Jephthah

VIEW:385 DATA:01-04-2020

JEPHTHAH.—Spoken of simply as ‘the Gileadite,’ and as being a ‘mighty man of valour.’ In Jdg_11:1 it is said that he was ‘the son of a harlot,’ for which cause he was driven out from his home in Gilead by his brethren. Hereupon he gathers a band of followers, and leads the life of a freebooter in the land of Tob. Some time after this, Gilead is threatened with an attack by the Ammonites, and Jephthah is besought to return to his country in order to defend it; he promises to lead his countrymen against the Ammonites on condition of his being made chief (king?) if he returns victorious. Not only is this agreed to, but he is forthwith made head of his people (Jdg_11:4-11).
In the long passage which follows, Jdg_11:12-28, Israel’s claim to possess Gilead is urged by messengers who are sent by Jephthah to the Ammonite king; the passage, however, is concerned mostly with the Moabites (cf. Num_20:1-29; Num_21:1-35), and is clearly out of place here.
The ‘spirit of the Lord’ comes upon Jephthah, and he marches out to attack the Ammonites. On his way he makes a vow that if he returns from the battle victorious, he will offer up, as a thanksgiving to Jahweh, whoever comes out of his house to welcome him. He defeats the Ammonites, and, on his return, his daughter, an only child, comes out to meet him. The father beholds his child, according to our present text, with horror and grief, but cannot go back upon his word. The daughter begs for two months’ respite, in order to go into the mountains to ‘bewail her virginity.’ At the end of this period she returns, and Jephthah fulfils his vow (an archæological note is here appended, Jdg_11:40, concerning which see below). There follows then an episode which recalls Jdg_8:1-3; the Ephraimites resent not having been called by Jephthah to fight against the Ammonites, just as they resented not being called by Gideon to fight against the Midianites; in the present case, however, the matter is not settled amicably; a battle follows, in which Jephthah is again victorious; the Ephraimites flee, but are intercepted at the fords of Jordan, and, being recognized by their inability to pronounce the ‘sh’ in the word Shibboleth, are slain. Jephthah, after continuing his leadership for six years, dies, and is buried in Gilead, but the precise locality is not indicated.
Whether the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter be historical or not, its mention is of considerable interest, inasmuch as it bears witness to the prevalence among the early Israelites of practices which were widely recognized among ancient peoples as belonging to the essentials of religion. In the story before us we obviously must not expect to see the original form; it is a compilation from more than one source, and has been worked over in the interests of later religious conceptions; that two totally distinct practices have, therefore, got mixed up together need cause no surprise. The first of these practices was the sacrifice of a human being at times of special stress (the sacrifice of the firstborn belongs to a different category); the second is that known as the ‘Weeping for Tammuz.’ Among early peoples there were certain rites which represented the death and resurrection of vegetation, in connexion with which various myths arose. In their original form (in which human sacrifice played a part) these rites were intended, and believed, to be the means of assisting Nature to bring forth the fruits of the earth. Among such rites was that known as ‘the Weeping for Tammuz’ (= Adonis), cf. Eze_8:14; the rite was based on the myth that Tammuz, a beautiful youth, was killed by a boar; Tammuz was the personification of the principle of vegetation, and represented the Summer, while the boar represented the Winter. This death of Tammuz was celebrated annually with bitter wailing, chiefly by women (Jdg_11:40); often (though not always, for the rite differed in different localities) his resurrection was celebrated the next day, thus ensuring by means of imitative magic the re-appearance of fresh vegetation in its time.
The ‘bewailing of virginity’ (Jdg_11:37), and the note, ‘she had not known a man’ (Jdg_11:39), are inserted to lay stress on the fact that if Jephthah’s daughter had had a husband, or had been a mother, her father would have had no power over her; since, in the one case, her husband would have been her possessor, and in the other, she could have claimed protection from the father of the child, whether the latter were alive or not.
W. O. E.Oesterley.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Son of Gilead by an harlot, the father bearing the same name as the famous Gilead his ancestor. Gilead's sons by his wife drove Jephthah out from share of the father's inheritance as being "son of a strange woman," just as Ishmael and Keturah's sons were sent away by Abraham, so as not to inherit with Isaac (Gen_21:10, etc.; Gen_25:6). Jephthah went to the land of Tob, N.E. of Persea, between Syria and Ammon (2Sa_10:6-8, Ish Tob, "man of Tob"), and there gathered about him a band of loose (1Sa_22:2) men, whom be led in marauding Bedouin-like expeditions. Meantime, through Jehovah's anger at Israel's apostasy to Baalim, Ashtaroth, the gods of Ammon, etc, he sold them (compare Rom_7:14, gave them up to the wages that their sin had earned) into the hands of those very people whose gods they chose (Jdg_10:7; Jdg_10:17-18), the instrument of their sin being made the instrument of their punishment (Pro_1:31; Jer_2:19).
Then the princes ("elders") of Gilead with Israel encamped at Mizpeh (Jdg_10:17-18; Jdg_11:5-11), having resolved to make "head" (civil) and "captain" (military) over all Israelite Gilead (the Israelites in Persea) whatever warrior they could find able to lead them against Ammon, applied to Jephthah in Tob. Jephthah, whose temper seems to have been resentful (compare Jdg_11:12), upbraided them with having hated and expelled him out of his father's house; yet it was not just to charge them all with what was the wrong of his brethren alone, except in so far as they connived at and allowed his brethren's act. Passion is unreasoning. They did not reason with him the matter, but acknowledged the wrong done him and said, "therefore (to make amends for this wrong) we turn again to thee now, and if thou go with us and fight against Ammon thou shalt be our head, namely over all Gilead."
Jephthah accepted the terms, and "uttered all his words (repeated the conditions and obligations under which he accepted the headship) before Jehovah (as in His presence; not that the ark or any altar of Jehovah was there; simply Jephthah confirmed his engagement by an oath as before Jehovah) in Mizpeh," where the people were met in assembly, Ramoth Mizpeh in Gilead, now Salt. Jephthah before appealing to the sword sent remonstrances to the Ammonite king respecting his invasion of Israel. The marked agreement of Jephthah's appeal with the Pentateuch account proves his having that record before him; compare Jdg_11:17; Jdg_11:19-22 agreeing almost verbatim with Num_20:1; Num_21:21-25. He adds from independent sources (such as the national lays commemorating Israel's victories, quoted by Moses Num_21:14; Num_21:17; Num_21:27) that Israel begged from the king of Moab leave to go through his land (Num_21:17).
The Pentateuch omitted this as having no direct bearing on Israel's further course. The Ammonite king replied that what he claimed was that Israel should restore his land between the Arnon, Jabbok, and Jordan. This claim was so far true that Israel had taken all the Amorite Sihon's land (because of his wanton assault in answer to Israel's peaceable request for leave to pass through unto "his place," i.e. to Israel's appointed possession), including a portion formerly belonging to Moab and Ammon, but wrested from them by Sihon (Num_21:26; Num_21:28-29); for Jos_13:25-26 shows that Sihon's conquests must have included, besides the Moabite land mentioned in the Pentateuch, half the Ammonite land E. of Moab and Gilead and W. of the upper Jabbok. But Israel, according to God's prohibition, had not meddled with Edom, Moab, or Ammon (Deu_2:5; Deu_2:9; Deu_2:19), i.e. with the land which they possessed in Moses' time.
What was no longer Ammon's, having been taken from them by Sihon, the prohibition did not debar Israel from. Israel, as Jephthah rejoindered, went round Edom add Moab, along the eastern boundary by Ije Abarim (Num_21:11-13), on the upper Arnon, the boundary between Moab and the Amorites. (See IJE ABARIM.) Jephthah reasons, Jehovah Elohim of Israel has dispossessed the Amorites, and transferred their land to Israel; Ammon therefore has no claim. Ammon can only claim what his god Chemosh gives him to possess; so Israel is entitled to all that land which Jehovah gives, having dispossessed the previous owners. Further, Jephthah reasons, Balak did not strive against Israel for the once Moabite land taken by the Amorites then transferred to Israel; he bribed Balaam indeed to curse them, but never fought against them. Moreover, it was too late now, after Israel's prescriptive right was recognized for 300 years, for Ammon to put forward such a claim. "I (says Jephthah, representing Israel) have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me."
Ammon having rejected his remonstrances, Jephthah gathered his army out of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (northern Gilead and Bashan), and went to (translated Jdg_11:29 "passed over to") Mizpeh Gilead, the encampment and rendezvous of Israel (Jdg_10:17), and thence to Ammon. He smote them from Aroer to Minnith, 20 cities, "with a very great slaughter," so that Ammon was completely subdued. Jephthah had vowed, in the event of Jehovah giving him victory, to "offer as a burnt offering whatsoever (rather whosoever) should come forth from the doors of his house to meet him"; certainly not a beast or sheep, for it is human beings not brutes that come forth from a general's doors to meet and congratulate him on his victory. Jephthah intended a hard vow, which the sacrifice of one animal would not be. He left it to Providence to choose what human being should first come forth to meet him.
"In his eagerness to smite the foe and thank God for it Jephthah could not think of any particular object to name, great enough to dedicate. He shrank from measuring what was dearest to God, and left this for Him to decide" (Cassel in Herzog Encyclopedia). He hoped (if he thought of his daughter at the time) that Jehovah would not require this hardest of sacrifices. She was his only child; so on her coming out to meet him with timbrels and dances (Exo_15:20) Jephthah rent his clothes, and exclaimed: "Thou hast brought me very low, for I have opened my mouth (vowing) unto the Lord, and I cannot go back" (Num_30:2-3; Ecc_5:2-5; Psa_15:4 end, Psa_66:14). Her filial obedience, patriotic devotion, and self sacrificing piety shine brightly in her reply: "My father (compare Isaac's reverent submission, Gen_22:6-7; Gen_22:10), do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth, forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of ... Ammon."
She only begged two months to bewail with her fellows her virginity, amidst the surrounding valleys and mountains (margin 37). Afterward he did with her according to his vow, namely, doomed her forever to "virginity," as her lamentation on ibis account proves, as also what follows, "she knew no man." So it became "a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went yearly to praise (timah; Jdg_5:11, not 'to lament') the daughter of Jephthah ... four days in a year." Jephthah contemplated evidently a human sacrifice. A literal human sacrifice was forbidden as an abomination before Jehovah (Lev_18:21; Lev_20:2-5). It was unknown until introduced by the godless Ahaz and Manasseh. Lev_27:28-29 is not in point, for it refers to a forced devoting of the wicked to God's glory in their destruction; God alone could so devote any. Nor was Jephthah otherwise impetuous and hasty; he had not recourse to the sword until negotiation with Ammon proved of no avail.
His vow was made, not in the heat of battle without weighing his words, but before he set out. Jephthah, though a freebooter (the godly David was one too), was one who looked to Jehovah as the only Giver of victory, and uttered all his words of engagement with the princes of Gilead "before Jehovah." He showed in his message to Ammon his knowledge of the Pentateuch, therefore he must have known that a human sacrifice was against the spirit of the worship of Jehovah. "The Spirit of Jehovah came upon Jephthah" moreover, which shows he was no Moloch worshipper. Above all Jephthah is made an instance of FAITH for our imitation, in Heb_11:32. Therefore the sense in which he fulfilled his vow was "she knew no man," words adverse to the notion of a sacrificial death. He dedicated her life to Jehovah as a spiritual "burnt offering" in a lifelong "virginity." Her willingness to sacrifice herself and her natural aspirations as a virgin, who as the conqueror's daughter might have held the highest place among Israel's matrons, to become like a Gibeonite menial of the sanctuary (Jos_9:23), as the price of her country's deliverance, is what the virgins used yearly to come to celebrate in praises.
They would never have come to praise a human sacrifice; Scripture would never have recorded without censure an anti-theocratic abomination. Moreover literal burnt offerings could only be offered at the altar of the tabernacle. This spiritual burnt offering answers somewhat to Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac (Heb_11:17) in will though not in deed, and to the Israelites redeeming their firstborn belonging to Jehovah instead of sacrificing them (Exo_13:1-13; Num_18:15-16), and to Aaron's offering the Levites to the Lord for an offering for Israel (Num_8:10-16), and redeeming vowed persons at an estimation (1Sa_1:11-20; 1Sa_1:22; 1Sa_1:28; 1Sa_2:20; Lev_27:1, etc.). After the victory was won over Ammon, the tribe of Ephraim, ever jealous of any rival and claiming the supremacy, threatened Jephthah.
"Wherefore passedst thou over to fight against ... Ammon, and didst not call us to go with thee? We will burn thine house upon thee with fire." Jephthah did not show Gideon's magnanimity in dealing with their perversity. He did not give the "soft answer" that "turneth away wrath," but let their "grievous words stir up strife" (Pro_15:1). Herein Gideon was superior, for "he that is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city" (
Pro_16:32). (For "Ephraim gathered ... and went northward." Keil translated it "went to Zaphon, the city of Gad in the Jordan valley": Jos_13:27; Jdg_12:1). Jephthah however answered truly that he had "called them" but they had refused, doubtless because the Gileadites had made Jephthah their commander without consulting Ephraim. They fared as they richly deserved.
Besides threats of destroying Jephthah they insultingly had called the Gileadites whom Jephthah led "fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and Manassites," i.e. a mob of runaway Ephraimites in the midst of the two noblest tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh (compare 1Sa_25:10). They who began the strife paid the bitter penalty (Pro_17:14). "Shibboleth," a stream, was the test whereby the Gileadites detected the fugitive Ephraimites when trying to cross the Jordan fords, in the hands of their conquerors; 42,000 were slain who betrayed their birth by saying Sibboleth (compare on the Galilean dialect Mat_26:73; Luk_22:59; Act_2:7). They who first flung the taunt "fugitives" perished as fugitives at the hands of those they taunted (Pro_26:17). Jephthah judged Israel E. of the Jordan six years, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Jeph'thah. (whom God sets free). A judge about B.C. 1143-1137. His history is contained in Jdg_11:1; Jdg_12:8. He was a Gileadite, the son of Gilead and a concubine. Driven by the legitimate sons from his father's inheritance, he went to Tob and became the head of a company of freebooters , in a debatable land , probably , belonging to Ammon. 2Sa_10:6. (This land was east of Jordan and southeast of Gilead, and bordered on the desert of Arabia. ? Editor).
His fame as a bold and successful captain was carried back to his native Gilead; and when the time was ripe for throwing off the yoke of Ammon, Jephthah consented to become the captain of the Gileadite bands, on the condition, solemnly ratified before the Lord in Mizpeh, that in the event of his success against Ammon, he should still remain as their acknowledged head. Vowing his vow unto God, Jdg_11:31, that he would offer up as a burn offering , whatsoever should come out to meet him if successful, he went forth to battle.
The Ammonites were routed with great slaughter; but as the conqueror returned to Mizpeh, there came out to meet him his daughter, his only child, with timbrels and dancing. The father is heart-stricken; but the maiden asks only for a respite of two months , in which to prepare for death. When that time was ended, she returned to her father, who "did with her according to his vow."
The tribe of Ephraim challenged Jephthah's right to go to war as he had done, without their concurrence, against Ammon. He first defeated them, then intercepted the fugitives at the fords of Jordan, and there put forty-two thousand men to the sword. He judged Israel six years, and died.
It is generally conjectured that his jurisdiction was limited to the TransJordanic region. That the daughter of Jephthah was really offered up to God in sacrifice is a conclusion which it seems impossible to avoid. (But there is no word of approval, as if such a sacrifice was acceptable to God. Josephus well says that "the sacrifice was neither sanctioned by the Mosaic ritual nor acceptable to God." The vow and the fulfillment were the mistaken conceptions of a rude chieftain, not acts pleasing to God. ? Editor).
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

one of the judges of Israel, was the son of Gilead by a concubine, Jdg_11:1-2. 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, Jdg_11:3. 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, Jdg_11:4-11.
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, Jdg_11:17; Heb_11:32; 1Sa_11:6; Num_24:2. 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,” Jdg_11:31. 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, Jdg_11:34-39. 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 Michaelis, 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,”
Jdg_11:30-31. 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_27:1-8. 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_27:28. 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, 1Sa_1:11; the cattle, if clean, such as oxen, sheep, goats, turtle doves, or pigeon's, 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, Jdg_11:36-37. 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_31:35-40. 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, Jdg_11:34-40. 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,” Lev_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.
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, 1Sa_15:23 : 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_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 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_21:1-3. And the vow was accomplished,
Jdg_1:17.
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, 1Sa_14:24-45. 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,” Leviticus
Jdg_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 magistrates, Deu_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: “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, Jdg_11:40. 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.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

Born of a prostitute and cast out by his family, Jephthah grew up in a tough and bitter world (Jdg_11:13). When the people of his tribe decided to overthrow the Ammonites (who had oppressed them for eighteen years; Jdg_10:7-8; Jdg_10:17-18), Jephthah was the man they asked to be their leader. Jephthah accepted only after the tribal elders had agreed to his conditions, which were that after he had defeated the enemy, he would remain their leader and rule them as a civil governor (Jdg_11:4-10).
Jephthah had sufficient faith to believe that God would give Israel victory (Heb_11:32-34). He was, however, only a recently reformed bandit, and he had little knowledge of the character of God or the law of God. By vowing, and then offering, his daughter as a human sacrifice in return for God’s help towards victory, he was following the religion of the false gods whom Israel worshipped (Jdg_11:29-40; cf. 2Ki_3:27). He was certainly not following the teachings of Yahweh (cf. Lev_18:21; Deu_12:31).
When Jephthah attacked the enemy, he did not invite soldiers from the tribe of Ephraim to join in the main battle. The Ephraimites were offended and threatened him with violence. Jephthah responded in typically uncompromising fashion. He launched a furious attack and slaughtered the Ephraimites in thousands (Jdg_12:1-6). He then settled down to the civilian rule that he had wanted, but after only six years rule he died (Jdg_12:7).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

jef?tha (יפתּח, yiphtāḥ, ?opened,? or ?opener,? probably signifying ?Yahweh will open?; Ἰεφθάε, Iephtháe; used as the name of a place, as in Jos_15:43; Jos_19:14; of a man, Jdg 10:6 through 12:7): Ninth judge of the Israelites. His antecedents are obscure. Assuming Gilead to be the actual name of his father, his mother was a harlot. He was driven from home on account of his illegitimacy, and went to the land of Tobit in Eastern Syria (Jdg_11:2, Jdg_11:3). Here he and his followers lived the life of freebooters.
The Israelites beyond the Jordan being in danger of an invasion by the Ammonites, Jephthah was invited by the elders of Gilead to be their leader (Jdg_11:5, Jdg_11:6). Remembering how they had expelled him from their territory and his heritage, Jephthah demanded of them that in the event of success in the struggle with the Ammonites, he was to be continued as leader. This condition being accepted he returned to Gilead (Jdg_11:7-11). The account of the diplomacy used by Jephthah to prevent the Ammonites from invading Gilead is possibly an interpolation, and is thought by many interpreters to be a compilation from Nu 20 through 21. It is of great interest, however, not only because of the fairness of the argument used (Jdg 11:12-28), but also by virtue of the fact that it contains a history of the journey of the Israelites from Lower Egypt to the banks of the Jordan. This history is distinguished from that of the Pentateuch chiefly by the things omitted. If diplomacy was tried, it failed to dissuade the Ammonites from seeking to invade Israel. Jephthah prepared for battle, but before taking the field paused at Mizpeh of Gilead, and registered a vow that if he were successful in battle, he would offer as a burnt offering to Yahweh whatsoever should first come from his doors to greet him upon his return (Jdg_11:29-31). The battle is fought, Jephthah is the victor, and now his vow returns to him with anguish and sorrow. Returning to his home, the first to greet him is his daughter and only child. The father's sorrow and the courage of the daughter are the only bright lights on this sordid, cruel conception of God and of the nature of sacrifice. That the sacrifice was made seems certain from the narrative, although some critics choose to substitute for the actual death of the maiden the setting the girl apart for a life of perpetual virginity. The Israelite laws concerning sacrifices and the language used in Jdg_11:39 are the chief arguments for the latter interpretation. The entire narrative, however, will hardly bear this construction (Jdg_11:34-40).
Jephthah was judge in Israel for 6 years, but appears only once more in the Scripture narrative. The men of Ephraim, offended because they had had no share in the victory over the Ammonites, made war upon Gilead, but were put to rout by the forces under Jephthah (Jdg_12:1-6).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Jeph?thah (opener), ninth judge of Israel, of the tribe of Manasseh. He was the son of a person named Gilead by a concubine. After the death of his father he was expelled from his home by the envy of his brothers, who refused him any share of the heritage, and he withdrew to the land of Tob, beyond the frontier of the Hebrew territories. It is clear that he had before this distinguished himself by his daring character and skill in arms; for no sooner was his withdrawal known than a great number of men of desperate fortunes repaired to him, and he became their chief. His position was now very similar to that of David when he withdrew from the court of Saul. To maintain the people who had thus linked their fortunes with his, there was no other resource than that sort of brigandage which is accounted honorable in the East, so long as it is exercised against public or private enemies, and is not marked by needless cruelty or outrage.
Jephthah led this kind of life for some years during which his dashing exploits and successful enterprises procured him a higher military reputation than any other man of his time enjoyed.
After the death of Jair the Israelites gradually fell into their favorite idolatries, and were punished by subjection to the Philistines on the west of the Jordan, and to the Ammonites on the east of that river. The oppression which they sustained for eighteen years became at length so heavy that they recovered their senses and returned to the God of their fathers with humiliation and tears; and He was appeased, and promised them deliverance from their affliction (B.C. 1143).
The tribes beyond the Jordan having resolved to oppose the Ammonites, Jephthah seems to occur to everyone as the most fitting leader. A deputation was accordingly sent to invite him to take the command. After some demur, on account of the treatment he had formerly received, he consented. The rude hero commenced his operations with a degree of diplomatic consideration and dignity for which we are not prepared. The Ammonites being assembled in force for one of those ravaging incursions by which they had repeatedly desolated the land, he sent to their camp a formal complaint of the invasion, and a demand of the ground of their proceeding. Their answer was, that the land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan was theirs. It had originally belonged to them, from whom it had been taken by the Amorites, who had been dispossessed by the Israelites: and on this ground they claimed the restitution of these lands. Jephthah's reply laid down the just principle which has been followed out in the practice of civilized nations, and is maintained by all the great writers on the law of nations. The land belonged to the Israelites by right of conquest from the actual possessors; and they could not be expected to recognize any antecedent claim of former possessors, for whom they had not acted, who had rendered them no assistance, and who had themselves displayed hostility against the Israelites. But the Ammonites re-asserted their former views, and on this issue they took the field.
When Jephthah set forth against the Ammonites he solemnly vowed to the Lord, 'If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.' He was victorious. The Ammonites sustained a terrible overthrow. He did return in peace to his house in Mizpeh. As he drew nigh his house, the one that came forth to meet him was his own daughter, his only child, in whom his heart was bound up. She, with her fair companions, came to greet the triumphant hero 'with timbrels and with dances.' But he no sooner saw her than he rent his robes, and cried, 'Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low;? for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back.' Nor did she ask it. She replied, 'My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which has proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, the children of Ammon.' But after a pause she added, 'Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.' Her father of course assented; and when the time expired she returned, and, we are told, 'he did with her according to his vow.' It is then added that it became 'a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite three days in the year.'
The victory over the Ammonites was followed by a quarrel with the proud and powerful Ephraimites on the west of the Jordan. This tribe was displeased at having had no share in the glory of the recent victory, and a large body of men belonging to it, who had crossed the river to share in the action, used very high and threatening language when they found their services were not required. Jephthah, finding his remonstrances had no effect, re-assembled some of his disbanded troops and gave the Ephraimites battle, when they were defeated with much loss. The victors seized the fords of the Jordan, and when any one came to pass over, they made him pronounce the word Shibboleth [an ear of corn], but if he could not give the aspiration, and pronounced the word as Sibboleth, they knew him for an Ephraimite, and slew him on the spot.
Jephthah judged Israel six years, during which we have reason to conclude that the exercise of his authority was almost if not altogether confined to the country east of the Jordan.
Volumes have been written on the subject of 'Jephthah's rash vow;' the question being whether, in doing to his daughter 'according to his vow,' he really did offer her in sacrifice or not. The negative has been stoutly maintained by many able pens, from a natural anxiety to clear the character of one of the heroes in Israel from so dark a stain. But the more the plain rules of common sense have been exercised in our view of biblical transactions, and the better we have succeeded in realizing a distinct idea of the times in which Jephthah lived and of the position which he occupied, the less reluctance there has been to admit the interpretation which the first view of the passage suggests to every reader, which is, that he really did offer her in sacrifice. The explanation which denies this maintains that she was rather doomed to perpetual celibacy; but to live unmarried was required by no law, custom, or devotement among the Jews: no one had a right to impose so odious a condition on another, nor is any such condition implied or expressed in the vow which Jephthah uttered. The Jewish commentators themselves generally admit that Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter; and even go so far as to allege that the change in the pontifical dynasty from the house of Eleazar to that of Ithamar was caused by the high-priest of the time having suffered this transaction to take place.
It is very true that human sacrifices were forbidden by the law. But in the rude and unsettled age in which the judges lived, when the Israelites had adopted a vast number of erroneous notions and practices from their heathen neighbors, many things were done, even by good men, which the law forbade quite as positively as human sacrifice.
Again, Jephthah vows that whatsoever came forth from the door of his house to meet him 'shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,' which, in fact, was the regular way of making a thing wholly the Lord's. Afterwards we are told that 'he did with her according to his vow,' that is, according to the plain meaning of plain words, offered her for a burnt-offering. Then follows the intimation that the daughters of Israel lamented her four days every year. People lament the dead, not the living. The whole story is consistent and intelligible, while the sacrifice is understood to have actually taken place; but becomes perplexed and difficult as soon as we begin to turn aside from this obvious meaning in search of recondite explanations.
Professor Bush, in his elaborate note on the text, maintains with us that a human sacrifice was all along contemplated. But he suggests that during the two months Jephthah might have obtained better information respecting the nature of vows, by which he would have learned that his daughter could not be legally offered, but might be redeemed at a valuation (Lev_27:2-12). This is possible, and is much more likely than the popular alternative of perpetual celibacy; but we have serious doubts whether even this meets the conclusion that 'he did with her according to his vow.' Besides, in this case, where was the ground for the annual 'lamentations' of the daughters of Israel, or even for the 'celebrations' which some understand the word to mean?
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Jephthah
(Heb. Yiphtach', יַפְתָּח, opened or opener), the name of a man and also of a place. SEE JIPHTHAH-EL.
1. (Sept. Ι᾿εφθά v.r. Ι᾿εφθαέ and Ι᾿εφθάε, Josephus Ι᾿εφθής, Vulg. Jephte, N.T. Ι᾿εφθάε, “Jephthaë”), the ninth judge of the Israelites for a period of six years, B.C. 1256-1250. He belonged to the tribe of Manasseh east, and was the son of a person named Gilead by a concubine, or perhaps harlot. After the death of his father he was expelled from his home by the envy of his brothers, who, taunting him with illegitimacy, refused him any share of the heritage, and he withdrew to the land of Tob, beyond the frontier of the Hebrew territories. It is clear that he had before this distinguished himself by his daring character and skill in arms; for no sooner was his withdrawal known than a great number of men of desperate fortunes repaired to him and he became their chief. His position was now very similar to that of David when he withdrew from the court of Saul. To maintain the people who had thus linked their fortunes with his, there was no other resource than that sort of brigandage, which is accounted honorable in the East, so long as it is exercised against public or private enemies and is not marked by needless cruelty or outrage. So Jephthah confined his aggressions to the borders of the small neighboring nations, who were in some sort regarded as the natural enemies of Israel, even when there was no actual war between them (Jdg_11:1-3).
The tribes beyond the Jordan having resolved to oppose the Ammonites, to whom the Israelites had fallen under subjection after the death of Jair, in consequence of relapsing into idolatry, Jephthah seems to have occurred to every one as the most fitting leader. A deputation was accordingly sent to invite him to take the command. After some demur, on account of the treatment he had formerly received, he consented to become their captain on the condition — solemnly ratified before the Lord in Mizpeh — that, in the event of his success against Ammon, he should still remain as their acknowledged head. The rude hero commenced his operations with a degree of diplomatic consideration and dignity for which we are not prepared. The Ammonites being assembled in force for one of those ravaging incursions by which they had repeatedly desolated the land, he sent to their camp a formal complaint of the invasion and a demand of the ground of their proceeding. 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; and, in this case, Jephthah demanded what cause the Ammonites alleged to justify their aggressive operations. Their answer was, that the land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan was theirs. It had originally belonged to them, from whom it had been taken by the Amorites, who had been dispossessed by the Israelites, and on this ground they claimed the restitution of these lands. Jephthah's reply laid down the just principle which has been followed out in the practice of civilized nations and is maintained by all the great writers on the law of nations. The land belonged to the Israelites by right of conquest from the actual possessors, and they could not be expected to recognize any antecedent claim of former possessors, for whom they had not acted, who had rendered them no assistance, and who had themselves displayed hostility against the Israelites. It was not to be expected that they would conquer the country from the powerful kings who had it in possession, for the mere purpose of restoring it to the ancient occupants, of whom they had no favorable knowledge, and of whose previous claims they were scarcely cognizant. But the Ammonites reasserted their former views, and on this issue they took the field. Animated by a consciousness of divine aid, Jephthah hastened to meet them, defeated them in several pitched battles, followed them with great slaughter, and utterly broke their dominion over the eastern Israelites (Jdg_11:4-33). See Pagenstecher, Jephtes (Lemgo, 1746).
The victory over the Ammonites was followed by a quarrel with the proud and powerful Ephraimites on the west side of the Jordan. This tribe was displeased at having had no share in the glory of the recent victory, and a large body of men belonging to it, who had crossed the river to share in the action, used very high and threatening language when they found their services were not required. Jephthah, finding his remonstrances had no effect, reassembled some of his disbanded troops and gave the Ephraimites battle, when they were defeated with immense loss. The victors seized the fords of the Jordan, and, when anyone came to pass over, they made him pronounce the word “Shibboleth” (an ear of corn); but if he could not give the aspiration, and pronounced the word as “Sibboleth,” they knew him for an Ephraimite and slew him on the spot (Jdg_12:1-6).
The remainder of Jephthah's rule was peaceful, and, at his death, he left the country quiet to his successor Ibzan. He was buried in his native region, in one of the cities of Gilead (Jdg_12:7).
JEPHTHAH'S VOW. — When Jephthah set forth against the Ammonites, he solemnly vowed to the Lord, “If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth [i.e. first] of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” (Jdg_11:30-31). He was victorious: the Ammonites sustained a terrible overthrow. He did return in peace to his house in Mizpeh. As he drew nigh his house, the one that came forth to meet him was his own daughter, his only child, in whom his heart was bound up. She, with her fair companions, came to greet the triumphant hero “with timbrels and with dances.” But he no sooner saw her than he rent his robes and cried, “Alas! my daughter, thou hast brought me very low... for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back.” Nor did she ask it. She replied, “My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which has proceeded out of thy mouth, forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, the children of Ammon.” But, after a pause, she added, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.” Her father, of course, assented, and when the time expired she returned, and, we are told, “he did with her according to his vow.” It is then added that it became “a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite three days in the year” (Jdg_11:34-40).
Volumes have been written on the subject of “Jephthah's rash vow,” the question being whether, in doing to his daughter “according to his vow,” he really did offer her in sacrifice, or whether she was merely doomed to perpetual celibacy.
That the daughter of Jephthah was really offered up to God in sacrifice — slain by the hand of her father and then burned — is a horrible conclusion, but one which it seems impossible to avoid. This was understood to be the meaning of the text by Jonathan the paraphrast, and Rashi, by Josephus (Ant. 5, 7, 10), and by perhaps all the early Christian fathers, as Origen (in Joannem, tom. 6, cap. 36), Chrysostom (Hom. ad pop. Antiochus, 14, 3; Opp. 2, 145), Theodoret (Quoestiones in Judices, 20), Jerome (Ep. ad Jul. 118; Opp. 1, 791, etc.), Augustine (Quoestiones in Jud. 8, 49; Opp. 3, 1, 610); so also in the Talmud (Tanchuma to Bechu-Kothai, p. 171) and Midrash (R. 1, § 71), in both of which great astonishment is expressed with the dealings of the high priest. For the first eleven centuries of the Christian era this was the current, perhaps the universal opinion of Jews and Christians. Yet none of them extenuates the act of Jephthah. Josephus calls it neither lawful nor pleasing to God. Jewish writers say that he ought to have referred it to the high priest, but either he failed to do so, or the high priest culpably omitted to prevent the rash act. Origen strictly confines his praise to the heroism of Jephthah's daughter. The other interpretation was suggested by Joseph Kimchi. He supposed that, instead of being sacrificed, she was shut up in a house which her father built for the purpose and that she was there visited by the daughters of Israel four days in each year as long as she lived. This interpretation has been adopted by many eminent men — as by Levi ben-Gerson and Bechai amongst the Jews, and by Drusius, Grotius, Estius, De Dieu, bishop Hall, Waterland, Dr. Hales, and others. More names of the same period, and of not less authority, might, however, be adduced on the other side. Lightfoot once thought (Erubhin, § 16) that Jephthah did not slay his daughter, but, upon more mature reflection, he came to the opposite conclusion (Harmony, etc.; Judges 11 : Works, 1, 51).
1. The advocates for the actual death of the maiden contend that to live unmarried was required by no law, custom, or devotement amongst the Jews: no one had a right to impose so odious a condition on another, nor is any such condition implied or expressed in the vow which Jephthah uttered. It is certain that human sacrifice was deemed meritorious and propitiatory by the neighboring nations, SEE SACRIFICE; and, considering the manner of life the hero had led, the recent idolatries in which the people had been plunged, and the peculiarly vague notions of the tribes beyond the Jordan, it is highly probable that he contemplated from the first a human sacrifice, as the most costly offering to God known to him (comp. the well- known story of the immolation of Iphigenia, Iliad, 9, 144 sq.). It is difficult to conceive that he could expect any other creature than a human being to come forth out of the door of his house to meet him on his return. His affliction when his daughter actually came forth is quite compatible with the idea that he had not even exempted her from the sacredness of his promise, and the depth of that affliction is scarcely reconcilable with any other alternative than the actual sacrifice. In that case, the circumstance that she “knew no man” is added as setting in a stronger light the rashness of Jephthah and the heroism of his daughter. If we look at the text, Jephthah vows that whatsoever came forth from the door of his house to meet him “shall surely be the Lord's, and [Kimchi's rendering ‘or' is a rare and harsh one] I will offer it up for a burnt offering,” which, in fact, was the regular way of making a thing wholly the Lord's. Afterwards we are told that “he did with her according to his vow,” that is, according to the plain meaning of plain words, offered her for a burnt offering. (This circumlocutory phrase, and the omission of any direct term expressive of death, are attributed to euphemistic motives.)
Then follows the intimation that the daughters of Israel lamented her four days every year. People lament the dead, not the living. The whole story is consistent and intelligible while the sacrifice is understood to have taken place, but becomes perplexed and difficult as soon as we begin to turn aside from this obvious meaning in search of recondite explanations. The Jewish commentators themselves generally admit that Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter, and even go so far as to allege that the change in the pontifical dynasty from the house of Eleazar to that of Ithamar was caused by the high priest of the time having suffered this transaction to take place. It is true, human sacrifices were forbidden by the law; but in the rude and unsettled age in which the judges lived, when the Israelites had adopted a vast number of erroneous notions and practices from their heathen neighbors (see 2Ki_3:27), many things were done, even by good men, which the law forbade quite as positively as human sacrifice. Such, for instance, was the setting up of the altar by Gideon at his native Ophrah (Jdg_8:27), in direct but undesigned opposition to one of the most stringent enactments (Deuteronomy 7) of the Mosaical code. (See Kitto's Daily Bible Illustrations, ad loc.)
2. On the other hand, it has been well replied that the text expressly, and in varied terms, alludes to the obligation of the girl to lead a life of perpetual virginity (Deuteronomy 7:37, 38, 39).
Such a state was generally considered a calamity by the Israelitish women, probably on account of the early prophecy of the incarnation (Gen_3:15). SEE BARRENNESS.
But, besides this, the celibacy of Jephthah's daughter involved the extinction of his whole house as well as dynasty, and removed from him his only child, the sole prop and solace of his declining years. For it was her duty, as the Lord's property, to dwell separately at Shiloh, in constant attendance on the service of the sanctuary (compare Luk_3:37; 1Co_7:34), far from her father, the companions of her youth, and the beloved haunts of her childhood; all this was sufficient cause for lamentation. But the idea that she was put to death by her father as a consequence of his vow shocks all the feelings of humanity, could only have horrified her as well as all other parties concerned, is inconsistent with the first principles of the Mosaic law, and was impossible from the very nature of its requisitions in several points. For instance, human sacrifices were among the abominations for which the idolatrous nations of Canaan were devoted to destruction (Deu_18:9-14); and the Israelites were expressly forbidden to act like them in sacrificing their sons and daughters by fire (Deu_12:29-31). Again, for the redemption of any person devoted to God (Exo_13:11-13), and even for the very case of Jephthah's singular vow, if understood to refer to his daughter's immolation, provision was expressly made (Lev_27:2-5), so that he might, with a safe conscience, have redeemed her from death by a small payment of money. It must be remembered, too, that by the law he could not offer any victim as a burnt sacrifice except where the Lord had chosen to place his name (Deu_16:2; Deu_16:6; Deu_16:11; Deu_16:16, compare with Lev_1:2-13; Lev_17:3-9), that is, in the tabernacle at Shiloh: moreover, none but a Levite could kill, and none but a priest could offer any victim; and the statement of the Chaldee paraphrast (ad loc.) that the sacrifice took place through a neglect to consult Phinehas, the high priest, besides involving an anachronism, is utterly at variance with all the known conditions of the case. Moreover, none but a male victim could be presented in sacrifice in any case. It is true that if Jephthah had been an idolater he might have offered his daughter in any of the high places to a false god; but he was evidently made the deliverer of his people from the yoke of Ammon because he was not an idolater (see Jdg_11:29-36; comp. Lev_20:1-5); and his whole conduct is commended by an inspired apostle (Heb_11:32 : comp. 1Sa_12:11) as an act of faith in the true God. Such sanction is very different from the express condemnation of the irregular and mischievous proceeding on the part of Gideon (Jdg_8:27), for there is nowhere the least intimation that Jephthah's conduct was other than entirely praiseworthy, although his vow is evidently recorded as a warning against inconsiderate oaths (Jarvis's Church of the Redeemed, p. 115-117). Indeed, it is very doubtful whether he had the power to sacrifice his daughter, and it is incredible that she should have been the first to claim the fulfilment of such a vow, as well as inconceivable how she should have so readily inferred so unusual an import from the brief terms in which he first intimated to her his fatal pledge (ver. 35, 36); whereas it is altogether likely that (with her prompt consent) he had the right of dooming her to perpetual singleness of life and religious seclusion (compare 1Co_7:36-38). SEE NAZARITE.
It is also worthy of note that the term employed to express his promise of devotement in this case is נֶדֶר, ne'der, a consecration, and not חֵרֶם che'rem, destruction. SEE VOW; SEE ANATHEMA. Nor can we suppose (with Prof. Bush, ad loc.) that during the two months' respite he obtained better information, in consequence of which the immolation was avoided by a ransom price; for it is stated that he literally fulfilled his vow, whatever it was (1Co_7:39). The word rendered “lament” in 1Co_7:40 is not the common one (בכה) translated “bewail” in 1Co_7:37-38, but the rare expression (תנה) rendered “rehearse” in ch. 5:11, and meaning to celebrate, as implying joy rather than grief.
For a full discussion of the question, see the notes of the Pictorial Bible, and Bush's Notes on Judges, ad loc.; comp. Calmet's Dissertation sur le Voeu de Jephte, in his Comment. Littéral, tom. 2; Dresde, Votum Jephthoe ex Antiq. Judaica illustr. (Lips. 1767, 1778); Randolf, Erklärung d. Gelübdes Jephtha, in Eichhorn's Repertorium, 8, 13, Lightfoot's Harmony, under Judges 11, Erubhin, cap. 16, Sermon on Jdg_11:39; Bp. Russell's Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1, 479-492; Hales's Analysis of Chronology, 2, 288-292; Gleig's edition of Stackhouse, 2, 97; Clarke's Commentary, ad loc.; Rosenmüller, ad loc.; Hengstenberg's Pentat. 2, 129; Markii Dissert. phil. theol. p. 530; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, 3, 30; Ziegler, Theolog. Abhandl. 1, 337; Paulus, Conservat. 2, 197; Vatke, Bibl. Theolog. p. 275; Capellus, De voto Jeph. (Salmur. 1683); Dathe in Doderlein's Theolog. Bibl. 3, 327; Jahn, Einleit. 2, 198; Eckermann, Theolog. Beitr. 5, 1, 62; Reland, Antiq. sacr. 3, 10, 6, p. 363; Vogel in Biedermann's Act. scholast. 2, 250; Georgi, De voto Jephtoe (Viteb. 1751); Heumann, Nov. sylloge dissert. 2, 476; Bernhold, De voto per Jiphtach. nuncupato (Altd. 1740); Schudt, Vita Jepht. (Groning. 1753), 2, 77; Bruno in Eichhorn's Repertor. 8, 43; Buddaei Hist. V.T. 1, 893; Hess, Gesch. Jos. u. der Heerführer, 2, 156; Niemeyer, Charakt. 3, 496; Ewald, Isr. Geschichte, 2, 397; Selden, Jus nat. et gent. 1, 11; Anton, Comparat. libror. V.T. cet. pt. 2, 3; F. Spanheim, De voto Jephthoe, in his Dissert. theol. hist. p. 135-211; H. Benzel, De voto Jepth. incruento (Lond. 1732); Rathlef's Theol. for 1755, p. 414; Seiler, Gemeinnütz. Beitr. 1779, p. 386; Hasche, Ueber Jeph. u. s. Gelübde (Dresd. 1778; see in the Dresden Anzeig. 1787); Pfeiffer, De voto Jephthoe, in his Opp. p. 591; Tieroff, id. (Jena, 1657); Munch, id. (Altd. 1740); Bib. Repos. Jan. 1843, p. 143 sq.; Meth. Quart. Rev. October, 1855, p. 558 sq.; Universalist Review, Jan. 1861; Evangelical Rev. July 1861; Cassel, in Herzog's Encykl. s.v.; also the works cited by Darling, Cyclop. col. 284.
2. SEE JIPHTAH. Jephunne (‘Ιεφοννῆ), a Graecized form (Sirach 46, 7) for the Hebrew name JEPHUNNEH SEE JEPHUNNEH (q.v.).

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores