucifixion. God’s ways are incomprehensible. Whom He loves, He chastens. We are ready to give Him everything; but when He takes, we weep. A broken heart is more pleasing to Him than sacrifice. No Passion, no Gospel.
Gerlach: The design of this history (concerning the vow) is not so much to set forth the rudeness of the age, or the dangers of rashly made vows, as rather to show how Israel was saved from its enemies, by the faith of Jephthah, at d how the service of the true God was restored under the heaviest sacrifices of the faithful.
Footnotes:
[Jdg_11:30.—It would be better, perhaps, with Dr. Cassel to omit the words “without fail.” The Hebrew infinitive before the finite verb serves to intensify the latter; but the endeavor to give its value in a translation, is very apt to result in the suggestion of thoughts or shades of thought foreign to the original. Cf. Ges. Gram. 131, 3, a.—Tr.]
[El-Belka is a modern division of the east-jordanic territory, and is bounded by Wady Zerka (the Jabbok) on the north, and by Wady Mojeb (the Arnon) on the south. It is evident, therefore, that our author regards Mizpeh-Gilead as the name of a district, not of a city. The reasoning from the identification of Ramoth-Mizpeh with es-Salt to that of Mizpeh-Gilead with el-Belka, is not so clear, but seems to be this: Since Ramoth-Mizpeh is also called Ramoth-Gilead and Ramoth in Gilead, it is to be inferred that Mizpeh, like Gilead, indicates the district in which Ramath is situated, with this difference, however, that Mizpeh is more definite, being only a division of Gilead. But Ramoth may be identified with es-Salt in the Belka; hence the ancient district Mizpeh may be compared with the modern province el-Belka.—Tr.]
For the history of the exegesis, and its characteristic points, I refer to my article “Jephthah,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, the materials of which cannot here be reproduced, but the drift of which is here, I trust, provided with fresh support. The other recent literature on the subject is indicated by Keil, who justly explains that the assumption of a spiritual sacrifice is almost imperatively demanded. The opinions of the church fathers are collected in the Commentary of Serarius. Bertheau’s decision for an actual sacrificial death, may probably be explained by the supposition that he did not view the transaction freely and independently, but only with reference to the opinions of others, a proceeding of too frequent occurrence.
Cf. Gerhard, Auserlesene griech. vasengemälde, i. 130, 166.
Which is the decisive point in the legends concerning Idomeneus, as told by Servius, and Alexander, as related by Valerius Maximus (vii. 3; cf. my article in Herzog, vi. 472). This also is the turning point in a series of later, especially German, popular tales, in which the “first” is not so much freely promised to, as demanded by, the demon power who, for that price, has supported or delivered the person from whom the sacrifice is required. This “first” is usually the person most beloved by him who, to his great regret, has made the promise (cf. Müllenhoff, Sagen, pp. 384, 386, 395; Sommer, Sagen, pp. 87, 131). Sometimes, the “first human being” is successfully rescued from the devil—for it is he who appears in Christian legends—by the substitution of an animal. In one of Müllenhoff’s legends (p. 162, Anmerk.) a dog becomes the “first;” in Grimm’s Mythologie, p. 973 (cf. Wolf, Deutsche Sagen, p. 417, etc.), it is a goat. No doubt, a mistaken exposition of Jephthah’s vow, had its influence here. It is, therefore, the more important to insist that in the vow nothing is said of a first one who may meet the returning conqueror.
That it is just Jephthah, and he as the hero of law and faith, who presents this contrast with Ammon and human sacrifices, those expositors have overlooked, who, in spite of the God who was with him, describe, this very Jephhah as a barbarous transgressor of law.
Our exposition puts no new and strained interpretations on ðֶãֶø and òåֹìָä , but leaves them to be under stood in their general and well known Biblical acceptation— òåֹìָä being here the symbol of a spiritual truth, while yet it ignores animal sacrifices as little as does æֶáַç , see Ps. 51:21 (Psa_51:19).