Introduction to the Jephthah Cycle
THE JEPHTHAH NARRATIVE consists of five sections, with specific dialogues contained in each one.1 Each of these dialogues contains a confrontation and a resolution. Thus, the power of the spoken word is a major motif in the cycle, in certain ways climaxing in Jephthah’s vow. As a narratival link between the episodes, the Hebrew word ʿābar (with its full range of meanings, “to cross over,” “to transgress”) is used with increasing frequency.
“Contention” is also a major element in this cycle.2 It begins with contention within Jephthah’s own family, leading to his disinheritance. Next there is contention with his own tribe concerning his involvement in delivering them from the Ammonite oppression, which leads to his becoming the “head” of Gilead. This is followed by contention with another people, the Ammonites, which results in the defeat of the Ammonites but the sacrifice of his daughter. Finally, there is contention with another Israelite tribe, which results in the defeat and destruction of the Ephraimites. The fivefold structure appears to be:
A Israel vs. Yahweh (10:6–16) with specific dialogue in 10:10–16
B The Ammonite threat—the elders’ ill-considered oath, leading to the elders vs. Jephthah (10:17–11:11) with specific dialogue in 11:5–11
C Jephthah vs. the Ammonite king (11:12–28) with specific dialogue in 11:12–28
B′ The Ammonite defeat—Jephthah’s ill-considered oath leading to him vs. his daughter (11:29–40) with specific dialogue in 11:34–38
A′ Jephthah vs. the Ephraimites (12:1–7) with specific dialogue in 12:1–4a
Judges 10:6–16
6Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD. They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the LORD and no longer served him, 7he became angry with them. He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites, 8who that year shattered and crushed them. For eighteen years they oppressed all the Israelites on the east side of the Jordan in Gilead, the land of the Amorites. 9The Ammonites also crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin and the house of Ephraim; and Israel was in great distress. 10Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD, “We have sinned against you, forsaking our God and serving the Baals.”
11The LORD replied, “When the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, 12the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you and you cried to me for help, did I not save you from their hands? 13But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. 14Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!”
15But the Israelites said to the LORD, “We have sinned. Do with us whatever you think best, but please rescue us now.” 16Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the LORD. And he could bear Israel’s misery no longer.
Original Meaning
THE FIRST SECTION of the Jephthah account records a confrontation between Israel and Yahweh (10:6–16). The specific dialogue is carried out in 10:10–16. As in the previous cases of Ehud (3:7a) and Deborah/Barak (4:1a), the frame component statement (“Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD”) opens the cycle. In fact, of all the major judge cycles other than Othniel, the one concerned with Jephthah is the most abounding in cycle frame components. Thus the exposition narrative of 10:6–16, which sets the stage for the appearance of Jephthah, adds that the Israelites “served the Baals and the Ashtoreths [i.e., Astartes]” and other gods, and Yahweh “became angry with them” (10:6–7a; cf. 3:7).
Seven groups of foreign deities are listed in verse 6 (see table below). Interestingly, in Yahweh’s response seven groups of oppressors3 are listed in verses 11–12, and there have been exactly seven judges up to this point in the book: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Barak, Gideon, Tola, and Jair. The list of foreign oppressors is reminiscent of the seven-member stereotyped “list of nations” in Deuteronomy 7:1 (cf. Judg. 3:5), which may emphasize the complete spiritual corruption to which Israel has succumbed. This detailed description of Israelite apostasy serves double duty for both the Jephthah cycle and the Samson cycle (note the pairing) since the Ammonite and Philistine oppressions are perceived to have occurred simultaneously (10:7), although they lasted different lengths (eighteen years and forty years respectively, 10:8b; 13:1b).
Foreign deities (10:6) | Foreign oppressors (10:11–12) | List of “nations” (Deut. 7:1; cf. Judg. 3:5) |
Baals | Egyptians* | Hittites |
Ashtoreths (Astartes) | Amorites* | Girgashites |
gods of Aram | Ammonites | Amorites |
gods of Sidon | Philistines | Canaanites |
gods of Moab | Sidonians* | Perizzites |
gods of Ammonites | Amalekites | Hivites |
gods of Philistines | Maonites* | Jebusites |
* These oppressors/oppressions are not known from the book of Judges.
Only the Ammonites, Philistines, and Sidonians are mentioned in both the god and oppressor lists. The Ammonites and Philistines are specified as the current oppressors in 10:7, although it is the Ammonites who are especially in view in the narration of Jephthah’s judgeship. This initial emphasis on the Ammonites and the fact that the Israelites are worshiping their gods (which include Milcom) sets the stage for the particular irony of this cycle, since Milcom was worshiped by child sacrifice (cf. the prohibitions of Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5).
As in the case of Gideon earlier, the severity of the oppression is detailed. Yahweh sells them into the hands of the Philistines and Ammonites, who shatter (rāʿaṣ) and crush (rāṣaṣ) them. These two alliterative and interrelated terms (rāʿaṣ and rāṣaṣ) form a hendiadys with the meaning something like “crushingly oppress” or “really crush.” The term “crush” (rāṣaṣ)4 is also used specifically in God’s promised “curses” that he would bring on Israel in the event of covenantal unfaithfulness (Deut. 28:33). This oppression continues in Gilead for eighteen years. The Ammonites even cross over the Jordan and fight against Judah, Benjamin, and the house of Ephraim. Israel is “in great distress” (cf. Judg. 2:15).
In the previous Gideon/Abimelech cycle, the Israelites’ cry to the Lord (a standard frame component) is met, not with the raising up of a deliverer, but with Yahweh’s confronting the Israelites’ sinfulness through his prophet (6:7–10).5 This time, however, it is Yahweh himself who chides and threatens not to deliver the Israelites since they seem to assume that Yahweh should more or less instantaneously restore them whenever they cry out to him even though they are so repeatedly given to idolatry (10:10–14). Hence, Yahweh’s rebuke foreshadows the ironic consequences for Jephthah, the elders, and the nation—all of whom try in a mechanical manner to manipulate him to serve some private end. The statements in 10:14, “Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you . . .” reveal the divine humor and sarcasm. The words are deftly chosen to mimic the people’s pleas and to highlight the fundamental perversion in Israel’s thinking and behavior. In this response to their cry from their distress, Yahweh demonstrates “the purely utilitarian and manipulative nature of their cry.”6
What follows in 10:15–16 (Israel’s confession of sin and removal of the foreign gods) seems on the surface to reflect a genuine repentance. But the use of similar wording in Yahweh’s reprimand (10:12b–13a) demonstrates that “the putting away of foreign gods is part of the routine with which he has become all too familiar from previous experience.”7 Yahweh’s explicit complaint in 10:12b–13a is not that Israel has failed in the past to remove foreign gods but that, after every saving intervention, they again forsake Yahweh and revert to serving other gods.8 Thus, in this instance, Israel is attempting again to manipulate him to meet their immediate specific need of deliverance. Their hearts are not really devoted to God except for convenience.
The NIV’s translation “And he could bear Israel’s misery no longer” might better be translated “and his soul/person was short because of the efforts of Israel.”9 That is, far from being a statement that Yahweh is overcome with compassion once more and intends to deliver Israel (as in previous cycles), in this context the phrase “the soul is short” (qṣar npš) expresses the frustration, exasperation, and anger in the face of an intolerable situation.10 Yahweh is dismissing the Israelite actions as further evidence of their iniquitous condition and manipulative ways. This is why we are met with only his silence and a reminder (10:17) that the Ammonites are renewing their threat. Yahweh’s silence seems to be an indication of his anger11 or, at least, displeasure.
In light of the values of the Law (Torah), Jephthah will not be a fitting judge for the nation, and yet that seems to be just the point. With each round of apostasy, the nation seems to plunge deeper, God’s response is more serious, and the “judge” for the nation is less qualified for the role. There is a correspondence between the nation’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh and his Torah, and the “quality” of the judge raised up to deliver them.
Bridging Contexts
WHAT DOES THIS episode tell us about God’s people? What does it tell us about God himself and how he deals with people? The description of the apostasy is the most detailed yet in the book. Seven foreign deities or sets of deities are detailed to emphasize how completely the Israelites have departed from Yahweh. This time God himself (not a prophet) confronts the Israelites. This also witnesses to the severity of their apostasy.
We must also look at the degree to which God has revealed himself in the preceding cycles. God has poured out his heart into the Israelites. In spite of his gracious compassion and goodness to them, delivering them time and time again from their enemies (hence the listing of seven oppressors), they have readily turned away and are worshiping other gods (hence the listing of seven groups of foreign deities). And with the most recently narrated cycle, they have done this before the cycle is even completed. In their fickleness the Israelites have made a mockery of God’s grace; they have taken advantage of his character and attributes in an attempt to manipulate him.
This is why God is so angry and sarcastic in his dealings with the Israelites in this episode. This is not arbitrary anger, but well-informed, perceptive, purposeful, and focused anger. God is so used to their pattern of repentance that he sees right through their insincerity. As humans we think that because we can hide our sinfulness from other people, somehow we can hide it from God. But God examines the hearts of human beings (Ps. 17:3–5; 139:23–24; Jer. 17:9–10) and sees the wickedness, improper motives, and so on that reside within the soul.
No wonder Israel’s vain attempt at manipulating God through insincere repentance fails. Their devotion is only for convenience (i.e., they want God to end their trouble that has come as a result of the oppression, but they also want to continue living according to their own desires).
Contemporary Significance
OFTEN AS CHRISTIANS we want God to perform when we want him to. We want him when we need him. Otherwise, we don’t want to be bothered by him. We want a god who will perform according to our criteria, according to our timing and agenda.
Even when we are the ones who have acted unfaithfully and are reaping the consequences of those actions, this is the kind of god we want. Yet we are the ones who have turned away from the Lord God to the materialistic gods. We are the ones who have disobeyed his Word in seeking the gratifications of the flesh. Yet when the consequences of worshiping these other gods come upon us, we want God to deliver us immediately. At times in the past, he has bailed us out. For example, he has provided for the reckless credit card debt that we ran up. In his grace he worked on our behalf. Yet we do it all again and expect his performance one more time. And with enough prayer and repentance, he will bail us out again, right? After all, isn’t his grace infinite?
What’s wrong with this picture, with this theology of God? The present passage demonstrates that it doesn’t work this way. Believers are entirely capable of going through the motions, of offering God insincere and superficial repentance. They can do the right rituals, play their parts, and certainly put on a convincing performance, at least as far as other human beings are concerned. But the Lord sees through the charade; he knows our hearts. He will not be manipulated by us.
Judges 10:17–11:11
17When the Ammonites were called to arms and camped in Gilead, the Israelites assembled and camped at Mizpah. 18The leaders of the people of Gilead said to each other, “Whoever will launch the attack against the Ammonites will be the head of all those living in Gilead.”
11:1Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior. His father was Gilead; his mother was a prostitute. 2Gilead’s wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. “You are not going to get any inheritance in our family,” they said, “because you are the son of another woman.” 3So Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the land of Tob, where a group of adventurers gathered around him and followed him.
4Some time later, when the Ammonites made war on Israel, 5the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. 6“Come,” they said, “be our commander, so we can fight the Ammonites.”
7Jephthah said to them, “Didn’t you hate me and drive me from my father’s house? Why do you come to me now, when you’re in trouble?”
8The elders of Gilead said to him, “Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead.”
9Jephthah answered, “Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me—will I really be your head?”
10The elders of Gilead replied, “The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say.” 11So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words before the LORD in Mizpah.
Original Meaning
THE SECOND SECTION of the Jephthah account (B, see introductory comments on 10:6–12:7) narrates the Ammonite threat, in which the elders make their ill-considered oath leading to their negotiation with Jephthah. The specific dialogue is carried out in 11:5–11. Whereas in every other cycle Yahweh is involved in the raising up of the deliverer, Jephthah’s emergence is treated as a purely human development. It is true that Yahweh is invoked as a witness to the covenant between Jephthah and Israel, but this is a far cry from earlier episodes.
The Ammonite oppression comes to a head in the military activity in 10:17. What will happen? The leaders or elders of Gilead12 are pictured as taking the initiative to maintain their social and political status. They state: “Whoever will launch the attack against the Ammonites will be the head [rōʾš] of all those living in Gilead” (10:18). The use of the term “head” (rôʾš) forms an obvious link with the previous story of Abimelech. The phraseology of this verse is reminiscent of the situations of divine inquiry at the beginning and end of Judges, yet no one here calls on Yahweh for a decision about the battle or for guidance in the process of choosing a leader (cf. 1:1–2; 20:18, 23, 26–28).13 In fact, these men are pictured as irreligious opportunists, who seize the role of commissioning Jephthah, a role that belongs to Yahweh alone.
The ill-considered oath of these leaders of Gilead that the one who initiates the attack against the Ammonites will be the “head” (rōʾš) of everyone living in Gilead shows that only under extreme duress is Jephthah appointed as the leader of the Israelites. Presumably this is why it is not said of Jephthah that Yahweh raises him up to deliver Israel. The absence of such a statement only reinforces how ill-advised the elders’ oath is to choose “whoever” to be head of their clan. With an ironic twist, the elders’ ill-considered oath is anticipatory of Jephthah’s later ill-considered oath.
Jephthah14 is introduced in a parenthetical flashback (11:1–3).15 The first thing emphasized in the narrative introduction is that “Jephthah . . . was a mighty warrior [gibbôr ḥayil, cf. Gideon in 6:12].”16 This is exactly what the elders of Gilead need and are looking for (10:18). Moreover, he is one of them, a Gileadite. Perfect. Why don’t they just go get Jephthah?
But the second part of the verse adds a problem: His father was a man named Gilead, but his mother was a prostitute (zônâ).17 In addition, Gilead’s wife had sons, and when they grew up, they drove Jephthah away. The issue is inheritance, as the brothers make clear: “You are not going to get any inheritance in our family . . . because you are the son of another woman [a prostitute]” (v. 2). It seems as if Jephthah had originally been adopted by Gilead (otherwise, the issue of inheritance would not exist). But when his father died, his brothers went to court—to the elders—to sue on the grounds that Jephthah’s adoption was not valid because, in their opinion, the son of a prostitute could not be adopted. The elders ruled in favor of the brothers and legally disinherited Jephthah.18
Verse 3 explains how Jephthah became known as a “mighty warrior” (gibbôr ḥayil). He had fled from his brothers, settled in the land of Tob,19 and formed a gang. The NIV’s translation “a group of adventurers” (ʾ anāšîm rêqîm lit., “empty men”) misses the narrator’s negative assessment of these men. Jephthah is not a Walt Disney Robin Hood-type character. He is the leader of a group of vagrants, morally empty men, and is thus pictured in the same terms as Abimelech (cf. the use of ʾ anāšîm rêqîm [lit., empty men] in 9:4 to describe Abimelech’s cut-throat hirelings). In this respect, the characterization of Jephthah is that of a Gileadite renegade or outlaw, an ʾApiru, in the vernacular of the day.20
Block points out the parallel structure of the dialogue between Yahweh and the Israelites in 10:10–16 and the dialogue between Jephthah and the elders in 11:4–11.21
The dialogue between Yahweh and the Israelites (10:10–16) | The dialogue between Jephthah and the elders (11:4–11) |
The Ammonite oppression (10:7–9) | The Ammonite oppression (11:4) |
Israel appeals to Yahweh (10:10) | Gilead appeals to Jephthah (11:5–6) |
Yahweh retorts sarcastically (10:11–14) | Jephthah retorts sarcastically (11:7) |
Israel repeats the appeal (10:15–16a) | Gilead repeats the appeal (11:8) |
Yahweh refuses to be used (10:16b) | Jephthah seizes the moment opportunistically (11:9–11) |
The elders’ initial offer of 10:18 was that “whoever” saved them would become the “head” of all those living in Gilead. But in their first approach to Jephthah (11:4–5), they make the lesser offer of qāṣîn (commander, 11:6). It may be that the elders first offer Jephthah the title qāṣîn instead of the title rōʾš (head) because he had been disinherited. It may be that being disinherited somehow disqualified him from being rōʾš over Gilead.22
But the essence of Jephthah’s response in 11:7 is a rejection of their offer: “Didn’t you hate me and drive me from my father’s house? Why [maddûaʿ ] do you come to me now, when you’re in trouble?” The use of the term “why” (maddûaʿ ) in this rhetorical question’s context has particular force, the essence of which is:
The Gileadites have undeniably rejected Jephthah and expelled him. Given these facts, how, he asks, can you now come to me when you need help? People do not go to those they have rejected for help, nor does the victim of rejection help his rejecters. Nobody in his right mind would come to ask for help in such circumstances: your plea is rejected; I will not help you.23
In other words, Jephthah rejects the elders because they have previously rejected his case in court and have annulled an adoption agreement that his father made in his favor. Moreover, their offer of making Jephthah commander (qāṣîn) is rightly perceived for what it is.
Only after Jephthah’s objection (11:7) do they raise the offer to its initial level (i.e., “head” [rôʾš] instead of simply “commander” [qāṣîn]). Their haggling shows how unprincipled these opportunists are. They seek to hire Jephthah “cheap” by offering him less than what they offered a full citizen of Gilead (10:18). They would gladly abuse him to accomplish their ambitious ends. But Jephthah is negotiating out of a position of strength. Thus the connotation in the elders’ answer in 11:8 is (in paraphrase): “Nevertheless [lākēn] we do not disagree with you; what you say is true. We did disinherit you, but now we are coming to you as a gesture of reconciliation and are offering you the position of leader.”24
Jephthah lays down the condition for which he was willing to go fight the Ammonites (11:9): Reinstate me to my rightful inheritance and make me not just commander (qāṣîn) but also and affirmatively “head” (rōʾš).25 If they could have obtained Jephthah without reinstating him to his inheritance, they would have. But they also have no hesitation to reverse their earlier decision and disinherit Jephthah’s brothers in order to “get their man.” In the end, because of their desperation, the elders give in, reinstate Jephthah, and commission him as both “head” (rōʾš) and commander (qāṣîn) (11:11).26 However, as Willis points out, Jephthah’s authority does not cut across or supersede the authority of the elders; his authority is controlled by theirs. The traditional authority of the elders is apparently still intact.27 Thus the text paints the elders of Gilead as truly unscrupulous (anticipatory of ch. 21).
Furthermore, the elders will get a leader like themselves. Jephthah, seeing his chance for promotion in Gilead, is equally as ready to perform an illegitimate cultic vow to guarantee the military victory he needs to retain the status that he acquires through his negotiations with the elders. The error in both cases is the same: placing ambition above covenantal loyalty, familial loyalty, and proper cultic performance. The elders of Gilead get the leader they deserve, for, like them, Jephthah is a person who is willing to utilize “whomever” by whatever means in order to pursue a private agenda. Both the elders and Jephthah are calculating opportunists and are using each other.
The ratification ceremony takes place at Mizpah, where Jephthah swears “the oath of office” and becomes officially the “head” (rōʾš) and the “commander” (qāṣîn) of Gilead. Jephthah’s inauguration at Mizpah foreshadows that of Saul (1 Sam. 11:15). This ceremony raises two questions. (1) Why is Jephthah sworn in at Mizpah in Gilead? There has been no indication that this site is a sacred site. Block argues that
it is difficult not to conclude that, like Jephthah’s reference to Yahweh in v. 9 and the elder’s appeal to him in v. 10, the entire ceremony represents a glib and calculated effort to manipulate Yahweh. In reality the witness Jephthah is concerned about is not Yahweh, but the army of Gilead, camped at Mizpah.28
(2) Is Yahweh really engaged in this process of installing Jephthah as the military commander (hence deliverer) and head (i.e., chief) of the Gileadite region? Unlike past instances where he played the decisive role in raising up the deliverers, Yahweh is relegated to the role of silent witness to a purely human contract between a desperate but opportunistic people and an ambitious, opportunistic outlaw. In 10:10–16, Yahweh had refused to let himself be used by Israel. Nevertheless, Jephthah and the Gileadites have no hesitation in using him to seal their agreement.
Bridging Contexts
THE ELDERS OF Gilead are irreligious opportunists. They do not care about true worship of the Lord for they willingly usurp Yahweh’s role in raising up a deliverer. There is no prayer to God from these men, no seeking his will, no trust in him to guide. They can do it themselves because in so doing they can guarantee their positions of authority (or at least they think they can). They seek to hire Jephthah “cheap” by offering him less than what they would offer a full citizen of Gilead. These are the kind of leaders who would gladly abuse whomever they can to maintain or gain more power. There is nothing that they wouldn’t do to anyone to this end.
How ironic that they get a leader like themselves. Jephthah is willing to do anything to anyone in order to seize power and to maintain that power and status. He wants so desperately to be restored and accepted, to be the head, that he will do anything and deal with anyone (including the unscrupulous elders) in order to achieve his goals. The error in both cases is the same: a placing of blind ambition above covenantal loyalty, familial loyalty, and proper worship of God. Thus the elders and Jephthah deserve one another. Selfish ambition drives them all.
Yahweh is passive here. While both the elders and Jephthah use his name to legitimate their actions, he is not active in raising up a deliverer for the Israelites. Rather, he allows them to proceed in their own plans and devices. As we will see, he can work his will even in spite of these.
Contemporary Significance
IN THE WORLD TODAY, there are plenty of those who are driven by blind ambition to achieve their goals. In business, sports, entertainment, and political contexts (to name a few), we see time and again individuals who are raw opportunists. They will do whatever it takes to accomplish their ends. And frequently our society lauds such persons as “single-minded” individuals who serve as wonderful success stories to be imitated. For many, a Jimmy Johnson, winner of two Super Bowls as the former head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, is the model to be emulated. Wife and family must be put aside for the exclusive goal of “winning.” Players are expendable if you can achieve the objective of “winning.” The end justifies the means if it brings “winning.” Or take a Vince Lombardi orientation, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” Such a perspective is unfortunately ingrained into us and our children at many levels and in many ways.
What is especially disturbing in this passage is that the raw opportunists are the political and spiritual leaders of Israel! Could such raw opportunists be found in the church today? It is a chilling thought, but the better part of wisdom recognizes the fact that such situations can and do exist. And unfortunately they can be found in every area of Christian ministry activity. They are our modern-day Balaams that Peter warns about (2 Peter 2:1–22). Ironically, as in the case of the elders of Gilead, they often get the same kind of person, a Jephthah, just like them in their blind ambition orientation. Fortunately, the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a more excellent way. As Philippians 2:1–11 (esp. vv. 3–5) advocates, believers should “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. . . . Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus.”
At certain points in his dealings with humankind, Yahweh is passive. He does not actively work to bring deliverance but allows men and women to attempt their own machinations even though the motives in these designs are less than godly. In other words, he gives them over to their own plots and schemes. God refuses to be predictable in the sense that this can be used by humans to manipulate him. He is not a raw machine of deliverance who can be used whenever one wants or needs to use it. When God is passive to human beings’ machinations, it is not a sign of his endorsement but rather a signal that things may be amiss. In allowing men and women to proceed in their own plans and devices, God permits them to reap the consequences of these. Nevertheless, in every case, the Lord can accomplish his will in spite of evil motives and intents.
Judges 11:12–28
12Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question: “What do you have against us that you have attacked our country?”
13The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah’s messengers, “When Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably.”
14Jephthah sent back messengers to the Ammonite king, 15saying:
“This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites. 16But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh. 17Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, ‘Give us permission to go through your country,’ but the king of Edom would not listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel stayed at Kadesh.
18“Next they traveled through the desert, skirted the lands of Edom and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border.
19“Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, and said to him, ‘Let us pass through your country to our own place.’ 20Sihon, however, did not trust Israel to pass through his territory. He mustered all his men and encamped at Jahaz and fought with Israel.
21“Then the LORD, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his men into Israel’s hands, and they defeated them. Israel took over all the land of the Amorites who lived in that country, 22capturing all of it from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan.
23“Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? 24Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the LORD our God has given us, we will possess. 25Are you better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel or fight with them? 26For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn’t you retake them during that time? 27I have not wronged you, but you are doing me wrong by waging war against me. Let the LORD, the Judge, decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites.”
28The king of Ammon, however, paid no attention to the message Jephthah sent him.
THIS THIRD SECTION of the Jephthah account (C, see introductory comments on 10:6–12:7) narrates the confrontation between Jephthah and the Ammonite king. Immediately after Jephthah’s installation at Mizpah, he sends messengers to the Ammonite king asking why the Ammonites are attacking. In this initial communiqué there is a subtle invitation to trial by combat: (lit.) “What’s between me and you . . . ?” This particular rhetorical question occurs in the exalted style of diplomatic speech and functions to render the addressee uncertain, confused, and sensing his guilt for whatever consequences ensue.29
The Ammonite king’s response is hardly satisfying: Israel has stolen Ammon’s land; surrender it, and there will be peace (11:13). In the lengthy speech that follows, Jephthah uses a common ancient Near Eastern form known as the royal covenant/treaty disputation (in biblical materials this is known as the rîb; cf. the account of Gideon’s naming as Jerub-Baal, 8:35). A common element in these disputations is the rehearsal of past historical relations between the parties. In his speech, Jephthah gives an extensive history of the area in dispute (11:15–22), which serves as the basis for his conclusions in 11:23–27. This recounting coincides with the accounts of the region’s history recorded in Numbers 20–24 and Deuteronomy 2–3.30
Jephthah starts the speech with the assertion that Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites (11:15). This assertion (if true, and it is) undercuts the Ammonite claim right from the beginning. Israel cannot give back to Ammon that which was never Ammon’s. After the exodus from Egypt and after Israel had come into the region, the Israelites sent messengers to the king of Edom, asking permission to go through his land, but the Edomite king refused. The same happened with the king of Moab. As a result, Israel eventually traveled around Edom and Moab to the east, exposed to the desert, and came into the land north of Moab, north of the Arnon river. They never entered Edomite or Moabite territory, since the land north of the Arnon was not Moabite at the time.
Israel then sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites (note, not king of the Ammonites), who ruled in Heshbon and who had only recently taken over this territory from the Moabites. These messengers again appealed to Sihon for permission to pass through his territory. But Sihon attacked Israel (a very serious mistake); Yahweh gave him into the Israelites’ hands, and the Israelites completely defeated him and his troops and took over his land. This is how Israel obtained the area in dispute, and this is why the Ammonite claim is illegitimate.
Not only does Jephthah’s rehearsal of the area’s history function to undercut the Ammonite claim—he will further the argument shortly—it also functions as a mocking warning to the Ammonite monarch. Just as Israel sent messengers to the Transjordanian kings, so Jephthah has sent messengers. Just as the Transjordanian kings chose a negative response (especially Sihon), so the Ammonite king may choose a negative response. But just as Yahweh gave Sihon into the Israelites’ hands, so will he give the king of Ammon into their hands. Just as Israel utterly defeated Sihon and his army, so the Israelites will defeat the Ammonite king and his army (if he chooses the same response as Sihon).31
Through a series of loaded rhetorical questions based on the history of the area just rehearsed, Jephthah concludes his disputation against the king of Ammon in 11:23–27. Since Yahweh drove out the Amorites from this disputed area and gave the land to Israel, what right does the Ammonite king have to take it over? The question contains a wordplay that literally is more like: “Since Yahweh dispossessed [yāraš] . . . will you [king of Ammon] now dispossess [yāraš]?” (11:23). The implied answer is, of course, no.32
Next, Jephthah poses a double question (11:24): “Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the LORD our God has given us, we will possess [lit., will we not possess it]?” Jephthah uses what appears to be a “logical” argument—an argument commonly asserted in the ancient Near East: A people must accept the will of its god. Therefore, the Ammonites will possess the lands that Chemosh, their god, gives them, and the Israelites will possess the lands that Yahweh, the God of Israel, gives them (in this case, the disputed area!).
But his “logical” argument conflates the religious facts and even transposes the Moabite and Ammonite national gods.33 Even though he is logical, deeply emotional, and articulate, in the end Jephthah demonstrates his great factual ignorance. For all his apparent piety, Jephthah identifies faith in Yahweh with the practices of the surrounding national cults rather than the ideals of biblical faith. He localizes Yahweh as though he is just like Chemosh, Milcom, Baal, and so on (i.e., gods can only exercise their power in their particular localized areas). Jephthah’s theological error is compounded by the fact that Deuteronomy 2:19 specifically states that Yahweh has given the Ammonites their own land as their “possession” (noun form of yāraš).34 This is a comment on Jephthah’s ignorance of the Law (the Torah) and will have implications later with reference to his vow and his daughter.
In all probability, this theological error as an ignorance of God’s Law is not perceived by the Ammonite king. To him the logic is fine. Jephthah has used the common logic of the day to be convincing in his disputation. However, the Ammonite king is likely surprised to be told that his god is Chemosh (who was the god of the Moabites).35 First Kings 11:33 clarifies the issue with the phrase “Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech [better, Milcom] the god of the Ammonites.” Thus, the national deity of the Ammonites36 was Milcom,37 not Chemosh.38 This is an error, and it hardly impresses the Ammonite king!39
Now Jephthah follows up with a series of questions related to Balak: “Are you better than Balak, the son of Zippor, the king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel [rāb] with Israel or fight with them?” These on the surface seem strong arguments. Technically, Jephthah is right. Balak never quarreled with Israel (as the Ammonite king is doing), and Balak never actually fought with Israel (although he did intend to attack Israel after Balaam had cursed them; he only refrained from this because Yahweh intervened, causing Balaam’s blessing of Israel).40
Jephthah’s last rhetorical question is preceded by an assertion: “For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon. . . . Why [maddûaʿ ] didn’t you retake them during that time?” This is the same grammatical construction as found in Jephthah’s response in 11:7 (see comments). Accordingly, the essence of the argument is this: Since no Ammonite king (or Moabite either, for that matter) has ever attempted to claim the land area in dispute for over three hundred years,41 nobody in his right mind would claim them now. Thus your claim to this territory is rejected.
Jephthah’s conclusion is found in 11:27: “I have not wronged [ḥṭʾ ] you, but you are doing me wrong [rʿh] by waging war against me. Let the LORD, the Judge, decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites.” This brings the disputation to its climax. Often such disputations were but a preamble to the violence of the battlefield.
The Ammonite king is unable to offer a reasonable rebuttal to Jephthah’s arguments. In the narrator’s view, those arguments leave the Ammonite king speechless (11:28). This has two effects: It shows that Jephthah’s argument is in the main correct and therefore unanswerable, and it shows that the Ammonite king had his heart set beforehand and really did not care about “truth and accuracy”; he is going to war.
Jephthah mocks the Ammonite king for pondering war with the Israelites, since war with them is war with Yahweh. His mockery only compels the Ammonite king onto the battlefield, where he will be, like Sihon, greatly humbled. As in his dealings with the elders (11:9), Jephthah voices a recognition that the victory belongs to Yahweh (11:21, 27). But like his negotiations with the elders, this is only a tacit recognition, for Jephthah is a pragmatic Yahwist. He is the sort of man whom we wonder whether God will use but who has no reservations about manipulating God for his own use (this becomes clear in the next section).
Bridging Contexts
JEPHTHAH USES LOGIC, emotion, and great articulation in his dispute with the Ammonite king. Using the common logic of the day in order to persuade his opponent, Jephthah demonstrates that these are no substitutes for truth. In his ignorance, he makes a serious theological error in equating the worship of Yahweh with the worship of other gods. It is this theological error that leads him to execute a religious practice used in the worship of these other gods—child sacrifice! In other words, ignorance of God’s Word leads him to emulate a pagan religious practice.
Theological accuracy is important. What one thinks about God is important. Wrong thinking about God is reprehensible. Job’s three “friends” stand out as examples of those who argued with great articulation, logic, and emotion—they were indeed sincere—but in the end, they were very wrong. In the epilogue of Job, God declares his anger with them because they did not speak correctly about him (Job 42:7–9).
Contemporary Significance
THEOLOGICAL IGNORANCE and error lead to devastating results. In addition, we live in a world that has, over the course of a century, continually depreciated the worth of theological matters. A knowledge of the Bible is not considered important today. In our drive for technology, knowing God’s Word is seen as having little or no value. Knowing the Bible doesn’t put bread on the table, so the argument goes.
But whether it is Jonestown following Jim Jones’s teachings or the Heaven’s Gate group searching for paradise with outer space extraterrestrials, such ignorance of God’s Word opens the way to religious exploitation and, literally in these two cases, death and destruction. The error of Jephthah—making the worship of Yahweh equal to the worship of the Ammonite god—is an error that can easily be repeated in generation after generation. If we accept such a premise—maybe in the guise of ecclesiastical harmony—the door lies open for endorsement of wrong theological practices.
29Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”
36“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
38“You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
From this comes the Israelite custom 40that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.
Original Meaning
THIS FOURTH SECTION of the Jephthah account (B′, see introductory comments on 10:6–12:7) narrates the Ammonite defeat along with Jephthah’s ill-considered oath, which leads to his confrontation with his daughter. A special dialogue is carried out in 11:34–38.
The first sentence of this section is a narrative frame component: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah” (11:29a). As pointed out in the discussion of the Spirit of Yahweh “clothing” Gideon (6:34–35), this does not presuppose any particular level of spirituality on the part of the recipient. It affirms Yahweh’s involvement in empowerment but does not guarantee the recipient’s spirituality. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how someone empowered by the Spirit could make so many wrong choices (certainly a question that also will apply to Samson). Being empowered does not mean that Yahweh overwhelms Jephthah’s personality, forcing him to only perform a certain way. Jephthah still makes choices, and these choices are, unfortunately, because of his ignorance, not based on God’s Word (see discussion on pp. 186–87).
Following this statement is a fourfold repetition of the same verb (ʿbr, variously translated in the NIV) in 11:29b–32a, which serves to link Jephthah’s endowment with Yahweh’s Spirit with his Yahweh-given victory.
He crossed [ʿbr] Gilead and Manasseh (11:29a2),
he passed [ʿbr] through Mizpah of Gilead (11:29b),
and from there he advanced [ʿbr] against the Ammonites (11:29b2).
Then Jephthah went over [ʿbr] to fight the Ammonites (11:32a),
and Yahweh gave them into his hands (11:32b).
His “crossing,” “passing,” “advancing,” and “going over” are in fact segments of one movement of which Yahweh’s Spirit is the motive force. His “tour” of Gilead and Manasseh (11:29a2–b) was probably related to preparation for battle such as recruitment and morale building.42 In any case, the fourfold employment functions to intensify Jephthah’s actions, building up to the climax of Yahweh’s giving the Ammonites into his hands (11:32b).
Unfortunately, there are two verses inserted between verses 29 and 32 that not only disrupt the narration of what should have been repetition of the judge’s deliverance of his people as recounted in the previous cycles, but actually supplant the climax with Jephthah’s vow. It is very tragic that almost immediately after the Spirit of Yahweh comes on Jephthah, he disrupts the flow toward the climax in Yahweh’s victory by vowing to perform a sacrifice if Yahweh should give the Ammonites into his hand (11:30–31). This vow and its implementation now dominate the focus of the narrative. In a sense, Yahweh’s victory over the Ammonites is usurped by the vow.43
Jephthah is negotiating with Yahweh as he had with the Gileadite leaders and with the king of Ammon, seeking to acquire concessions and favors from him as he had from others in the past. But his success in negotiating steadily declines. With the Gileadites he achieved all he wanted (11:4–11); with the Ammonites he received a verbal if negative response (11:12–28); with Yahweh there is only silence, indicating that God disregards Jephthah’s vow.
While some scholars have interpreted Jephthah’s vow as rash and hastily worded,44 others have seen it as manipulative.45 In fact, Jephthah’s vow is both rash and manipulative.46 (1) In light of his manipulating character as noted in other sections, the vow is another attempt to manipulate the circumstances to his own advantage. In this sense, then, it is not impulsive but has a specific intent (i.e., to get Yahweh to perform: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands . . .”). Ironically, this shrewd attempt to manipulate Yahweh demonstrates both folly and faithlessness in the character of Jephthah.
(2) The vow is, however, also rash and imprudent. If Jephthah had said simply, “I will offer a burnt offering [ʿôlâ] to you when I return safe and secure47 from the Ammonites,” then, of course, there is nothing rash in this (though it still would have been calculating and manipulative). The problem is in the qualification “whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites.” This imprudent element leads to disaster (see 11:39).
There is little doubt that Jephthah’s vow is nothing short of making a deal with the deity, an attempt to exert control over God—a practice familiar to pagans, who believed in the manipulation of the gods for human purposes.48 In fact, the irony is stark. Jephthah delivers the Israelites from the Ammonites, who along with their neighbors sacrifice their children to their gods; then he sacrifices his daughter to Yahweh, who does not accept human sacrifice! In this way, Jephthah exhibits his ignorance of God’s Law (Torah) as he did in his disputation speech to the Ammonite king (see comments on 11:14–27). In addition, he demonstrates his confusion again with deities, conflating what Milcom or Chemosh accept with what Yahweh might accept.
Does Jephthah intend to imply a human sacrifice in his vow? Some believe the vow does intend human sacrifice.49 Others, however, believe that the text is ambiguous as to human or animal sacrifice.50 The narrative’s shock51 as to who comes out of his house to meet him after his return may imply the latter, for whom else does he expect? His wife (assuming she is alive)? These are the only human possibilities. The fact that Jephthah uses in the apodosis of his vow (v. 31) the masculine gender as an indeterminate reference “whoever/whatever” rather than the feminine gender, which would have specified either his daughter or wife (assuming that she is alive), seems to underline his expectation for something other than his daughter or wife. Sheep or cattle (things usually offered as a burnt offering) would then be in view.52 It may seem odd to Western readers for sheep or cattle to come out of one’s house. But the typical “four-room house” of this period contained a room that housed animals.53 Hence in his vow, Jephthah most likely had this in mind.
It is interesting to observe that there is a striking similarity between the vow formula in 11:30b–31 and the vow formula in Numbers 21:2. The latter states: “Israel made this vow to the LORD: ‘If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy [ḥrm] their cities.’ ” Hence, Jephthah’s daughter becomes like those in the cites of Numbers 21:2, even though she has no direct involvement in the issue at hand.
Narrative frame components relate that Yahweh gives the Ammonites into Jephthah’s hands as expected (11:32b) and that he slaughters twenty of their towns (11:33a). Israel subdues the Ammonites (11:33b). Thus, in this context, Jephthah’s vow is completely empty,54 totally unnecessary. His last words to the Ammonite king are sufficient: “Let the LORD, the Judge, decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites” (11:27). If he believed his own words, the argumentation is convincing: Yahweh will deliver the Ammonite king into Jephthah’s hands just as he did in the earlier case of Sihon.
And Yahweh does just that. Therefore, since the reader already knows that Yahweh would have given Jephthah success in battle even without his vow, the vow and its negative consequences seem all the more unnecessary. It achieves nothing in the story except to mar the accomplishment of Yahweh’s victory and to characterize Jephthah negatively. In this callous gesture, Jephthah shows his willingness to brutalize even his closest kin in order to rule over a tribe of half-brothers (cf. Abimelech). This is why his vow to Yahweh overwhelms what should have been the climactic victory over the Ammonites because it is so unnecessary, illegitimate, and horrific.
The irony of this passage is multiplied by the way in which Jephthah’s daughter is introduced (11:34). When he returns home, the surprise is emphatic in 11:34b (lit.): “Look [hinnēh]! His daughter [bitô] came out to meet him!” The narrator uses the term hinnēh to convey a sense of surprise and shock on the part of the character—a sense related to Jephthah’s show of emotional recoil when he sees her. He clearly is not expecting her. But she appears in order to celebrate her father’s victory, dancing to the sound of tambourines (cf. Ex. 15:19–21; 1 Sam. 18:6–7). How wrenchingly pathetic! Moreover, the text adds that she is an only child. And if not clear enough, the text adds, “Except for her he had neither son nor daughter.”
The dialogue in this episode between Jephthah and his daughter concerns this vow and its implications. Verses 11:35b1 and 11:36a1 are juxtaposed to heighten the contrast.
11:35b1 | “I have opened my mouth to Yahweh” | wʾnky pṣyty py ʾl yhwh |
11:36a | “You have opened your mouth to Yahweh” | pṣyth ʾt pyk ʾl yhwh |
As Webb aptly notes:
. . . the expression is striking enough in itself, involving both alliteration (p-p) and assonance (ī-ī), and its repetition at this crucial point in the narrative throws it into special prominence. It gains thematic significance from the Leitmotif, “the words of Jephthah,” which links the previous two episodes. His negotiations with the elders, his diplomacy with the king of Ammon, and his vow have amply displayed Jephthah’s facility with words. Jephthah, we know, is good at opening his mouth (how ironical that his name should be yptḥ “he opens”). What has precipitated the crisis with his daughter is that he has opened his mouth to Yahweh, that is, he has tried to conduct his relationship with God in the same way that he has conducted his relationships with men. He has debased religion (a vow, an offering) into politics. It is the sequence of dialogues in episodes 2–4 which gives the point its dramatic force. The same point is made by the “parallel” dialogues of episodes 1 and 2: Israel has debased repentance into negotiation.55
Despite the sympathy created by the reluctance of both daughter and father to carry out the vow (11:37–38), both eventually submit to it. The verses that describe her mourning her virginity only serve to heighten what transpires by emphasizing her innocence. In verse 39, there is an alternation between the daughter and Jephthah (lit.): “She returned to her father, and he did to her his vow which he had vowed; and she had never known a man.”56 The focus is on the daughter’s innocence and Jephthah’s ignorance.
While it was sin to break a vow (Num. 30:2), God did provide for the redemption of vows, vows made without full reflection of their ramifications. Tragically, had he known about this, Jephthah could have redeemed his daughter (Lev. 27:1–8)!57 Klein remarks:
Jephthah’s daughter is not only virginal, she is unknowing, innocent; and “innocence” is a kind of “ignorance.” The daughter is innocent, the father is ignorant. The daughter is already a victim of her father’s ignorance and that ignorance will victimize him. Jephthah loses his daughter and he loses contact with Yahweh, both through ignorance.58
Ironically, Jephthah transposes the values of Yahweh with those of other gods, gods for whom a vow must be kept even if it involves human sacrifice. In so doing, he implicitly acknowledges polytheism.59 In fact, Jephthah’s action is directly condemned in Deuteronomy 12:31 (again underscoring his ignorance): “You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.”60
Ironically, Yahweh’s giving the Ammonites into Jephthah’s hand (11:32b) has two different meanings: one for Israel, the other for Jephthah (not to mention his daughter!). For Israel, it means salvation, deliverance from the Ammonite threat; for Jephthah, it means that he must fulfill the gruesome requirements of his self-imposed vow. This raises a real question: Is Gilead truly saved from foreign oppression when deliverance comes at the expense of making a foreign-style sacrifice of one of its number?61 Thus, Jephthah’s vow and its execution dissolve the stability achieved by the victory over the Ammonites. The vow turns Jephthah from deliverer into another oppressor. Joined to the slaughter of the Ephraimites in 12:1–6, Jephthah functions as the catalyst for Israel’s destabilization on two fronts: religious and political (the same two fronts that were the problems at the beginning of the cycle).
Violence is often the way in which a spiritually flawed character compensates for his or her sense of inferiority. In this case, Jephthah’s sense of inferiority derives from his having been victimized by past rejection. The irony is that what Jephthah perpetrates on his daughter is more violent than the victimization he himself suffered at the hands of his half-brothers!62
Along this same line it is helpful to compare Jephthah to Abimelech. Abimelech was an outsider (the son of a [Canaanite] concubine). He attempted to compensate for this by a great display of power, especially directed against his father’s side of the family. Jephthah is not only an outsider but also an out-cast—literally so, on the grounds that he is the son of a prostitute and has been disinherited (11:1–3). He also seeks to compensate by gathering power. First, he does so by becoming the leader of a band of vagrant no-counts in a far-off land. Then because of a crisis, he returns as the strong man (“head and commander”)—although the call comes not from God but from the elders of Gilead. Nevertheless, he gathers the troops and mightily defeats the Ammonites. But he undercuts his own victory through an unnecessary manipulative vow and violently sacrifices his only daughter in order to fulfill his imprudent vow—all the result of an attempt to compensate for a perceived inferiority. Ironically, “in this way Jephthah’s life is determined and ruined by the connection of the two poles: whore and virgin.”63
Why doesn’t Yahweh intervene to prevent Jephthah from fulfilling his vow?64 The text implies that Jephthah alone is the agent of violence against his daughter. The vow is not Yahweh’s doing. In arrogance, Jephthah attempted to manipulate Yahweh to give him the victory in order to fulfill his own selfish ambition. Yahweh did give the victory, not because of Jephthah’s vow but because of his compassion and grace in saving Israel. Thus Jephthah’s action in fulfilling the vow is due to a misunderstanding and ignorance on his part for the role the vow even played in the victory over the Ammonites.
Yahweh’s nonintervention permits Jephthah’s machinations to take their natural consequences with the loss of his line (11:39). “Thus, ironically, through Jephthah’s seeking to attain permanent social status in Gilead through an act of human sacrifice, the atrocity of that act, coupled with the fact that it is his inaugural act as Gilead’s head, forever characterizes him as an agent of atrocity in Gilead” (11:39b–40).65 There are no memorials for Jephthah, but the memory of his daughter is immortalized, at least in Gilead, for her honor.
Bridging Contexts
IN HIS ARROGANCE, Jephthah attempts to manipulate Yahweh to give him the victory in order to fulfill his own selfish ambition. The subject of manipulation was also discussed in the Bridging Contexts and Contemporary Significance sections in 10:6–16, although there the emphasis was on the corporate level, whereas here it is on the individual level.
Circumstances and situations sometimes arise in which individuals resort to rash and manipulative vows to God. The more dire the situation, the more apt for vows to be made. War has for centuries been a sure context for such utterances. But for the Christian such maneuverings are unnecessary, as they were for Jephthah. At the foundation of faith is the conviction that God is sovereign; he is in control of each circumstance and situation. Therefore, rash vows are senseless since God will order things in accordance with his will.
Faith is the combination of two basic characteristics. Faith should seize the initiative to act in dependence on God, yet sometimes it must be patient. In one sense faith is full speed ahead; in another it is waiting on the Lord. Our lives require a vibrant faith applied to the affairs of life, but it also requires a patient waiting on the Lord, for the Father does know best.
Moreover, God also understands our humanity, our fragility. In the Law, the making of vows is a serious matter (contrast our attitude today), and to break a vow was sin. God made provisions for rash vows (Lev. 27), and intercession of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament context aids in the interpretation of our utterances to God in the midst of dire circumstances today.
However, in the case of manipulative petitions and vows, God also understands these, but not with compassion and possible positive results. He has no toleration for this very human propensity to try to call the shots, to be in control. He will not allow us to be the ones who determine the outcomes. He will not allow us to orchestrate the processes of our lives. And sometimes, as in the case of Jephthah, we suffer at our own hands because of our lack of faith and manipulative devices. The irony is that just as Jephthah’s vow accomplished nothing in the process of Yahweh’s victory except to mar it, so our manipulative vows do nothing to promote God’s kingdom (because they are merely motivated by our self-interest).
Jephthah wants to rule over his clan so desperately that he attempts to manipulate Yahweh to give him the victory. Thus in the fulfillment of his vow, Jephthah shows how callous he really is to anyone or anything that is not part of his life’s goal of ruling over his clan of half-brothers. He is willing to brutalize his own daughter for this (see Contemporary Significance section of 10:17–11:11). When we manifest the win-at-all-cost attitude, those closest to us are frequently the ones so unnecessarily, illegitimately, and horrifically brutalized. Blind ambition that tries to manipulate God brings only disaster.
Contemporary Significance
THE DIVINE LEVEL. Our Western materialistic culture ingrains in us the notion that we somehow deserve things. The “I-deserve-it” mentality manipulates to gain what it determines it has coming to it. The attitude “I-deserve-it-as-much-as-that-other-guy” permeates much of modern society. Many in our culture value the one who can manipulate the system or other people to obtain the good life (cf. any daytime TV talk show). Like Jephthah, those raised in this culture often deal with God the way they deal with others to get what they think they deserve.
But there is abundant Scripture to demonstrate that God, the true and living God, does not work according to human dictates. God will never be manipulated by any human being for one simple reason: If that ever happens, just once, he is no longer God. There comes a point at which God does not answer prayers—prayers that at their very roots are manipulative. It may appear as though God answered Jephthah’s prayer by giving him victory over the Ammonites (certainly Jephthah thought so). But Yahweh gave the victory because as Judge of all the earth he defended his people and brought defeat on the Ammonite king. As outlined above, Jephthah’s prayer (and hence vow) was utterly unnecessary. God worked out of pure grace on Israel’s behalf, not because he was manipulated by Jephthah’s prayer and vow. Ultimately, therefore, God’s silence means that he did not really respond to Jephthah at all.
When all is said and done, we must end our petitions to God with “not my will, but yours be done.” As Christians we can become subject to the error that somehow God owes us or is in a sense obligated to do such and such on our behalf. Illness, economic stress, familial problems, and so on are things that each of us—even ministers, teachers, and missionaries—think that God ought to fix because, well, we’re Christians. Of course, pagan, nonchurch attending persons cannot expect God to answer their prayers because they don’t worship him. But we’re Christians, who are involved in service to him. Surely he ought to do something to solve our problems.
Beside the fact that God may be doing something in our lives beyond our understanding in this world during our lifetime (cf. Job’s experience), it may be that we are hiding a personal manipulative motive in our prayer. Until we recognize that God is not obligated by our actions to do anything on our behalf, until we recognize that whatever he does is on the basis of his grace—that is, we don’t deserve it—we will experience frustrations in our relationship to him. We don’t worship him because of what we can get out of him, but because he is our God!
Hurt people. The tragedy of this passage is repeated again and again in our modern society. Hurt people hurt people.66 Jephthah came from a dysfunctional background. He was an illegitimate son, born of a prostitute, rejected and disinherited by his family, leader of a gang. He became a man who was hurt, angry, bitter, ambition-driven, ready to fight, manipulative, ignorant of God’s Law, abusive of his daughter, lacking boundaries, contentious, emotionally reactionary, revengeful, and doing what is right in his own eyes for his own gain. He made his daughter responsible, blaming her for the disaster that he would inflict on her and making himself the victim of his rash vow. In many ways this nameless daughter represents all the courageous daughters of abusive fathers. Jephthah performs on her the ultimate abuse, for killing one’s own child is the worst form of murder.
More than any time in the history of Western civilization, there is a cognizance of the dysfunctional abuse of children. More literature on the subject has been produced in the last few decades and more money and effort have been expended in the attempt to curb this awful testimony to human depravity than in any previous generation. Yet, there is evidence that this is an increasing trend. The more hurt people, the more hurt people.
No congregation in America is free from the horrific acts of wife and/or child abuse. Unfortunately, the recent kidnapping of an eleven-year-old girl by her Christian school principal in Gary, Indiana, only underscores this. What can be done to arrest this plague? People need to get into the Word of God and follow it. Soaking up the love of God in Christ, they need to let the Lord meet their needs. They may need to seek professional counseling—which more and more churches are providing. But most important they need to remove their ignorance of God and his Word on a broad level, for ignorance of God’s Word is not bliss, it is disaster. Only a knowledge of the truth—in particular, the very embodiment of truth, Jesus Christ—can make one free (John 8:32)! Only a knowledge of God’s Word can break the bonds of sin and oppression and the cycle of hurt people hurting people.
On another level, Jephthah’s callous sacrifice of his daughter as a burnt offering is paralleled by the modern abortion of sons and daughters by a culture that, like Jephthah, is driven by selfish ambition.67 Granted none of these modern sacrifices is to Milcom, Chemosh, or Baal, but as we have already examined (see esp. ch. 2), the gods of this age are no less demanding and oppressive than their ancient Near Eastern counterparts. Having repudiated the authority of Scripture, the modern narcissistic society is utterly consumed with its “rights” and has no place for the concept that humankind is created in the image of God and that from conception on, the human embryo is a human being made in that image.
Judges 12:1–7
1The men of Ephraim called out their forces, crossed over to Zaphon and said to Jephthah, “Why did you go to fight the Ammonites without calling us to go with you? We’re going to burn down your house over your head.”
2Jephthah answered, “I and my people were engaged in a great struggle with the Ammonites, and although I called, you didn’t save me out of their hands. 3When I saw that you wouldn’t help, I took my life in my hands and crossed over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave me the victory over them. Now why have you come up today to fight me?”
4Jephthah then called together the men of Gilead and fought against Ephraim. The Gileadites struck them down because the Ephraimites had said, “You Gileadites are renegades from Ephraim and Manasseh.” 5The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me cross over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” 6they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’ ” If he said, “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.
7Jephthah led Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died, and was buried in a town in Gilead.
Original Meaning
THE FINAL SECTION of the Jephthah account (A′, see introductory comments on 10:6–12:7) narrates the confrontation between Jephthah and the Ephraimites (12:1–7). A special dialogue is carried out in 12:1–4a. Instead of congratulating Jephthah for his accomplishment and thanking him for delivering them from the Ammonite threat, in their jealousy and wounded sense of self-importance the Ephraimites are determined to destroy the deliverer. They call out their forces, cross the Jordan, and accuse Jephthah of not calling them out to fight the Ammonites (12:1a–b1). The parallel with the action of the Ephraimites in the Gideon episode is evident (cf. 8:1–3).
The Ephraimites also level a threat against Jephthah (12:1b2). Given the importance to Jephthah of his being the “head” (rōʾš), even to the extent of uttering and fulfilling his vow in order to get and maintain the position, the Ephraimite curse must have been especially personal: “We’re going to burn down your house over your head [lit., over you]!” Jephthah has just incinerated his only daughter, the first thing out of “his house” to meet him. Now the Ephraimites threaten to incinerate Jephthah’s “house” with him in it!
It is clear that the Ephraimite accusation and threat come from the ancient Near Eastern context of the covenant disputation. They have the same rhetorical effect as the earlier threat of the king of Ammon (11:13). It is as though, having delivered Gilead from the external threat of the Ammonite king, Jephthah must now face this internal threat from one of the tribes of Israel. It is ironic that the Ephraimites, who did not become involved in the battle with the Ammonites even though they too were oppressed by them (10:9), now want to fight Jephthah!68 They are depicted here as “bratty upstarts who want to be included where they do not belong.”69 In fact, during this period, it is possible that Ephraim controlled some territories east of the Jordan (cf. 2 Sam. 18:6, which mentions the “forest of Ephraim”).70 In this way, this final story of the Jephthah account may be a “satire” on the “arrogant and insufferable Ephraimites.”71
Jephthah’s reaction is not, however, like Gideon’s. He does not cow to the Ephraimites. While he does appear to seek a diplomatic resolution (“I and my people were engaged in a great struggle”),72 he is particularly concerned with exonerating himself from any personal responsibility (12:2–3a). The diplomacy that follows lacks the same high quality of divine righteousness as that which characterized Jephthah’s diplomacy with the king of the Ammonites. Jephthah’s claim that he did summon the Ephraimites is in fact doubtful, since there is no confirmation of it in the narrative.73 If he had appealed to the Ephraimites (and this is not proven), they rejected him and his authority as invested by the elders of Gilead. Why, he asks them, have they come up to fight him?
There is no solemn appeal here to Yahweh, the Judge, to decide the issue. In fact, Jephthah mentions Yahweh only to enhance his own authority vis-á-vis the Ephraimites (a tactic he used with the elders of Gilead, cf. 11:9). His argument that he is in the right is not, in this case, to establish an entitlement to divine help but rather to gain a psychological advantage over his opponents. Jephthah is “still the same skillful practitioner with words, but he appears more eager for the fight on this occasion, and more confident.”74 But the problem is that the Ephraimites are not prepared to recognize any leader of Israel who acts independently of Ephraim. Their wounded, selfish pride leads them to reject him outright. Thus, just as his half-brothers rejected him, so now his tribal “brothers” seem to have rejected him. And both parties are smarting to bring the other down.
Without waiting for a response to his rhetorical question at the end of verse 3, Jephthah calls out the Gileadites and fights against the Ephraimites, who have made another bad remark: “You Gileadites are renegades [i.e., fugitives, pelîṭê ʾeprayim] from Ephraim and Manasseh” (i.e., “you illegitimates, you bastards,” 12:4). The implications of the Ephraimite taunt are not lost on the man who has suffered most of his life with the tag “illegitimate,” “son of a prostitute.”75 Ironically, the Gileadites answer the Ephraimite taunt by putting them to a shameful rout and thus make them the true fugitives of Ephraim (pelîṭê ʾeprayim, 12:5).
Interestingly, Yahweh is not involved in this battle in any way. Just as in the second (Transjordanian) battle in the Gideon account (8:4–21), so here Yahweh is not mentioned anywhere. This is an intertribal feud that God has hardly sanctioned. This episode is a foretaste of the intertribal war that erupts in Judges 19–21.
The Gileadites seize the fords of the Jordan and administer a great slaughter of the Ephraimites. The tactic of seizing the fords of the Jordan was utilized by the Ephraimites previously in the battle against the Moabites under Ehud (3:27–30) and against the Midianites under Gideon (7:24–25). Now, ironically, it is used against Ephraim.
Fleeing from the Gileadites, the Ephraimites try to mingle with the regular travelers at the fords and, when asked if they are Ephraimite, deny it. So to facilitate the Ephraimites’ demise, the Gileadites employ a word: šibbōlet.76 In a polite request to the Ephraimites, the Gileadites say: “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’ If he said ‘Sibboleth,’ because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him” (12:6).
It is possible to translate the phrase “because he could not pronounce the word correctly” three ways.77 (1) The phrase could be translated as indicating a lack of preparation: “because he was not prepared to pronounce it correctly.” (2) The phrase could be translated as indicating an inattention: “because he was inattentive to pronounce it correctly.” (3) The phrase could be translated as indicating an inability: “because he did not have the ability to pronounce it correctly.” But no matter how this phrase is interpreted—whether it be lack of preparation, inattention, or inability—it clearly indicates the incompetence of the Ephraimites. They are deficient in language skills and cannot properly repeat the test word spoken by the Gileadite guards. The high and mighty Ephraimites cannot “speak the Queen’s English,” and so fail the Shibboleth test. Instead of saying “God save the Queen!” they say “God shave the Queen!”78
Thus the word šibbōlet was chosen because it exposed the incompetence of the Ephraimites to pronounce it, not because of any lexical significance inherent in the word. It is truly an irony that life or death is made to revolve on this “completely empty word,” šibbōlet/sibbōlet.79 Consequently, the dialectal difference80 is not the main emphasis of the test. The Shibboleth episode ridicules “the Ephraimites who are portrayed as incompetent nincompoops who cannot even repeat a test-word spoken by the Gileadite guards.”81
Gilead’s slaughter of its tribal “brother” Ephraim (12:1–6) parallels Jephthah’s slaughter of his daughter (11:39–40). Just as Jephthah through his word (11:30–31) murders a daughter within his tribe—in fact, within his own family—so Gilead through a word (šibbōlet/sibbōlet) murders a confederated tribe. One can see vividly the further escalated parallel between the effects of a misspoken word on Jephthah’s daughter and the Ephraimites. It is, therefore, no surprise that the “justice” wrought on Ephraim by Gilead is as violent as that which Jephthah, their new ruler, has wrought on his own daughter. This intertribal feud under Jephthah is part of a thematic development (progressive internal disintegration) that reaches its climax in the civil war involving the whole of Israel at the end of the book (chs. 19–21).
Verse 7 records the fact that Jephthah judged Israel for six years and then died; he was buried in a town of Gilead. Thus ends the cycle devoted to the “mighty warrior” (gibbôr ḥayil) Jephthah.
Bridging Contexts
AS IN 11:29–40, two entities are vying for power. In 11:29–40, it was Jephthah and the Ammonite king; in this section, it is Jephthah and the Ephraimites. The Ephraimites question Jephthah’s authority, and the fighting begins. Nothing positive in a spiritual sense comes out of this struggle. As in the intertribal fighting at the end of the Gideon story and anticipatory of the intertribal warfare at the end of the book (chs. 20–21), this intertribal feud only serves to destroy Israelites—in this case, the Ephraimites.
The Ephraimite threat is met with self-exoneration from any personal responsibility on the part of Jephthah. Insult is countered by insult, and fighting rather than diplomacy follows. Just as Jephthah willingly slaughtered his daughter, now he leads the Gileadites to slaughter their tribal brothers. His unbridled blind ambition has come to its full maturation.
Contemporary Significance
VIOLENCE IS OFTEN the way that a spiritually flawed character compensates for his or her sense of inferiority. In this case, Jephthah’s sense of inferiority derives from his having been victimized by past rejection. Ironically, Jephthah victimized his daughter and now victimizes a brother tribe in a more violent way than his own victimization at the hands of his half-brothers. In a society so prone to victimizing others, what kind of violence are we inducing for the next generation? If blind ambition is unbridled and comes to full maturation, the product will be devastating.
Contentious people produce contention. The Ephraimites are contentious, but so is Jephthah. The Ephraimites ought to be happy that their sons did not have to fight and die in this war against the Ammonites. They should thank God for their deliverance from the oppression. And note that Jephthah is far more contentious with the Ephraimites, his own people, than with the Ammonite king. He is diplomatic with the Ammonites and yet astonishingly impatient with his own countrymen.
This is an unnecessary war. But jealousy, envy, and every sort of evil (James 3:14–18) can consume God’s people. So it is with the petty, unimportant, and unnecessary fights that consume many a church. And while forty-some thousand may not die,82 the emotional and physical damage can be astronomical—especially in its long-term effects. There is a need for humility and repentance.
Note the great contrast with the Lord Jesus. He too was despised and rejected. Even those in his only family thought he was crazy. He received no end of criticism from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and religious rulers of the day, even though he knew infinitely more about God and his Word than they did. He was betrayed and utterly abandoned, being crucified with common criminals, even though there was no guile in him. Certainly the Lord Jesus can serve as a model for overcoming dysfunctionality.