Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: June 19
Today is: Thursday, April 25th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of June: (Show All Months)
Judges 10
The terms of this vow seem to us altogether such as to show the extremely limited nature of the knowledge which Jephthah possessed as to the law of Moses, and especially of its regulations concerning vows. Throughout, it savors far more of the superstition which might be expected from the long night of sin and sorrow through which Israel had passed, than of the correct religious faith which one who had been nourished with marrow of the covenant, might have been expected to entertain. The idea of bargaining with God in this manner for his assistance, is offensive to the rightly nurtured mind, and has a heathenish savor—such things being exceedingly common under every pagan system. Almost every important undertaking was accompanied among them with similar vows of offerings and sacrifices to some god, to bribe him, as it were, to give the undertaking the advantage of his assistance. An instance of this has been given in page 201. Upon the whole, one who has closely studied the character of the times, and the circumstances of the man, will readily perceive that Jephthah might think to propitiate Jehovah, even to the extent of a human sacrifice, by such kind of offering as was sometimes made, in great emergencies, by the heathen. Among the doomed nations of Canaan, as well as among the surviving nations around, human sacrifices were far from uncommon, it being held that what was most valuable and precious in the sight of man—that which was dearest to him—that which it would cost him most to part with—was the most fitting expression of his zeal for the gods—the fullest possible manifestation of his devotion and gratitude. No doubt the law declared such sacrifices to be abominable to God; but it is easy to conceive that such a man as Jephthah, living in the time he did, was far better acquainted with the leading facts of the history of his people, than with the details of the law. Of the former he evinces much knowledge in his answer to the remonstrance of the Ammonites. Men of the class of minds and capacities which his life evinces, readily possess themselves of broad facts, but heed little the details of such laws as are not embodied in tangible institutions. In that age, the law would have been little taught or studied, and although the tabernacle institutions may have remained in outward operation at Shiloh, we cannot suppose that what was neglected on the west side of the Jordan was not far more neglected on the east. Few of the people resident there had probably ever been at the tabernacle on they early festivals, or had access to such instructions as the priests and Levites might have been able to afford, Knowledge of these matters, by private intercourse with those who knew the law, could not have gone far in that corrupt generation; and in such a time, not many, probably, beyond the Jordan, had even heard the law read, once in seven years, at the feast of tabernacles. It may, therefore, be quite possible that Jephthah was wholly ignorant that such sacrifices were unlawful, while his recollection of facts may have helped him to a very erroneous conclusion in the matter from Abraham’s intended sacrifice of Isaac by Divine command.
We say this because we cannot resist the conviction that Jephthah, when he uttered his vow, did contemplate the possibility that the sacrifice which he would be called to offer, according to his vow, might be the sacrifice of a human life. Look at the terms of his oath. What could he suppose would come out of the doors of his house for the purpose of meeting him, but a human being? He did not keep sheep or oxen in his house; nor do they come forth to meet their returning owners. A dog might do so; but the Israelites did not keep dogs in their houses. In his house he had many human beings, servants, slaves, followers—no relations, for he was the son of a harlot, and his father’s connections had cast him off. Yet, there was one, a daughter—the only child he had; and although he may have contemplated the mere possibility that she might be the one to meet him, he could not nullify the supposed virtue of his vow, by formally excepting from its operation the one who was dearest of all to him.
Yet, when the moment of trial came, when, as he drew nigh his house, his daughter appeared, leading the damsels, who with timbrels and with dances, greeted the triumphant return of her now glorious father, the hero shrunk beneath the blow. “Alas, my daughter,” he cried, “thou hast brought me very low, for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.” We cannot but sympathize in his grief, while we deplore his ignorance. The very words he uses now, show, in a degree, that he had contemplated from the first the possibility of such a sacrifice, and did not know it to be unlawful; for, had the vow, as uttered, involved a result forbidden by God, and therefore sinful, so far from being obliged to perform his vow—so far from being restrained from going back, he would, notwithstanding his vow, have been obliged not to perform it. The original sin, of making such a vow, which might lead to unlawful consequences, was great; but that sin would not be diminished, but aggravated, by his performing the unlawful act. That his daughter did not know such a vow had been made, is another proof that we have rightly interpreted its tenor. To have made it known to her, or to any of his household, would have been to make it a mockery, with the possibility of a human sacrifice in view: but had an animal sacrifice only been in his thoughts, there is no reason why he should not have made it known; indeed there was every reason why he should do so, for these things were usually declared openly for the encouragement of the troops.
When, therefore, we are told that “Jephthah did with his daughter according to his vow,” we, in full recollection of all the ingenious explanations which have been produced, and which we regret that our space does not allow us to examine, see no alternative but to conclude, although we would gladly avail ourselves of any fair ground of escape from that conclusion, that he offered her up in sacrifice. This is the sense conveyed by the ancient versions, and by the text of our own. It is also the statement of Josephus, though he is prone to extenuate or suppress that which he holds to be not for the honor of his nation; while, at the same time, he considers it a deplorably mistaken and unlawful act. We may sympathize in the wish of vindicating the memory of one of the heroes of Scripture history from such gross ignorance, resulting in so foul a crime; but still we feel bound to take the narrative in its plain and simple meaning, which is that taken at the first view, and apart from all note and comment, by any reader of the original narrative, as well as by that very correct translation of it which our own version supplies. The considerations at which we have hinted may tend to diminish our surprise, but not our grief, by showing how the very mistaken view under which Jephthah acted, is not at all incredible in the age in which he lived, and under the circumstances in which he was placed. Let not the reader, however, take up the absurd fancy of the painters, that this deed was perpetrated by the high-priest at the altar of God. The high-priest would have known his duty better. All our surprise is, that whatever may have been the alienation between the tribes on the opposite sides of the Jordan, he did not send, or go, to prevent, by such little authority as he had left, so dreadful a consummation. We have, however, a reason for this also. The Ephraimites, in whose tribe the tabernacle was, had actually at this time come to blows with Jephthah, through the offence they had, as in the time of Gideon, conceived, at not having been summoned to take part in the war with Ammon. This would tend to cut off all communication between the opposite sides of the river, for the time; and while the high-priest would have been less likely to hear of the matter, he would be the less able, if he had heard of it, to interfere with any advantage. The awful sacrifice was doubtless made on some one of the old altars, or, perhaps, on a new one, in Gilead. But we can pursue the consequences of the case no further, being most glad to draw a veil over the possible circumstances of the last scene, when, perhaps, the father’s own hand struck down the life that was dearer to him than his own.