Text -- Judges 11:39-40 (NET)

11:39 After two months she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. She died a virgin. Her tragic death gave rise to a custom in Israel. 11:40 Every year Israelite women commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Jdg 11:39

Jephthah's daughter was not sacrificed, but only devoted to perpetual virginity. This appears, From Jdg 11:37-38, where we read, that she bewailed not her death, which had been the chief cause of lamentation, if that had been vowed, but her virginity: From this Jdg 11:39, where, after he had said, that he did with her according to his vow; he adds, by way of declaration of the matter of that vow, and she knew no man. It is probably conceived, that the Greeks, who used to steal sacred histories, and turn them into fables, had from this history their relation of Iphigenia (which may be put for Jephtigenia) sacrificed by her father Agamemnon, which is described by many of the same circumstances wherewith this is accompanied.

Wesley: Jdg 11:40

It is really astonishing, that the general stream of commentators, should take it for granted, that Jephthah murdered his daughter! But, says Mr. Henry, "We do not find any law, usage or custom, in all the Old Testament, which doth in the least intimate, that a single life was any branch or article of religion." And do we find any law, usage or custom there, which doth in the least intimate, that cutting the throat of an only child, was any branch or article of religion? If only a dog had met Jephthah, would he have offered up that for a burnt-offering? No: because God had expressly forbidden this. And had he not expressly forbidden murder? But Mr. Poole thinks the story of Agamemnon's offering up Iphigenia took its rise from this. Probably it did. But then let it be observed, Iphigenia was not murdered. Tradition said, that Diana sent an hind in her stead, and took the maid to live in the woods with her.

JFB: Jdg 11:34-40

The return of the victors was hailed, as usual, by the joyous acclaim of a female band (1Sa 18:6), the leader of whom was Jephthah's daughter. The vow was full in his mind, and it is evident that it had not been communicated to anyone, otherwise precautions would doubtless have been taken to place another object at his door. The shriek, and other accompaniments of irrepressible grief, seem to indicate that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice; the nature of the sacrifice (which was abhorrent to the character of God) and distance from the tabernacle does not suffice to overturn this view, which the language and whole strain of the narrative plainly support; and although the lapse of two months might be supposed to have afforded time for reflection, and a better sense of his duty, there is but too much reason to conclude that he was impelled to the fulfilment by the dictates of a pious but unenlightened conscience.

Clarke: Jdg 11:39

And she knew no man - She continued a virgin all the days of her life.

Clarke: Jdg 11:40

To lament the daughter of Jephthah - I am satisfied that this is not a correct translation of the original לתנות לבת יפתח lethannoth lebath yiphtach . Houbigant translates the whole verse thus: Sed iste mos apud Israel invaluit, ut virgines Israel, temporibus diversis, irent ad filiam Jepthe-ut eam quotannis dies quatuor consolarentur ; "But this custom prevailed in Israel that the virgins of Israel went at different times, four days in the year, to the daughter of Jephthah, that they might comfort her."This verse also gives evidence that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed: nor does it appear that the custom or statute referred to here lasted after the death of Jephthah’ s daughter

The following is Dr. Hales’ exposition of Jephthah’ s vow: - "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, Jdg 11:31. According to this rendering of the two conjunctions, ו vau in the last clause ‘ either,’ ‘ or,’ (which is justified by the Hebrew idiom thus, ‘ He that curseth his father and his mother,’ Exo 21:17, is necessarily rendered disjunctively, ‘ His father or his mother,’ by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldee, and English, confirmed by Mat 15:4, 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; and

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 neder , 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 or 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 cherem , devotement, it was irredeemable, as in the following case, Lev 27:28

"Notwithstanding, no devotement which a man shall devote unto the Lord, (either) of man, or beast, or of land of his own property, shall be sold or redeemed. Every thing devoted is most holy to the Lord

"Here the three ו vaus in the original should necessarily be rendered disjunctively, or as the last actually is in our 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 pigeons, 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 to the Lord, and therefore could not go back, as he declared in his grief at seeing his daughter and 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, Jdg 11:37; and such service was customary, for in the division of the spoils taken in the first Midianitish war, of the whole number of captive virgins the Lord’ s tribute was thirty-two persons, Numbers 31:15-40. This instance appears to be decisive of the nature of her devotement

"Her father’ s extreme grief on the occasion and her requisition of a respite for 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 everywhere, 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 11:34-39

"There was also another case of devotement which was irredeemable, and follows the former, 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. And

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, the people, or by the magistrate. Of all these we have instances in Scripture

"1.    The Amalekites and Canaanites were devoted by God himself. Saul was, therefore, guilty of a breach of the law for sparing Agag the king of the Amalekites, as Samuel reproached him, 1Sa 15:33 : ‘ 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 Midianitish 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 the Canaanites and their cities, if the Lord should deliver them into their hand, which the Lord ratified; whence the place was called Hormah, 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 who should taste food till the evening. His own son Jonathan inadvertently ate a honey-comb, not knowing 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. 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), may appear from the following considerations: -

"1.    The sacrifice of children to Molech 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, Lev 20:2, Lev 20:3. 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 magistrate, (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; ver. 212. ‘ 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 whose life he has not the absolute disposal of.’ These arguments appear to be decisive against the sacrifice; and that Jephthah could not 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."- New Analysis of Chronology, vol. iii., p. 319

The celebrated sacrifice of Iphigenia has been supposed by many learned men to be a fable founded on this account of Jephthah’ s daughter; and M. De Lavaur, Conference de la Fable avec l’ Histoire Sainte, has thus traced the parallel: -

"The fable of Iphigenia, offered in sacrifice by Agamemnon her father, sung by so many poets, related after them by so many historians, and celebrated in the Greek and French theatres, has been acknowledged by all those who knew the sacred writings, and who have paid a particular attention to them, as a changed copy of the history of the daughter of Jephthah, offered in sacrifice by her father. Let us consider the several parts particularly, and begin with an exposition of the original, taken from the eleventh chapter of the book of Judges

"The sacred historian informs us that Jephthah, the son of Gilead, was a great and valiant captain. The Israelites, against whom God was irritated, being forced to go to war with the Ammonites, (nearly about the time of the siege of Troy), assembled themselves together to oblige Jephthah to come to their succor, and chose him for their captain against the Ammonites. He accepted the command on conditions that, if God should give him the victory, they would acknowledge him for their prince. This they promised by oath; and all the people elected him in the city of Mizpeh, in the tribe of Judah. He first sent ambassadors to the king of the Ammonites to know the reason why he had committed so many acts of injustice, and so many ravages on the coast of Israel. The other made a pretext of some ancient damages his people had suffered by the primitive Israelites, to countenance the ravages he committed, and would not accord with the reasonable propositions made by the ambassadors of Jephthah. Having now supplicated the Lord and being filled with his Spirit, he marched against the Ammonites, and being zealously desirous to acquit himself nobly, and to ensure the success of so important a war, he made a vow to the Lord to offer in sacrifice or as a burnt-offering the first thing that should come out of the house to meet him at his return from victory

"He then fought with and utterly discomfited the Ammonites; and returning victorious to his house, God so permitted it that his only daughter was the first who met him. Jephthah was struck with terror at the sight of her, and tearing his garments, he exclaimed, Alas! alas! my daughter, thou dost exceedingly trouble me; for I have opened my mouth against thee, unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. His daughter, full of courage and piety, understanding the purport of his vow, exhorted him to accomplish what he had vowed to the Lord, which to her would be exceedingly agreeable, seeing the Lord had avenged him of his and his country’ s enemies; desiring liberty only to go on the mountains with her companions, and to bewail the dishonor with which sterility was accompanied in Israel, because each hoped to see the Messiah born of his or her family. Jephthah could not deny her this request. She accordingly went, and at the end of two months returned, and put herself into the hands of her father, who did with her according to his vow

"Several of the rabbins, and many very learned Christian expositors, believe that Jephthah’ s daughter was not really sacrificed, but that her virginity was consecrated to God, and that she separated from all connection with the world; which indeed seems to be implied in the sacred historian’ s account: And she knew no man. This was a kind of mysterious death, because it caused her to lose all hope of the glory of a posterity from which the Messiah might descend. From this originated the custom, observed afterwards in Israel, that on a certain season in the year the virgins assembled themselves on the mountains to bewail the daughter of Jephthah for the space of four days. Let us now consider the leading characters of the fable of Iphigenia. According to good chronological reckonings, the time of the one and of the other very nearly agree. The opinion that the name of Iphigenia is taken from the daughter of Jephthah, appears well founded; yea, the conformity is palpable. By a very inconsiderable change Iphigenia makes Iphthygenia, which signifies literally, the daughter of Jephthah. Agamemnon, who is described as a valiant warrior and admirable captain, was chosen by the Greeks for their prince and general against the Trojans, by the united consent of all Greece, assembled together at Aulis in Baeotia

"As soon as he had accepted the command, he sent ambassadors to Priam, king of Troy, to demand satisfaction for the rape of Helen, of which the Greeks complained. The Trojans refusing to grant this, Agamemnon, to gain over to his side the gods, who appeared irritated against the Greeks and opposed to the success of their enterprise, after having sacrificed to them went to consult their interpreter, Chalchas, who declared that the gods, and particularly Diana, would not be appeased but by the sacrifice of Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon

"Cicero, in his Offices, says that Agamemnon, in order to engage the protection of the gods in his war against the Trojans, vowed to sacrifice to them the most beautiful of all that should be born in his kingdom; and as it was found that his daughter Iphigenia surpassed all the rest in beauty, he believed himself bound by his vow to sacrifice her. Cicero condemns this, rightly judging that it would have been a less evil to have falsified his vow than to have committed parricide. This account of Cicero renders the fable entirely conformable to the history

"Agamemnon was at first struck with and troubled at this order, nevertheless consented to it: but he afterwards regretted the loss of his daughter. He is represented by the poets as deliberating, and being in doubt whether the gods could require such a parricide; but at last a sense of his duty and honor overcame his paternal affection, and his daughter, who had warmly exhorted him to fulfill his vow to the gods, was led to the altar amidst the lamentations of her companions; as Ovid and Euripides relate, see Met., lib. 13

"Some authors have thought she really was sacrificed; but others, more humane, say she was caught up in a cloud by the gods, who, contented with the intended sacrifice, substituted a hind in her place, with which the sacrifice was completed. Dictys Cretensis says that this animal was substituted to save Iphigenia

"The chronology of times so remote cannot, in many respects, but be uncertain. Both the Greeks and Romans grant that there was nothing else than fables before the first Olympiad, the beginning of which was at least four hundred and fifty years after the destruction of Troy, and two hundred and forty years after Solomon. As to the time of Solomon, nothing can be more certain than what is related in the sixth chapter of the first book of Kings, that from the going out of Egypt, under Moses, till the time in which he began to build the temple, was four hundred and eighty years

"According to the common opinion, the taking of Troy is placed one hundred and eighty years before the reign of Solomon; but his reign preceded Homer three centuries, according to some learned men, and always at least one century by those who related it lowest. Indeed, there is much uncertainty in fixing the express time in which Homer flourished

"Pausanias found so much difference concerning this in authors, that he was at a loss how to judge of it. However, it is sufficient for us that it was granted that Solomon was at least a century before Homer, who wrote more than two centuries after the taking of Troy and who is the most ancient historian of this famous siege."

Defender: Jdg 11:39

Note this does not say that he offered her as a burnt offering, merely that she "knew no man" throughout her life, in accord with her father's vow."

TSK: Jdg 11:39

did with : That Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, but consecrated her to the service of God in the tabernacle, in a state of celibacy, will we imagine be evident from the following consideration -

1.    Human sacrifices were ever an abomination to Jehovah, of which Jephthah could not be ignorant; and consequently he would neither have made such a vow, nor carried it into execution.

2.    We are expressly told (Jdg 11:29) that Jephthah was under the influence of the Spirit of God, which would effectually prevent him from embruing his hands in the blood of his own child.

3.    He had it in his power to redeem his daughter (Lev 27:4); and surely his only child must have been of more value than thirty shekles.

4.    Besides, who was to perform the horrid rite? Not Jephthah himself, who was no priest, and in whom it would have been most unnatural and inhuman; and the priests would certainly have dissuaded him from it.

5.    The sacred historian informs us, that she bewailed her virginity, that she knew no man, and that the Israelitish women went yearly to comfort or lament with her. Jdg 11:31; Lev 27:28, Lev 27:29; Deu 12:31; Isa 66:3

to his vow : 1Sa 1:11, 1Sa 1:22, 1Sa 1:24, 1Sa 1:28, 1Sa 2:18

custom : or, ordinance

TSK: Jdg 11:40

yearly : Heb. from year to year

lament : or, to talk with, Jdg 5:11

four days : 1Ki 9:25

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Jdg 11:40

There is no allusion extant elsewhere to this annual lamentation of the untimely fate of Jephthah’ s daughter. But the poetical turn of the narrative suggests that it may be taken from some ancient song (compare the marginal note 4).

Poole: Jdg 11:39

Quest What was it which Jephthah vowed and performed concerning his daughter?

Answ Many, especially of modern writers, conceive that Jephthah’ s daughter was not sacrificed, but only devoted to perpetual virginity, which then was esteemed a great curse and reproach. This they gather,

1. From Jud 11:37,38 , where we read that she bewailed not her death, which had been the chief cause of lamentation, if that had been vowed, but her virginity .

2. From Jud 11:39 , where, after he had said that

he did with her according to his vow he adds, by way of declaration of the matter of that vow,

and she knew no man But for the first, there may be a fair reason given, That she could not with honour bewail her death, which she had so generously and cheerfully accepted of, because it was attended with and occasioned by the public good, and her father’ s honour and happiness, Jud 11:36 , and was a kind of martyrdom; and moreover, an act of religion, the payment of a vow, which ought to be done cheerfully; but only bewailed the circumstance of her death, that it was in some sort accursed and opprobrious; she having had no husband to take away her reproach, as they speak, Isa 4:1 , and leaving no posterity to her father’ s comfort, and the increase of God’ s people. And for the second, that clause, and she knew no man, is plainly distinguished from the execution of his vow, which is here mentioned before; and this is added, not as an explication of the vow, but as an aggravating circumstance, that this was executed when she had not yet known any man. Besides, this opinion seems liable to weighty objections:

1. There is no example in all the Scripture of any woman that was obliged to perpetual virginity by any vow of her own, much less by the vow of her parents; nor have parents any such power over their children, either by the law of nature, or by the Holy Scripture.

2. The express words of the vow, Jud 11:31 , mention nothing of her virginity. but only that she should surely be the Lord’ s, i.e. devoted to the service of the Lord, which might be without any obligation to perpetual virginity; for even Samuel, who was as fully devoted to the Lord by his parents as she could be, 1Sa 1:11 ; and Samson, who was devoted not only by his parents, but by God himself, and that in the highest degree, even to be a perpetual Nazarite, Jud 13:5,7 ; yet were not prohibited marriage; nor were any of the most sacred persons, Levites, or priests, or high priests, though they were the Lord’ s in a singular manner, obliged to perpetual virginity: and therefore if she was not offered up for a burnt-offering, as the authors of this opinion say, but only was consecrated to God, there was no occasion to bewail her virginity, which, for any thing that appears, she was not tied to.

3. If this were all, here was no sufficient cause why so wise and valiant a man as Jephthah should so bitterly and passionately lament over himself or his daughter. And therefore it may seem most probable that Jephthah did indeed sacrifice his daughter, as he had vowed to do; which was the opinion of Josephus the Jew, and of the Chaldee Paraphrast, and of divers of the Jewish doctors, and almost all the ancient fathers, and many eminent writers; and this best agrees with the words of the vow, delivered Jud 11:31 ,

Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me— shall surely be the Lord’ s, and I will offer it for a burnt-offering Nor is there one word in all the following verses which denies that she was thus offered; only the execution of the vow is delivered in more ambiguous and general terms, Jud 11:39 , which in all reason, and by the laws of good interpretation, ought to be limited and explained by the more plain and particular description of it. It is true, those words may seem capable of another interpretation; the conjunctive particle and may be here put for the disjunctive or , as it often is, as Exo 21:16 17 Le 6:3,5 2Sa 2:19 , &c.; and so the meaning is, That what I first meet shall surely be the Lord’ s , or, I will offer it up for a burnt-offering , to wit if it be a creature fit to be offered; otherwise, say they, if a dog or an ass should have met him first, he should have been obliged to offer them, which was against the law. But it is sufficiently evident that he speaks of a human person, from the very phrase of

coming forth to meet him at his return; which plainly argues a design to meet him, purposely to congratulate his return; this phrase of going to meet a person coming being very oft used in Scripture, and constantly of one person meeting another, as Gen 14:17 Gen 17:2 24:17 , &c., and never of any brute creature. And although and is sometimes put for or , yet it is not to be so used without necessity, which seems not to be in this place; nor is it very proper to distinguish two sentences in this manner, where the one is more general, and the other being more special, is comprehended within it, which is the case here; for it shall surely be the Lord’ s , is the general; and its being offered up for a burnt-offering is the particular way or manner how it was to be the Lord’ s; as it were very improper to say, this is either a man, or it is my servant John; because the latter branch is contained in the former; and therefore in all the alleged instances where and is put for or , they are two distinct persons or things, and not one comprehended within another, as Exo 21:17 , father or mother ; 2Sa 2:19 , right hand or left . But the great objection against this opinion is this, that it seems a most horrid act, directly contrary to the law of nature, and to plain Scripture, thus to sacrifice his own daughter; and that it seems altogether incredible, either that such a man as Jephthah, so eminent for piety, and wisdom, and zeal, and faith, should either make so barbarous a vow, or pursue it for above two months’ space; and that none of the priests of that time should inform him of the unlawfulness of executing so wicked a vow, and of the liberty he had to redeem such a vow, by virtue of Lev 27:2,3 , &c.; or that Jephthah would not willingly receive information, especially where it was so agreeable to his own interest and natural affection; or that the priests and people would suffer him to execute his own daughter, and not rather hinder him by force, as they afterwards did Saul which he had sworn the death of Jonathan. These and other such difficulties I confess there are in the case; but something may be truly and fairly said to allay the seeming monstrousness of this act.

1. These were times of great and general ignorance and corruption of religion, wherein the Israelites had apostatized from God, and learnt and followed the practices and worships of the heathen nations, Jud 10:6 , whereof this was one, to offer up human sacrifices to Moloch; and although they seem now to have repented and forsaken their idols, Jud 10:16 , yet they seem still to have retained part of the old leaven, and this among the rest, that they might offer human sacrifices, not to Moloch, as they had done, but unto the Lord. And whereas some of the Jewish writers pretend that Phinehas was alive at this time; and tell a fine story concerning him and Jephthah, that both stood upon their terms, and neither would go to the other to advise about the matter; yet it is more than probable that Phinehas was dead long before this time, and whosoever was the high priest then, he seems to be guilty either of gross ignorance or negligence; so that a late learned writer conceives that this was the reason why the priesthood was taken from him, and from that line, and translated to the line of Ithamar, which was done in the time of the judges, as may be gathered from 1Sa 2:35,36 . Moreover Jephthah, though now a good man, may seem to have had but a rude and barbarous education; having been banished from his father’ s house, and forced to wander and dispose himself in the utmost borders of the land of Gilead, beyond Jordan, at a great distance from the place of worship and instruction: nor is it strange that the priests and people did not resist Jephthah in this enterprise; partly because many of them might be under the same ignorance and mistake that Jephthah did; and partly because they knew Jephthah to be a stout, and resolute, and boisterous man, and were afraid to oppose him in a matter wherein he seemed to be so peremptory, and their persons and families were not much concerned.

2. This mistake of Jephthah’ s, and of the rest of that age, was not without some plausible appearance of warrant from the holy text, even from Lev 27:28,29 , wherein it is expressly provided, that no devoted thing, whether man or beast, should be redeemed , but should surely be put to death ; a place which it is not strange that a soldier in so ignorant an age should mistake, seeing even some learned divines, in this knowing age, and Capellus, amongst the rest, have fallen into the same error, and justified Jephthah’ s action from that place; and though I doubt not they run into the other extreme, as men commonly do, those words being to be otherwise understood than they take them, (of which see my notes on that place,) yet it must be granted that place gave Jephthah a very colourable pretext for the action; and being pushed on by zeal for God, and the conscience of his vow, he might easily be induced to it; and though this was a sin in him, yet it was but a sin of ignorance; which therefore was overlooked by a gracious God, and not reproved by any holy men of God. It is probably conceived, that the Greeks, who used to steal sacred histories, and turn them into fables, had from this history their relation of Iphigenia, (which may be put for Jephtigenia,) sacrificed by her father Agamemnon, which is described by many of the same circumstances wherewith this is accompanied.

She knew no man to wit, carnally; she, died a virgin.

Poole: Jdg 11:40

Went yearly to a place appointed for their meeting to this end, possibly to the place where she was sacrificed.

To lament the daughter of Jephthah to express their sorrow for her loss, according to thee manner. Or, to discourse of (so the Hebrew lamed is sometimes used)

the daughter of Jephthah to celebrate her praises, who had so willingly yielded up herself for a sacrifice.

Haydock: Jdg 11:39

Father. Her fortitude is commended by St. Ambrose (Off. iii. 12,) as more worthy of admiration than that of the two Pythagorean friends, one of whom, being sentenced to die, procured the other to stand bond for his return; and, at the time appointed, came freely to deliver himself up; an instance of generosity which made the tyrant who had sentenced him to die, beg that they would admit him into the society of their friendship. (Haydock) ---

Whatever we may think of Jephte, "we cannot sufficiently admire the dutiful behaviour, and amiable simplicity of the daughter, who voluntarily submitted to her parent's will, and exhorted him to do as he had vowed. To die to sin, to resign the pomps of a licentious world, to renounce those pleasures and incentives to vice, which are inconsistent with a clean heart, is a sacrifice truly meritorious, and acceptable to God; it is a sacrifice which was solemnly begun at the font of baptism." (Reeves, in the year of the world 2817.) ---

No man. It is remarked by those who believe that she was not slain, that this observation would be very unnecessary in the contrary opinion. No mention of death is made. The virgin only deplores, with pious resignation, that she cannot be the happy mother of the Messias.

Haydock: Jdg 11:40

Lament. Hebrew Lethanoth. On this term the solution of this question greatly depends. (Haydock) ---

Kimchi translates, "to talk with," or "to comfort the daughter of Jephte" as he supposes that the custom subsisted during her life, while she was shut up either near the tabernacle, or in her father's house. (Calmet) ---

Montanus renders "to speak to." Junius and the Tigurin version, "to discourse with." ---

Thanan certainly is used for "he related," &c. Judges v. 11., yethannu narrentur, or rather narrent; and the construction here seems to require this sense. (Amama) ---

If this be admitted, the bloody sacrifice is at an end, since the daughters of Israel could not meet to comfort the virgin every year, if she was immolated at the expiration of two months. But if we follow the translation of the Vulgate, Septuagint, and Chaldean, as the Protestants have done, the lamentation might still be viewed in the same light, as tending to condole with the lady, rather than bewail her untimely death, (Haydock) as, for the latter purpose, it would not have been necessary for them to assemble together. (Amama) ---

They might well enter into her sentiments, when she mourned her virginity, (ver. 38,) and strive to yield her some comfort in her secluded state, by coming in such numbers, and with the permission of the priests of God, continuing with her four days. (Haydock) ---

Some translate "to publish," or sound forth the praises (Calmet) of this heroic virgin, which may be true, whether she was slain, or only consecrated to the Lord. (Haydock) ---

St. Epiphanius (hær. 55., and 78,) informs us that "at Sichem an annual sacrifice was still offered up in the name of the virgin, and that she was revered as a goddess by the people in the vicinity." The vow of Jephte seems to have given rise to what we read in profane authors, of that which Idomeneus, king of Crete, made in the midst of a storm at sea: "He vowed that he would sacrifice to the gods whatever met him first. It happened that his son was the person, whom, when he had immolated, or, as others say, had wished to do it, and afterwards a pestilence had ensued, his subjects drove him from his kingdom." (Servius in Æneid iii., and xi.) (Calmet) ---

Aldrovandus (in Asino) relates a similar vow of Alexander the Great. Even the more sober pagans could not, it seems, approve of the unwarranted vows of parents to destroy the lives of their children. But of people consecrated to the Lord, by their parents, without first requiring their consent, we have many examples, in Samuel. (St. Bonaventure, July 14, &c.) ---

If we explain the vow of Jephte in the same sense, every difficulty will be removed, and infidels will not allege this example to prove that human victims are pleasing to God. (Haydock)

Gill: Jdg 11:39

And it came to pass at the end of two months she returned to her father,.... For the request she made was not a pretence to make her escape out of his hands; but having done what she proposed to do, and the time fixed for it being come, she returned to her father's house, and delivered herself to him:

who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: but what he did is a question, and which is not easily resolved; some think he really sacrificed her, through a mistaken sense of Lev 27:29 and which his action are accounted for through his living a military life, and in a distant part of the country, and at a time when idolatry had greatly prevailed in Israel, and to such a degree as it had not before, and no doubt that branch of it, sacrificing children to Molech; and Jephthah might think that though that was sinful, yet such a sacrifice might be acceptable to the Lord; and especially since his vow, as he thought, bound him to it; and how far the instance of Abraham offering up his son Isaac might encourage him to it, cannot be said: of this mind were Josephus ^k, Jonathan Ben Uzziah the Targumist, and some other Jewish writers ^l; and many of the ancient Christian fathers, and many modern authors of every name among Christians; and it has been thought that the story of Iphigenia, who Capellus ^m thinks is the same with Jepthigenia, that is, the daughter of Jephthah, and was slain by her father Agamemnon, having several circumstances in it similar to this, is taken from hence: and there is much such a case as this related ⁿ of Idomeneus, a king of the Cretians, who upon his return after the destruction of Troy, being in a tempest, vowed, should he be saved, that he would sacrifice the first he met with to the gods; and as it was his son he first met with, he sacrificed him; or, as others say, would have done it, but was prevented by the citizens, and who on this account drove him from his kingdom. But others are of opinion that what Jephthah did according to his vow was, that he shut up his daughter, and separated her from the company of men, and obliged her to live unmarried all her days, and therefore she is said to bewail her virginity. Kimchi and Ben Melech say, he built a house for her without the city, where she dwelt alone, and knew no man; and where her father supported her, and obliged her to live all her days; and Abarbinel thinks, that the Romanists from hence learnt to build their cloisters to put their nuns in; and so Ben Gersom interprets this vow of her being separated from men, and devoted to the service of God; and which is the sense of many Christian interpreters. Now though Jephthah had no such power over his daughter, as to oblige her to perpetual virginity, nor did his vow bind him to it; for persons devoted to the Lord were not obliged to abstain from marriage, nor have we any instances of a monastic life in those times, nor among the Jews at any time; yet as he did something not right, which he thought his vow obliged him to, one would be rather tempted to think, in charity to him, that of the two evils he did the least; for if she was put to death, it must be done either by the magistrates, or by the priests, or by Jephthah himself; neither of which is probable:

and she knew no man; never married, but lived and died a virgin: "and it was a custom in Israel"; the Targum adds,"that a man might not offer his son or his daughter for a burnt offering, as Jephthah the Gileadite did, and did not consult Phinehas the priest; for had he consulted Phinehas the priest, he would have redeemed her with a price;''so Jarchi, according to Lev 27:4 but each stood upon their honour, as the Jews say ^o; Jephthah being a king would not go to Phinehas, and Phinehas being an high priest; and the son of an high priest, would not go to a plebeian; and so, between them both, the maiden was lost: but the custom refers to what follows.

Gill: Jdg 11:40

That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite,.... Either the death of her, as some, or her virginity, as others; though the word ^p used may signify to talk and discourse with her, to hold a confabulation with her, and comfort her, as Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret it; to bring her some news, and tell her some diverting stories, to cheer and refresh her in her solitude. De Dieu observes, that the word signifies in the Arabic language to "praise", or speak in commendation of a person or thing; and indeed in this sense it seems to be used in this book, Jdg 5:11, "they shall rehearse", that is, with praise and thanksgiving, "the righteous acts of the Lord"; and so the daughters of Israel went every year to the place where the daughter of Jephthah was, to speak in the praise of her, of her heroism, in so cheerfully submitting to her father's vow, and expressing such gratitude and joy at the same time for victory over the enemies of Israel; and this they did in her presence and while she lived, to keep up her spirits; or it may be, in some public place, and even after her death, in memory of her, and to celebrate her praise. Epiphanius says ^q, that in his time, at Sebaste, formerly called Samaria, they deified the daughter of Jephthah, and kept a feast for her every year. The meeting of the daughters of Israel, so long as the custom lasted, which perhaps was only during the life of Jephthah's daughter, was four days in a year; but whether they were four days running, or once in a quarter of a year, is not certain; the latter seems most probable.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Jdg 11:39

¹ tn Heb “She had never known a man.” Some understand this to mean that her father committed her to a life of celibacy, but the disjunctive clause (note the vav + subject + verb pattern) more likely describes her condition at the time the vow was fulfilled. (See G. F. Moore, Judges [ICC], 302-3; C. F. Burney, Judges, 324.) She died a virgin and never experienced the joys of marriage and motherhood.

² tn Heb “There was a custom in Israel.”

NET Notes: Jdg 11:40

¹ tn Heb “From days to days,” a Hebrew idiom for “annually.”

² tn Heb “go to commemorate.” The rare Hebrew verb תָּנָה (tanah, “to tell; to repeat; to recount”) occurs only here and in 5:11.

³ tn The Hebrew text adds, “in the year.” This is redundant (note “every year” at the beginning of the verse) and has not been included in the translation for stylistic reasons.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Jdg 11:1-40

1 The covenant between Jephthah and the Gileadites, that he should be their head.

12 The treaty of peace between him and the Ammonites is in vain.

29 Jephthah's vow.

32 His conquest of the Ammonites.

34 He performs his vow on his daughter.

MHCC: Jdg 11:29-40

Several important lessons are to be learned from Jephthah's vow. 1. There may be remainders of distrust and doubting, even in the hearts of true and great believers. 2. Our vows to God should not be as a purchase of the favour we desire, but to express gratitude to him. 3. We need to be very well-advised in making vows, lest we entangle ourselves. 4. What we have solemnly vowed to God, we must perform, if it be possible and lawful, though it be difficult and grievous to us. 5. It well becomes children, obediently and cheerfully to submit to their parents in the Lord. It is hard to say what Jephthah did in performance of his vow; but it is thought that he did not offer his daughter as a burnt-offering. Such a sacrifice would have been an abomination to the Lord; it is supposed she was obliged to remain unmarried, and apart from her family. Concerning this and some other such passages in the sacred history, about which learned men are divided and in doubt, we need not perplex ourselves; what is necessary to our salvation, thanks be to God, is plain enough. If the reader recollects the promise of Christ concerning the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and places himself under this heavenly Teacher, the Holy Ghost will guide to all truth in every passage, so far as it is needful to be understood.

Matthew Henry: Jdg 11:29-40

We have here Jephthah triumphing in a glorious victory, but, as an alloy to his joy, troubled and distressed by an unadvised vow.

I. Jephthah's victory was clear, and shines very brightly, both to his honour and to the honour of God, his in pleading and God's in owning a righteous cause. 1. God gave him an excellent spirit, and he improved it bravely, Jdg 11:29. When it appeared by the people's unanimous choice of him for their leader that he had so clear a call to engage, and by the obstinate deafness of the king of Ammon to the proposals of accommodation that he had so just a cause to engage in, then the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and very much advanced his natural faculties, enduing him with power from on high, and making him more bold and more wise than ever he had been, and more fired with a holy zeal against the enemies of his people. Hereby God confirmed him in his office, and assured him of success in his undertaking. Thus animated, he loses no time, but with an undaunted resolution takes the field. Particular notice is taken of the way by which he advanced towards the enemy's camp, probably because the choice of it was an instance of that extraordinary discretion with which the Spirit of the Lord had furnished him; for those who sincerely walk after the Spirit shall be led forth the right way. 2. God gave him eminent success, and he bravely improved that too (Jdg 11:32): The Lord delivered the Ammonites into his hand, and so gave judgment upon the appeal in favour of the righteous cause, and made those feel the force of war that would not yield to the force of reason; for he sits in the throne, judging right. Jephthah lost not the advantages given him, but pursued and completed his victory. Having routed their forces in the field, he pursued them to their cities, where he put to the sword all he found in arms, so as utterly to disable them from giving Israel any molestation, Jdg 11:33. But it does not appear that he utterly destroyed the people, as Joshua had destroyed the devoted nations, nor that he offered to make himself master of the country, though their pretensions to the land of Israel might have given him colour to do so: only he took care that they should be effectually subdued. Though others' attempting wrong to us will justify us in the defence of our own right, yet it will not authorize us to do them wrong.

II. Jephthah's vow is dark, and much in the clouds. When he was going out from his own house upon this hazardous undertaking, in prayer to God for his presence with him he makes a secret but solemn vow or religious promise to God, that, if God would graciously bring him back a conqueror, whosoever or whatsoever should first come out of his house to meet him it should be devoted to God, and offered up for a burnt-offering. At his return, tidings of his victory coming home before him, his own and only daughter meets him with the seasonable expressions of joy. This puts him into a great confusion; but there was no remedy: after she had taken some time to lament her own infelicity, she cheerfully submitted to the performance of his vow. Now,

1. There are several good lessons to be learnt out of this story. (1.) That there may be remainders of distrust and doubting even in the hearts of true and great believers. Jephthah had reason enough to be confident of success, especially when he found the Spirit of the Lord come upon him, and yet, now that it comes to the settling, he seems to hesitate (v. 30): If thou wilt without fail deliver them into my hand, then I will do so and so. And perhaps the snare into which his vow brought him was designed to correct the weakness of his faith, and a fond conceit he had that he could not promise himself a victory unless he proffered something considerable to be given to God in lieu of it. (2.) That yet it is very good, when we are in the pursuit or expectation of any mercy, to make vows to God of some instance of acceptable service to him, not as a purchase of the favour we desire, but as an expression of our gratitude to him and the deep sense we have of our obligations to render according to the benefit done to us. The matter of such a singular vow (Lev 27:2) must be something that has a plain and direct tendency either to the advancement of God's glory, and the interests of his kingdom among men, or to the furtherance of ourselves in his service, and in that which is antecedently our duty. (3.) That we have great need to be very cautious and well advised in the making of such vows, lest, by indulging a present emotion even of pious zeal, we entangle our own consciences, involve ourselves in perplexities, and are forced at last to say before the angel that it was an error, Ecc 5:2-6. It is a snare to a man hastily to devour that which is holy, without due consideration quid valeant humeri, quid ferre recusent - what we are able or unable to effect, and without inserting the needful provisos and limitations which might prevent the entanglement, and then after vows to make the enquiry which should have been made before, Pro 20:25. Let Jephthah's harm be our warning in this matter. See Deu 23:22. (4.) That what we have solemnly vowed to God we must conscientiously perform, if it be possible and lawful, though it be ever so difficult and grievous to us. Jephthah's sense of the powerful obligation of his vow must always be ours (Jdg 11:35): " I have opened my mouth unto the Lord in a solemn vow, and I cannot go back, "that is, "I cannot recall the vow myself, it is too late, nor can any power on earth dispense with it, or give me up my bond."The thing was my own, and in my own power (Act 5:4), but now it is not. Vow and pay, Psa 76:11. We deceive ourselves if we think to mock God. If we apply this to the consent we have solemnly given, in our sacramental vows, to the covenant of grace made with poor sinners in Christ, what a powerful argument will it be against the sins we have by those vows bound ourselves out from, what a strong inducement to the duties we have hereby bound ourselves up to, and what a ready answer to every temptation! " I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot go back; I must therefore go forward. I have sworn, and I must, I will, perform it. Let me not dare to play fast and loose with God."(5.) That it well becomes children obediently and cheerfully to submit to their parents in the Lord, and particularly to comply with their pious resolutions for the honour of God and the keeping up of religion in their families, though they be harsh and severe, as the Rechabites, who for many generations religiously observed the commands of Jonadab their father in forbearing wine, and Jephthah's daughter here, who, for the satisfying of her father's conscience, and for the honour of God and her country, yielded herself as one devoted (Jdg 11:36): " Do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; I know I am dear to thee, but am well content that God should be dearer."The father might disallow any vow made by the daughter (Num 30:5), but the daughter could not disallow or disannul, no, not such a vow as this, made by the father. This magnifies the law of the fifth commandment. (6.) That our friends' grievances should be our griefs. Where she went to bewail her hard fate the virgins, her companions, joined with her in her lamentations, Jdg 11:38. With those of her own sex and age she used to associate, who no doubt, now that her father had on a sudden grown so great, expected, shortly after his return, to dance at her wedding, but were heavily disappointed when they were called to retire to the mountains with her and share in her griefs. Those are unworthy the name of friends that will only rejoice with us, and not weep with us. (7.) That heroic zeal for the honour of God and Israel, though alloyed with infirmity and indiscretion, is worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance. It well became the daughters of Israel by an annual solemnity to preserve the honourable memory of Jephthah's daughter, who made light even of her own life like a noble heroine, when God had taken vengeance on Israel's enemies, Jdg 11:36. Such a rare instance of one that preferred the public interest before life itself was never to be forgotten. Her sex forbade her to follow to the war, and so to expose her life in battle, in lieu of which she hazards it much more (and perhaps apprehended that she did so, having some intimation of his vow, and did it designedly; for he tells her, Jdg 11:35, Thou hast brought me very low ) to grace his triumphs. So transported was she with the victory as a common benefit that she was willing to be herself offered up as a thank-offering for it, and would think her life well bestowed when laid down on so great an occasion. She thinks it an honour to die, not as a sacrifice of atonement for the people's sins (that honour was reserved for Christ only), but as a sacrifice of acknowledgment for the people's mercies. (8.) From Jephthah's concern on this occasion, we must learn not to think it strange if the day of our triumphs in this world prove upon some account or other the day of our griefs, and therefore must always rejoice with trembling; we hope for a day of triumph hereafter which will have no alloy.

2. Yet there are some difficult questions that do arise upon this story which have very much employed the pens of learned men. I will say but little respecting them, because Mr. Poole has discussed them very fully in his English annotations.

(1.) It is hard to say what Jephthah did to his daughter in performance of his vow. [1.] Some think he only shut her up for a nun, and that it being unlawful, according to one part of his vow (for they make it disjunctive), to offer her up for a burnt-offering, he thus, according to the other part, engaged her to be the Lord's, that is, totally to sequester herself from all the affairs of this life, and consequently from marriage, and to employ herself wholly in the acts of devotion all her days. That which countenances this opinion is that she is said to bewail her virginity (Jdg 11:37, Jdg 11:38) and that she knew no man, Jdg 11:39. But, if he sacrificed her, it was proper enough for her to bewail, not her death, because that was intended to be for the honour of God, and she would undergo it cheerfully, but that unhappy circumstance of it which made it more grievous to her than any other, because she was her father's only child, in whom he hoped his name and family would be built up, that she was unmarried, and so left no issue to inherit her father's honour and estate; therefore it is particularly taken notice of (Jdg 11:34) that besides her he had neither son nor daughter. But that which makes me think Jephthah did not go about thus to satisfy his vow, or evade it rather, is that we do not find any law, usage, or custom, in all the Old Testament, which does in the least intimate that a single life was any branch or article of religion, or that any person, man or woman, was looked upon as the more holy, more the Lord's, or devoted to him, for living unmarried: it was no part of the law either of the priests or of the Nazarites. Deborah and Huldah, both prophetesses, are both of them particularly recorded to have been married women. Besides, had she only been confined to a single life, she needed not to have desired these two months to bewail it in: she had her whole life before her to do that, if she saw cause. Nor needed she to take such a sad leave of her companions; for those that are of that opinion understand what is said in Jdg 11:40 of their coming to talk with her, as our margin reads it, four days in a year. Therefore, [2.] It seems more probable that he offered her up for a sacrifice, according to the letter of his vow, misunderstanding that law which spoke of persons devoted by the curse of God as if it were to be applied to such as were devoted by men's vows (Lev 27:29, None devoted shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death ), and wanting to be better informed of the power the law gave him in this case to redeem her. Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac perhaps encouraged him, and made him think, if God would not accept this sacrifice which he had vowed, he would send an angel to stay his hand, as he did Abraham's. If she came out designedly to be made a sacrifice, as who knows but she might? perhaps he thought that would make the case the plainer. Volenti non sit injuria - No injury is done to a person by that to which he himself consents. He imagined, it may be, that where there was neither anger nor malice there was no murder, and that his good intention would sanctify this bad action; and, since he had made such a vow, he thought better to kill his daughter than break his vow, and let Providence bear the blame, that brought her forth to meet him.

(2.) But, supposing that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter, the question is whether he did well. [1.] Some justify him in it, and think he did well, and as became one that preferred the honour of God before that which was dearest to him in this world. He is mentioned among the eminent believers who by faith did great things, Heb 11:32. And this was one of the great things he did. It was done deliberately, and upon two months' consideration and consultation. He is never blamed for it by any inspired writer. Though it highly exalts the paternal authority, yet it cannot justify any in doing the like. He was an extraordinary person. The Spirit of the Lord came upon him. Many circumstances, now unknown to us, might make this altogether extraordinary, and justify it, yet not so as that it might justify the like. Some learned men have made this sacrifice a figure of Christ the great sacrifice: he was of unspotted purity and innocency, as she a chaste virgin; he was devoted to death by his Father, and so made a curse, or an anathema, for us; he submitted himself, as she did, to his Father's will: Not as I will, but as thou wilt. But, [2.] Most condemn Jephthah; he did ill to make so rash a vow, and worse to perform it. He could not be bound by his vow to that which God had forbidden by the letter of the sixth commandment: Thou shalt not kill. God had forbidden human sacrifices, so that it was (says Dr. Lightfoot) in effect a sacrifice to Moloch. And, probably, the reason why it is left dubious by the inspired penman whether he sacrificed her or no was that those who did afterwards offer their children might not take any encouragement from this instance. Concerning this and some other such passages in the sacred story, which learned men are in the dark, divided, and in doubt about, we need not much perplex ourselves; what is necessary to our salvation, thanks be to God, is plain enough.

Keil-Delitzsch: Jdg 11:39-40

At the end of two months she returned to her father again, " and he did to her the vow that he had vowed, and she knew no man. "I consequence of this act of Jephthah and his daughter, " it became an ordinance (a standing custom) in Israel: from year to year (see Exo 13:10) the daughters of Israel go to praise the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year. תּנּה does not mean θρηνεῖν , to lament or bewail (lxx, Chald., etc.), but to praise, as R. Tanchum and others maintain.

With regard to Jephthah's vow , the view expressed so distinctly by Josephus and the Chaldee was the one which generally prevailed in the earlier times among both Rabbins and fathers of the church, viz., that Jephthah put his daughter to death and burned her upon the altar as a bleeding sacrifice to Jehovah. It was not till the middle ages that Mos . and Dav. Kimchi and certain other Rabbins endeavoured to establish the view, that Jephthah merely dedicated his daughter to the service of the sanctuary of Jehovah in a lifelong virginity. And lastly, Ludov. Cappellus , in his Diatriba de voto Jephtae , Salm. 1683 (which has been reprinted in his Notae critic . in Jud. xvi., and the Critici Sacri , tom. i.), has expressed the opinion that Jephthah put his daughter to death in honour of the Lord according to the law of the ban, because human beings were not allowed to be offered up as burnt-sacrifices. Of these different opinions the third has no foundation in the text of the Bible. For supposing that Jephthah had simply vowed that on his return he would offer to the Lord whatever came to meet him out of his house, with such restrictions only as were involved in the very nature of the case - viz., offering it as a burnt-offering if it were adapted for this according to the law; and if it were not, then proceeding with it according to the law of the ban, - the account of the fulfilment of this vow would certainly have defined with greater precision the manner in which he fulfilled the vow upon his daughter. The words "he did to her his vow which he had vowed,"cannot be understood in any other way than that he offered her as עולה , i.e., as a burnt-offering , to the Lord. Moreover, the law concerning the ban and a vow of the ban could not possibly give any individual Israelite the right to ban either his own child or one of his household to the Lord, without opening a very wide door to the crime of murder. The infliction of the ban upon any man presupposed notorious wickedness, so that burnt-offering and ban were diametrically opposed the one to the other. Consequently the other two views are the only ones which can be entertained, and it is not easy to decide between them. Although the words "and I offer him as a burnt-offering"appear to favour the actual sacrifice so strongly, that Luther's marginal note, "some affirm that he did not sacrifice her, but the text is clear enough,"is perpetually repeated with peculiar emphasis; yet, on looking more closely into the matter, we find insuperable difficulties in the way of the literal interpretation of the words. Since יצא אשׁר היּוצא cannot be taken impersonally, and therefore when Jephthah uttered his vow, he must at any rate have had the possibility of some human being coming to meet him in his mind; and since the two clauses " he shall be the Lords, "and " I will offer him up for a burnt-offering, "cannot be taken disjunctively in such a sense as this, it shall either be dedicated to the Lord, or, if it should be a sacrificial animal, I will offer it up as a burnt-offering, but the second clause simply contains a more precise definition of the first-Jephthah must at the very outset have contemplated the possibility of a human sacrifice. Yet not only were human sacrifices prohibited in the law under pain of death as an abomination in the sight of Jehovah (Lev 18:21; Lev 20:2-5; Deu 12:31; Deu 18:10), but they were never heard of among the Israelites in the early times, and were only transplanted to Jerusalem by the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh.

(Note: "Human sacrifices do not even belong to heathenism generally, but to the darkest night of heathenism. They only occur among those nations which are the most thoroughly depraved in a moral and religious sense."This remark of Hengstenberg (Diss. iii. p. 118) cannot be set aside by a reference to Euseb. praep. ev. iv. 16; Baur , Symb. ii. 2, pp. 293ff.; Lasaulx , Sühnopfer der Griechen und Römer, 1841, pp. 8-12; Ghillany , die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer, 1842, pp. 107ff., as Kurtz supposes, since the uncritical character of the proofs collected together in these writings is very obvious on a closer inspection, and Eusebius has simply taken his examples from Porphyry, and other writings of a very recent date.)

If Jephthah therefore vowed that he would offer a human sacrifice to Jehovah, he must either have uttered his vow without any reflection, or else have been thoroughly depraved in a moral and religious sense. But what we know of this brave hero by no means warrants any such assumptions, His acts do not show the slightest trace of impetuosity and rashness. He does not take to the sword at once, but waits till his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites have been without effect. Nor does he utter his vow in the midst of the confusion of battle, so that we might fancy he had made a vow in the heat of the conflict without fully weighting his words, but he uttered it before he set out against the Ammonites (see Jdg 11:30 and Jdg 11:32). So far as the religious training of Jephthah was concerned, it is true that he had led the life of a freebooter during his exile from his country and home, and before his election as the leader of the Israelites; but the analogous circumstances connected with David's life preclude us from inferring either moral depravity or religious barbarism from this. When David was obliged to fly from his country to escape from Saul, he also led a life of the same kind, so that all sorts of people came to him, not pious and virtuous people, but all who were in distress and had creditors, or were embittered in spirit (1Sa 22:2); and yet, even under these circumstances, David lived in the law of the Lord. Moreover, Jephthah was not destitute of the fear of God. This is proved first of all by the fact, that when he had been recalled from his exile he looked to Jehovah to give him the victory over the Ammonites, and made a treaty with the elders of Gilead "before Jehovah"(Jdg 11:9 and Jdg 11:10); and also by the fact, that he sought to ensure the help of God in war through the medium of a vow. And again, we have no right to attribute to him any ignorance of the law. Even if Kurtz is correct in his opinion, that the negotiations with the king of the Ammonites, which show the most accurate acquaintance with the Pentateuch, were not carried on independently and from his own knowledge of the law, and that the sending of messengers to the hostile king was resolved upon in the national assembly at Mizpeh, with the priests, Levites, and elders present, so that the Levites, who knew the law, may have supplied any defects in his own knowledge of the law and of the early history of his people; a private Israelite did not need to study the whole of the law of the Pentateuch, and to make himself master of the whole, in order to gain the knowledge and conviction that a human sacrifice was irreconcilable with the substance and spirit of the worship of Jehovah, and that Jehovah the God of Israel was not a Moloch. And again, even if we do not know to what extent the men and fathers of families in Israel were acquainted and familiar with the contents of the Mosaic law, the opinion is certainly an erroneous one, that the Israelites derived their knowledge of the law exclusively from the public reading of the law at the feast of tabernacles in the sabbatical year, as enjoined in Deu 31:10.; so that if this public reading, which was to take place only once in seven years, had been neglected, the whole nation would have been left without any instruction whatever in the law. The reason for this Mosaic precept was a totally different one from that of making the people acquainted with the contents of the law (see the commentary on this passage). And again, though we certainly do not find the law of the Lord so thoroughly pervading the religious consciousness of the people, received as it were in succum et sanguinem , in the time of the judges, that they were able to resist the bewitching power of nature-worship, but, on the contrary, we find them repeatedly falling away into the worship of Baal; yet we discover no trace whatever of human sacrifices even in the case of those who went a whoring after Baalim. And although the theocratical knowledge of the law seems to have been somewhat corrupted even in the case of such men as Gideon, so that this judge had an unlawful ephod made for himself at Ophrah; the opinion that the Baal-worship, into which the Israelites repeatedly fell, was associated with human sacrifices, is one of the many erroneous ideas that have been entertained as to the development of the religious life not only among the Israelites, but among the Canaanites, and which cannot be supported by historical testimonies or facts. That the Canaanitish worship of Baal and Astarte, to which the Israelites were addicted, required no human sacrifices, is indisputably evident from the fact, that even in the time of Ahab and his idolatrous wife Jezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian king Ethbaal, who raised the worship of Baal into the national religion in the kingdom of the ten tribes, persecuting the prophets of Jehovah and putting them to death, there is not the slightest allusion to human sacrifices. Even at that time human sacrifices were regarded by the Israelites as so revolting an abomination, that the two kings of Israel who besieged the king of the Moabites - not only the godly Jehoshaphat, but Jehoram the son of Ahab and Jezebel - withdrew at once and relinquished the continuance of the war, when the king of the Moabites, in the extremity of his distress, sacrificed his son as a burnt-offering upon the wall (2Ki 3:26-27). With such an attitude as this on the part of the Israelites towards human sacrifices before the time of Ahaz and Manasseh, who introduced the worship of Moloch into Jerusalem, we cannot, without further evidence, impute to Jephthah the offering of a bloody human sacrifice, the more especially as it is inconceivable, with the diametrical opposition between the worship of Jehovah and the worship of Moloch, that God should have chosen a worshipper of Moloch to carry out His work, or a man who was capable of vowing and offering a human-being sacrifice. The men whom God chose as the recipients of His revelation of mercy and the executors of His will, and whom He endowed with His Spirit as judges and leaders of His people, were no doubt affected with infirmities, faults, and sins of many kinds, so that they could fall to a very great depth; but nowhere is it stated that the Spirit of God came upon a worshipper of Moloch and endowed him with His own power, that he might be the helper and saviour of Israel.

We cannot therefore regard Jephthah as a servant of Moloch, especially when we consider that, in addition to what has already been said, the account of the actual fulfilment of his vow is apparently irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the words עולה והעליתיהוּ , as signifying a bleeding burnt-offering. We cannot infer anything with certainty as to the mode of the sacrifice, from the grief which Jephthah felt and expressed when his only daughter came to meet him. For this is quite as intelligible, as even the supporters of the literal view of these words admit, on the supposition that Jephthah was compelled by his vow to dedicate his daughter to Jehovah in a lifelong virginity, as it would be if he had been obliged to put her to death and burn her upon the altar as a burnt-offering. But the entreaty of the daughter, that he would grant her two months' time, in order that she might lament her virginity upon the mountains with her friends, would have been marvellously out of keeping with the account that she was to be put to death as a sacrifice. To mourn one's virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin. But even if we were to assume that mourning her virginity was equivalent to mourning on account of her youth (which is quite untenable, as בּתוּלים is not synonymous with נעוּרים ), "it would be impossible to understand why this should take place upon the mountains . It would be altogether opposed to human nature, that a child who had so soon to die should make use of a temporary respite to forsake her father altogether. It would no doubt be a reasonable thing that she should ask permission to enjoy life for two months longer before she was put to death; but that she should only think of bewailing her virginity, when a sacrificial death was in prospect, which would rob her father of his only child, would be contrary to all the ordinary feelings of the human heart. Yet, inasmuch as the history lays special emphasis upon her bewailing her virginity, this must have stood in some peculiar relation to the nature of the vow. When a maiden bewails her virginity, the reason for this can only be that she will have to remain a bud that has not been allowed to unfold itself, prevented, too, not by death, but by life"( P. Cassel , p. 473). And this is confirmed by the expression, to bewail her virginity "upon the mountains." "If life had been in question, the same tears might have been shed at home. But her lamentations were devoted to her virginity, and such lamentations could not be uttered in the town, and in the presence of men. Modesty required the solitude of the mountains for these. The virtuous heart of the maiden does not open itself in the ears of all; but only in sacred silence does it pour out its lamentations of love"( P. Cassel , p. 476).

And so, again, the still further clause in the account of the fulfilment of the vow, "and she knew no man,"is not in harmony with the assumption of a sacrificial death. This clause would add nothing to the description in that case, since it was already known that she was a virgin. The words only gain their proper sense if we connect them with the previous clause, he "did with her according to the vow which he had vowed,"and understand them as describing what the daughter did in fulfilment of the vow. The father fulfilled his vow upon her, and she knew no man; i.e., he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord, as a spiritual burnt-offering, in a lifelong chastity. It was this willingness of the daughter to sacrifice herself which the daughters of Israel went every year to celebrate-namely, upon the mountains whither her friends had gone with her to lament her virginity, and which they commemorated there four days in the year. And the idea of a spiritual sacrifice is supported not only by the words, but also most decisively by the fact that the historian describes the fulfilment of the vow in the words "he did to her according to his vow,"in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that he regarded the act itself as laudable and good. But a prophetic historian could never have approved of a human sacrifice; and it is evident that the author of the book of Judges does not conceal what was blameable even in the judges themselves, from his remarks concerning the conduct of Gideon (Jdg 8:27), which was only a very small offence in comparison with the abomination of a human sacrifice. To this we have to add the difficulties connected with such an act. The words "he did to her according to his vow"presuppose undoubtedly that Jephthah offered his daughter as עולה to Jehovah. But burnt-offerings, that is to say bleeding burnt-offerings, in which the victim was slaughtered and burnt upon the altar, could only be offered upon the lawful altar at the tabernacle, or before the ark, through the medium of the Levitical priests, unless the sacrifice itself had been occasioned by some extraordinary manifestation of God; and that we cannot for a moment think of here. But is it credible that a priest or the priesthood should have consented to offer a sacrifice upon the altar of Jehovah which was denounced in the law as the greatest abomination of the heathen? This difficulty cannot be set aside by assuming that Jephthah put his daughter to death, and burned her upon some secret altar, without the assistance and mediation of a priest; for such an act would not have been described by the prophetic historian as a fulfilment of the vow that he would offer a burnt-offering to the Lord, simply because it would not have been a sacrifice offered to Jehovah at all, but a sacrifice slaughtered to Moloch.

(Note: Auberlen's remarks upon this subject are very good. "The history of Jephthah's daughter,"he says, "would hardly have been thought worth preserving in the Scriptures if the maiden had been really offered in sacrifice; for, in that case, the event would have been reduced, at the best, into a mere family history, without any theocratic significance, though in truth it would rather have been an anti-theocratic abomination , according to Deu 12:31 (cf. Jdg 18:9; Lev 18:21; Lev 20:1-5). Jephthah's action would in that case have stood upon the same platform as the incest of Lot (Gen 19:30.), and would owe its adoption into the canon simply to genealogical considerations, or others of a similar kind. But the very opposite is the case here; and if, from the conclusion of the whole narrative in Jdg 11:39-40, the object of it is supposed to be simply to explain the origin of the feast that was held in honour of Jephthah's daughter, even this would tell against the ordinary view. In the eye of the law the whole thing would still remain an abomination, and the canonical Scriptures would not stoop to relate and beautify an institution so directly opposed to the law.")

All these circumstances, when rightly considered, almost compel us to adopt the spiritual interpretation of the words, "offer as a burnt-offering."It is true that no exactly corresponding parallelisms can be adduced from the Old Testament in support of the spiritual view; but the germs of this view, as met with in the Psalms and the writings of the prophets, are contained in the demand of God addressed to Abraham to offer Him his only son Isaac as a burnt-offering, when compared with the issue of Abraham's temptation-namely, that God accepted his willingness to offer up his son as a completed sacrifice, and then supplied him with a ram to offer up as a bleeding sacrifice in the place of his son. As this fact teaches that what God demands is not a corporeal but a spiritual sacrifice, so the rules laid down in the law respecting the redemption of the first-born belonging to the Lord, and of persons vowed to Him (Exo 13:1, Exo 13:13; Num 18:15-16; Lev 27:1.), show clearly how the Israelites could dedicate themselves and those who belonged to them to the Lord, without burning upon the altar the persons who were vowed to Him. And lastly, it is evident, from the perfectly casual reference to the women who ministered at the tabernacle (Exo 38:8; 1Sa 2:22), that there were persons in Israel who dedicated their lives to the Lord at the sanctuary, by altogether renouncing the world. And there can be no doubt that Jephthah had such a dedication as this in his mind when he uttered his vow; at all events in case the Lord, to whom he left the appointment of the sacrifice, should demand the offering up of a human being. The word עולה does not involve the idea of burning, like our word burnt-offering, but simply that of going up upon the altar, or of complete surrender to the Lord. עולה is a whole offering, as distinguished from the other sacrifices, of which only a part was given up to the Lord. When a virgin, therefore, was set apart as a spiritual עולה , it followed, as a matter of course, that henceforth she belonged entirely to the Lord: that is to say, was to remain a virgin for the remainder of her days. The fact that Nazarites contracted marriages, even such as were dedicated by a vow to be Nazarites all their lives, by no means warrants the conclusion that virgins dedicated to the Lord by a vow were also free to marry if they chose. It is true that we learn nothing definite from the Old Testament with regard to this spiritual sacrificial service; but the absence of any distinct statements upon the subject by no means warrants our denying the fact. Even with regard to the spiritual service of the women at the tabernacle we have no precise information; and we should not have known anything about this institution, if the women themselves had not offered their mirrors in the time of Moses to make the holy laver, or if we had not the account of the violation of such women by the sons of Eli. In this respect, therefore, the remarks of Clericus , though too frequently disregarded, as very true: "It was not to be expected, as I have often observed, that so small a volume as the Old Testament should contain all the customs of the Hebrew, and a full account of all the things that were done among them. There are necessarily many things alluded to, therefore, which we do not fully understand, simply because they are not mentioned elsewhere."

Constable: Jdg 3:7--17:1

II. THE RECORD OF ISRAEL'S APOSTASY 3:7--16:31

Israel's Judges
Judge	Scripture	Israel's Oppressors		Length in Years
		Nation(s)	King(s)	Oppression	Judgeship	Peace
Othniel	3:7-11	Mesopotamia	Cushan-rishathaim	8(ca. 1358-1350 B.C.)		40(ca. 1350-1310 B.C.)
Ehud	3:12-30	Moab (with Ammon & Amalek)	Eglon	18		80
Shamgar	3:31	Philistia
Deborah	Chs. 4-5	Canaan	Jabin	20(ca. 1250-1230 B.C.)		40(ca. 1230-1190 B.C.)
Gideon	Chs. 6-8	Midian (with Amalek & Arabia)	Zebah & Zalmunna	7		40(ca. 1180-1140 B.C.)
Tola	10:1-2				23(ca. 1117-1094 B.C.)
Jair	10:3-5				22(ca. 1115-1093 B.C.)
Jephthah	10:8-12:7	Ammon		18(ca. 1123-1105 B.C.)	6
Ibzan	12:8-10				7
Elon	12:11-12				10
Abdon	12:13-15				8
Samson	Chs. 13-16	Philistia		40(ca. 1124-1084 B.C.)	20(ca. 1105-1085 B.C.)

"The judges are twelve in number, reckoning either Deborah or Barek as a judge and omitting Abimelech, whose status in fact depended wholly on his descent from Gideon, and who was in effect not a deliverer', and a judge' only in the sense of a local ruler on his own account."⁶⁰

Notice that the writer recorded seven examples of oppression and deliverance (by Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson). This sevenfold scheme gives the impression of totality to Israel's degeneration. It also suggests that the writer viewed these disasters as fulfillments of the curses in Leviticus 26 where the number seven occurs four times (Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, and 28; cf. Deut. 28:25).⁶¹

The total number of judges cited is 12. By selecting 12 judges the writer may also have been suggesting that all 12 tribes of Israel had apostatized. One writer argued that these 12 judges each did their work in a different month, thus adding another impression of completeness to the record.⁶²

Certain formulaic expressions appear in 2:11-23 and then recur in the record of Israel's apostasy (3:7-16:31). However, as noted in the table below, they appear with less frequency as the narrative proceeds. Having established the pattern, the writer did not feel compelled to repeat these expressions as frequently since the reader learns to anticipate them as the narrative unfolds. The breakdown of these expressions is a rhetorical device that parallels and reflects the general moral and spiritual disintegration in Israel as a whole.⁶³

Expression	Othniel	Ehud	Deborah	Gideon	Jephthah	Samson
The Israelites did evil (2:11-13).	3:7	3:12	4:1	6:1	10:6	13:1
Yahweh gave them over (2:14).	3:8	3:12	4:2	6:1	10:7	13:1
The Israelites cried out (2:15, 18).	3:9	3:15	4:3	6:7	10:10
Yahweh raised up a deliverer (2:16, 18).	3:9	3:15
Yahweh gave the oppressor to the deliverer (2:18).	3:10	3:28
The land had rest.	3:11	3:30		5:31	8:28

Constable: Jdg 8:1--16:31

B. Present Failures vv. 8-16

Jude next expounded the errors of the false teachers in his day to warn his readers even more strongly. A feature of Jude's style is that he referred to certain Old Testament types (vv. 5-7 and 11) or prophecies (vv. 14-15 and 17-18) and then proceeded to interpret them as fulfilled by the false teachers (vv. 8-10, 12-13, 16, and 19).³⁸

"Following his illustrations of the past fate of apostates (vv. 5-7), Jude turns to a direct attack upon the apostates who are invading the churches being addressed."³⁹

Constable: Jdg 10:1--13:25

2. The seriousness of the error vv. 10-13

v. 10 The things the false teachers did not understand but reviled probably refer to aspects of God's revealed will that they chose to reject (cf. 1 Cor. 2:7-16).

"Jude, like his brother James, denounces the sins of the tongue frequently in this short letter."⁴⁵

What they did understand was the gratification of the flesh, and that would destroy them.

"Their way of life is to allow the instincts they share with the beasts to have their way; their values are fleshly values; their gospel is a gospel of the flesh. Jude describes men who have lost all sense of, and awareness of, spiritual things, and for whom the things demanded by the animal instincts of man are the only realities and the only standard."⁴⁶

"Jude is stating a profound truth in linking these two characteristics together. If a man is persistently blind to spiritual values, deaf to the call of God, and rates self-determination as the highest good, then a time will come when he cannot hear the call he has spurned, but is left to the mercy of the turbulent instincts to which he once turned in search of freedom."⁴⁷

"Slow suicide (not always slow) is the result of such beastliness."⁴⁸

v. 11 "Woe to them" is an imprecation of doom (cf. Isa. 5:8-23; Hab. 2:6-20; Matt. 23:13-29; 1 Cor. 9:16; et al.). It is the opposite of a blessing.

"The doom of apostates is no less sure than the glorification of the saints."⁴⁹

Cain's way was the way of godlessness and sensuality, violence and lust, greed and blasphemy, that led to divine judgment. It was the way of pride. Cain wanted to earn a relationship with God by his works, and he became a hateful murderer.

Balaam's error was compromise with God's enemies and teaching the Israelites that they could sin with impunity (Num. 31:16; cf. Rev. 2:14). He counselled the Midianites to seduce the Israelites to commit idolatry and fornication (Num. 21:16). His way was to use the spiritual to gain the material for himself. His error was thinking that he could get away with his sins. The false teachers also compromised God's truth in a way that involved idolatry and immorality. They would likewise perish under God's judgment as Balaam did (Num. 21:8).

"Balaam stands for two things. (a) He stands for the covetous man, who was prepared to sin in order to gain reward. (b) He stands for the evil man, who was guilty of the greatest of all sins--the sin of teaching others to sin. So Jude is declaring of the wicked men of his own day that they are ready to leave the way of righteousness to make gain; and that they are teaching others to sin."⁵⁰

"Balaam was the prototype of all greedy religionists who lead God's people into false religion and immorality . . ."⁵¹

Korah's rebellion was against God and His appointed leaders, Moses and Aaron (Num. 16:1-35). The false teachers were rebelling against God and his leaders, the apostles. Korah also perished.

Each of these three examples shows a different aspect of unbelief.

"Cain, to show the arrogance, malice, and false piety of apostates, the example of religious unbelief; Balaam, to show the avarice, subversiveness, and seductive character of apostates, the example of covetous unbelief; and Core [Korah], to show the factiousness [sic] and sedition toward rightful authority, the example of rebellious unbelief."⁵²

"Cain rebelled against God's authority in salvation, for he refused to bring a blood sacrifice as God had commanded. Balaam rebelled against God's authority in separation, for he prostituted his gifts for money and led Israel to mix with the other nations. Korah rebelled against God's authority in service, denying that Moses was God's appointed servant and attempting to usurp his authority."⁵³

v. 12 Five more illustrations, this time from nature, emphasize the seriousness of the false teachers' error (vv. 12-13).

A coral reef that lies hidden under the surface of the water can tear the bottom off a ship if it unsuspectingly runs into it. Likewise the false teachers could ruin a local church. They threatened the moral shipwreck of others. That some of the false teachers were believers or at least professing believers seems certain since they were participating in the love-feast, the most intimate service of worship the early church practiced. "Caring for themselves" highlights the apostates' self-centeredness (cf. Ezek. 34:2, 8; Isa. 56:11; John 10:12-13).

"Jude seems . . . to mean that these men insisted on participating in these love-feasts, not to express mutual love and concern but to gratify their own appetites."⁵⁴

Like clouds the false teachers attracted attention to themselves and promised refreshment, but they proved to be all show and no substance (cf. Prov. 25:14). In Palestine summer clouds often add to the humidity and consequently make the intense heat even more unbearable.⁵⁵

"To follow such men would result in being led astray from the path of truth and purity."⁵⁶

Farmers often dig trees that bear no fruit out of the ground. The false teachers bore no spiritual fruit and were incapable of bearing spiritual fruit; they were twice dead (cf. Ps. 52:5; Prov. 2:22; Jer. 1:10; John 15:1-6).⁵⁷ An uprooted tree is an Old Testament symbol of divine judgment (cf. Ps. 52:5; Prov. 2:22; Jer. 1:10). "Autumn" is literally late autumn in the Greek text, a detail that shows Jude believed he and his readers were living in the last days before the Lord's return. This viewpoint was common among the New Testament writers (cf. Rom. 13:11; 1 Pet. 4:7; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 2:18). Late autumn was the time when trees would have had no leaves much less fruit on their branches.⁵⁸

"These men give no evidence of ever having been regenerated."⁵⁹

v. 13 Waves cast up bits of filth and debris on the shore with their foam and flotsam. Similarly the false teachers spread evidence of their uncontrolled immorality and impurity wherever they went (cf. Isa. 57:20). This comparison emphasizes ". . . the restless and unrestrained nature of these men."⁶⁰

Some "stars" move about in the sky differently from the other stars. We now recognize these as planets and distinguish them from stars. Similarly the false teachers behaved out of harmony with the other luminaries. The Greek word planetes, which transliterated means "planet," really means wanderer. Long ago stargazers observed that these wanderers across the sky were different from the fixed stars. Likewise the false teachers had gone off course and had led people astray.

Another possible though less likely interpretation is that the reference is to meteors or "shooting stars" that flash across the sky but quickly disappear in darkness.⁶¹ The "black darkness," away from the Source of light, indicates the eternal punishment of those among them who were not Christians.

Constable: Jdg 11:1--12:8

3. Deliverance through Jephthah 11:1-12:7

To prepare for the recital of Israel's victory over the Ammonites the writer provided the reader with some background information concerning the man God raised up to lead this deliverance.

Constable: Jdg 11:34-40

The fate of Jephthah's daughter 11:34-40

Verses 1-33 record Jephthah's success. The rest of his story (11:34-12:7) relates his failure. The writer likewise recorded Gideon's success first (6:1-8:23) and then his failure (8:24-9:57). We shall find a similar pattern when we come to Samson's story. As with Gideon and Samson, Jephthah's failure grew out of his success. In all three of these judges' cases, failure resulted from ignorance of God's Word or disregard of it.

God gave us little information about the personal lives of the first three major judges, namely, Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah. He gave us much more personal information about the last three major judges: Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. This selection of material helps us appreciate the deterioration that took place in Israel during the judges' period as God's people did what was right in their own eyes (21:25).

When Jephthah returned home from battle, his only child, a daughter, greeted him gleefully (v. 34). The writer's description of her recalls Miriam's joy and dancing after the Lord gave the Israelites victory over their Egyptian pursuers (Exod. 15:20). Her joy became Jephthah's grief (v. 35). He falsely blamed her for his sorrow (cf. 1 Kings 18:17-18). Really he was responsible for it because of his vow to God (vv. 30-31). "Given my word" is a play on words (vv. 35-36). Jephthah's name means "he opens" and "given my word" is literally "opened my mouth." Jephthah evidently believed that to go back on his vow to God would involve a denial of his integrity, his very name. He felt he would be denying everything he believed in and stood for.

Jephthah believed he could not get out of his vow (v. 35). Unfortunately he did not know or had forgotten that God had made provision for His people to redeem things they had vowed to give Him. Leviticus 27:1-8 told the Israelites that if they vowed someone or something to God and then wanted it back they could pay a stated ransom price and buy it back. Even though Jephthah had great zeal for God, it was a zeal without knowledge. Had he known the Word of God he could have avoided sacrificing his daughter. With his vow he sought to secure his present, but through it he ended up sacrificing his future.²²⁶

"Although the present story ends with the death of the young girl, her father is the tragic figure, presenting a pathetic picture of stupidity, brutality, ambition, and self-centeredness. Ironically, the one who appeared to have become master of his own fate has become a victim of his own rash word. . . . The man who had tried to manipulate Yahweh to guarantee his peace' (shalom) is doomed by the one whose life he was willing to sacrifice for his own well-being."²²⁷

The submission of Jephthah's daughter was as commendable as it was tragic. She did not know Leviticus 27 either, but she submitted as an obedient child (cf. Gen. 22). She too believed that the Lord had given her father the victory over the Ammonites (v. 36).

There are primarily two possible interpretations of the fate of Jephthah's daughter as the record of Jephthah's fulfilling his vow unfolds in this section of verses.²²⁸

1. Jephthah offered her as a human sacrifice (burnt offering) to Yahweh.²²⁹

The more important arguments in favor of this interpretation are as follows.

a. Jephthah's desolation when his daughter greeted him points to an ultimate sacrifice (v. 35).

b. The fact that she received a two-month reprieve before Jephthah carried out his vowed action suggests that she died (vv. 37-38).

c. The institution of a four-day annual feast in Israel as a result of her fate argues for her death (v. 40).

d. Until the Middle Ages this was the uniform interpretation of the commentators.

e. The writer said the Israelites worshipped the gods of Ammon and Moab (10:10), and the leaders of these nations sacrificed children (2 Kings 3:27).

The rebuttals to these points are these.

a. Jephthah naturally would have been very sorry that his daughter met him rather than some animal. He had only one heir, and she could not now perpetuate his family in Israel.

b. The two-month reprieve would have been appropriate if she left his home from then on for a life of perpetual service at the tabernacle. She mourned because she would live as a virgin, not die a virgin.

c. The Israelites established the feast because she so admirably submitted to the will of her father and God. Moreover she was the daughter of a famous judge in Israel.

d. The antiquity of an interpretation does not guarantee its accuracy.

2. Jephthah dedicated her to the service of Yahweh at the tabernacle where she ministered from then on as a virgin.²³⁰

Some of the stronger arguments in favor of this view are these.

a. The text allows this possibility. The words and expressions used do not require a human sacrifice.

b. God specifically forbade human sacrifice in the Mosaic Law and called it an abomination in His sight (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10). That a judge in Israel such as Jephthah would have practiced it is unthinkable.

c. There is no record that the Israelites made human sacrifices until the godless kings Ahab and Manasseh introduced them many years later.

d. The writer did not picture Jephthah as a rash person who would impetuously or desperately promise God such a sacrifice (cf. vv. 9-11, 12-27).

The responses to these arguments that critics of this view have made are as follows.

a. Human sacrifice is the normal implication of the terms used in the passage.

b. Jephthah violated the Mosaic Law as did other of Israel's judges (e.g., Gideon's multiple marriages, Samson's violations of his Nazirite vow, etc.).

c. This could be the first human sacrifice the Israelites offered that God recorded in Scripture. The king of Moab later offered his crown prince as a human sacrifice to assure victory in battle, so this pagan practice may have influenced Jephthah (cf. 2 Kings 3:27).

d. Jephthah's background suggests that he was a rash person. He might have resorted to such an extreme measure to secure victory and acceptance by the Gileadites (cf. vv. 1-3).

I believe Jephthah offered his daughter as a human sacrifice. A few years later Saul also made a foolish vow and almost slew his son Jonathan (1 Sam. 14:39, 44-45). The only thing that prevented that tragedy was the intervention of the Israelites. Ignorance of God's Word is not only unfortunate, it is also dangerous.

"Long neglect of the Mosaic law had left the Israelites with many mistaken notions about God's will."²³¹

Guzik: Jdg 11:1-40

Judges 11 - Jephthah and the Ammonites

A. Jephthah negotiates with the Ammonites.

1. (1-3) Jephthah's background before his rise to leadership.

Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, but he was the son of a harlot; and Gilead begot Jephthah. Gilead's wife bore sons; and when his wife's sons grew up, they drove Jephthah out, and said to him, "You shall have no inheritance in our father's house, for you are the son of another woman." Then Jephthah fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tob; and worthless men banded together with Jephthah and went out raiding with him.

a. Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor: This brave and notable man in Israel had a clouded pedigree. His mother was a harlot, a common heathen prostitute.

b. Worthless men banded together with Jephthah and went out raiding with him: Jephthah wasn't necessarily the leader of a band of criminals. Adam Clarke explains that the term worthless men doesn't necessarily mean a bandit: "The word may, however, mean in this place poor persons, without property, and without employment."

i. Jephthah and his band probably operated more in the manner of David and his men during the period described in 1 Samuel 25:4-8, protecting cities and settlements from marauders and receiving pay from those whom they helped.

2. (4-11) Jephthah assumes the leadership of Gilead.

It came to pass after a time that the people of Ammon made war against Israel. And so it was, when the people of Ammon made war against Israel, that the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. Then they said to Jephthah, "Come and be our commander, that we may fight against the people of Ammon." So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, "Did you not hate me, and expel me from my father's house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?" And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, "That is why we have turned again to you now, that you may go with us and fight against the people of Ammon, and be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead." So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, "If you take me back home to fight against the people of Ammon, and the LORD delivers them to me, shall I be your head?" And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, "The LORD will be a witness between us, if we do not do according to your words." Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them; and Jephthah spoke all his words before the LORD in Mizpah.

a. The people of Ammon made war against Israel: The nation of Ammon, the Ammonites, lived to the south of Israel. They were a semi-nomadic group of people who descended from Abraham's nephew Lot.

b. Come and be our commander, that we may fight against the people of Ammon: Because of the crisis of the Ammonites, the leaders of Gilead were desperate for an able leader, and they turned to Jephthah. They gave him the authority as head over Gilead.

3. (12-28) Jephthah negotiates with the king of the Ammonites.

Now Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the people of Ammon, saying, "What do you have against me, that you have come to fight against me in my land?" And the king of the people of Ammon answered the messengers of Jephthah, "Because Israel took away my land when they came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon as far as the Jabbok, and to the Jordan. Now therefore, restore those lands peaceably." So Jephthah again sent messengers to the king of the people of Ammon, and said to him, "Thus says Jephthah: 'Israel did not take away the land of Moab, nor the land of the people of Ammon; for when Israel came up from Egypt, they walked through the wilderness as far as the Red Sea and came to Kadesh. Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, "Please let me pass through your land." But the king of Edom would not heed. And in like manner they sent to the king of Moab, but he would not consent. So Israel remained in Kadesh. And they went along through the wilderness and bypassed the land of Edom and the land of Moab, came to the east side of the land of Moab, and encamped on the other side of the Arnon. But they did not enter the border of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab. Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, king of Heshbon; and Israel said to him, "Please let us pass through your land into our place." But Sihon did not trust Israel to pass through his territory. So Sihon gathered all his people together, encamped in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they defeated them. Thus Israel gained possession of all the land of the Amorites, who inhabited that country. They took possession of all the territory of the Amorites, from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the wilderness to the Jordan. And now the LORD God of Israel has dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel; should you then possess it? Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the LORD our God takes possession of before us, we will possess. And now, are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever strive against Israel? Did he ever fight against them? While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its villages, in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities along the banks of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time? Therefore I have not sinned against you, but you wronged me by fighting against me. May the LORD, the Judge, render judgment this day between the children of Israel and the people of Ammon.' " However, the king of the people of Ammon did not heed the words which Jephthah sent him.

a. What do you have against me, that you have come to fight against me in my land? Jephthah asked a simple question: why are you in the land of Israel? The king of Ammon gave a simple reply: because it is really our land, and Israel took it from is unjustly.

b. Israel did not take away the land of Moab, nor the land of the people of Ammon: Jephthah's written response to the King of the Ammonites carefully explained why Israel had a right to the land that the Ammonites claimed was theirs.

i. Thus Israel gained possession of all the land of the Amorites, who inhabited that country: They Amorites conquered the Ammonites and took control of their land. When Israel defeated the Amorites in battle, they justly took the land of the Amorites - which also happened to be the previous land of the Ammonites. The war against the Amorites was prompted by the vicious Amorite war against Israeli civilians.

ii. And now the LORD God of Israel has dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel; should you then possess it? Since God gave this land to Israel, the Ammonites have no claim over it.

iii. Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? The Ammonite god Chemosh must show himself worthy to conquer the land of Israel. Since Israel held this land for three hundred years, it demonstrates that Chemosh was not greater than the God of Israel. This is an inherent challenge: "If your god is mighty enough to give you the land, then let him do it. Let us see who is stronger - Yahweh or Chemosh."

iv. Jephthah did not see this battle as primarily between two armies, but between the God of Israel and the false god of Ammon. Jephthah showed true wisdom in seeing this as a spiritual battle first.

c. Chemosh your god: Chemosh was traditionally the god of the Moabites, not the Ammonites. But they may have worshipped each other's gods, and they may also have considered Chemosh and Milcom to be the same god with different names.

B. Victory and a vow.

1. (29) Jephthah gathers troops and advances courageously on Ammon.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon.

a. Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah: This was the source of Jephthah's courage. When we are beset by fears and anxieties, we need to fill our lives with Jesus and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

b. He advanced toward the people of Ammon: The filling of the Spirit makes us advance. We go forward in the sense of spiritual progress and we go forward in the sense of confronting the enemies of God.

2. (30-31) Jephthah makes a rash vow, thinking it will help his cause before God.

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering."

a. Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: Though well intentioned, this was a foolish vow. Such vows can be attempts to get God "on our side." It is far more important to be on God's side than to try and persuade Him to be on your side.

i. Even a Spirit-filled man can do foolish things. The Holy Spirit does not overwhelm and control us, He guides us - and that guidance can be resisted or ignored at smaller or greater points.

b. Whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me . . . I will offer it up as a burnt offering: Jephthah did not have a human sacrifice in mind. This is indicated by the ancient Hebrew grammar: "The masculine gender could be translated 'whatever comes out' or 'whoever comes out' and 'I will sacrifice it.' " (Wolf)

i. Commentator Adam Clarke agreed that according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, the best translation is I will consecrate it to the LORD, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering. As he wrote, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him."

ii. Human sacrifice was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic Law in passages such as Leviticus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 12:31. It is almost certain that Jephthah was familiar with such passages because when he negotiatiated with the Ammonites, has demonstrated that he knew God's Word.

3. (32-33) God grants Israel victory over the Ammonites.

So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith; twenty cities; and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

a. And the LORD delievered them into his hands: God won a great and important victory for Israel through Jephthah. He overcame bitterness and family rejection to meet a great need. Despite his difficulty past, God still wonderfully used him.

4. (34-35) A difficult vow to fulfill.

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it."

a. When he saw her, he tore his clothes: Jephthah made his foolish vow sincerely, fully intending to keep it. Yet he had not seriously considered the consequences of the vow. Therefore he was grieved when his daughter was first to greet him out of his house.

b. I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it: Jephthah knew the importance of keeping our vows to God. He would keep an oath even when it was to his own hurt (Psalm 15:4)

i. Ecclesiastes 5:1-2 and 5:4-6 speak of the danger of making foolish vows. This passage makes it clear that it is better to not make vows at all than to make foolish vows. This does not mean that vows are bad - they can be good. It means we must take them seriously. Christians need to take seriously the sin of broken vows, and when we see them we must either repent and keep them or repent of your foolishness in ever making the vow, and seek His release from the vow.

5. (36-40) Jephthah fulfills his vow to God.

So she said to him, "My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon." Then she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I." So he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

a. He carried out his vow with her which he had vowed: Some think that Jephthah did really offer his daughter as a burnt offering. If he did, this was clearly an example of misguided zeal for God, because God never asked him to make such a foolish vow or to fulfill it so foolishly.

i. Later in their history, Israel began to serve a terrible pagan god named Molech, who was "worshipped" with child sacrifice in the most terrible way imaginable. God never asked to be served in this terrible way, and therefore it can't be blamed on God.

b. She went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity . . . She knew no man: These words indicate that it is more likely that Jephthah set his daughter aside for the tabernacle service according to the principle of Leviticus 27:2-4, where persons set apart to God in a vow are not required to be sacrificed (as animals were) but were "given" to the tabernacle in monetary value.

i. We know that there were women who were set apart for the tabernacle service; they were called the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting (Exodus 38:8; 1 Samuel 2:22). It is likely that Jephthah's daughter became one of these women who served at the tabernacle.

ii. His daughter and friends rightly sorrow that she was given to the tabernacle service before she was ever married. Probably most the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle were older widows.

iii. By sending his unmarried, only daughter to the service of the tabernacle for the rest of her life, it shows how seriously both Jephthah and his daughter took his promise to God.

iv. This seems like the best explanation because Jephthah is listed as a hero of the faith (Hebrews 11:32). It is hard to think of him as doing something so contrary to God's ways as offering his daughter as a human sacrifice.

© 2003 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Jdg 11:39

JUDGES 11:29-40 —How could God allow Jephthah to offer his daughter up as a burnt offering?

PROBLEM: Just before Jephthah went into battle against the people of Ammon, he made a vow to the Lord. The vow he made was that if God would grant him victory over his enemies, then “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace … I will offer it up as a burnt offering” ( Judges 11:31 ). When Jephthah returned, the first one to come out to meet him was his daughter. Jephthah refused to go back on the vow he had made. But, the Bible clearly states that human sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord ( Lev. 18:21 ; 20:2-5 ; Deut. 12:31 ; 18:10 ). How could God allow Jephthah to offer up his daughter, and then list Jephthah among the champions of faith in Hebrews 11:32 ?

SOLUTION: Many have taken this to mean that Jepthah offered his daughter’s life to the Lord, claiming the inviolable nature of an oath made to the Lord (cf. Ecc. 5:2-6 ). In addition, they note that a “burnt offering” involves a sacrifice of the life. They justify it on the grounds that a vow to God takes precedence over all else, even human life (cf. Gen. 22 ). God is sovereign over life and takes it if He wishes ( Deut. 32:39 ), as He does eventually ( Heb. 9:27 ).

However, for several reasons, it is not necessary to assume that Jephthah ever offered a human sacrifice. First, Jephthah was aware of the law against human sacrifice, and if he had intended to offer a human sacrifice, he would have known this would have been a blatant rejection of God’s law.

Secondly, the text does not actually say he killed his daughter in a sacrificial offering. This is simply inferred by some from the fact that he promised that whatever came out of his house first “shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” ( 11:31 ). As Paul indicated, human beings are to be offered to God “as a living sacrifice” ( Rom. 12:1 ), not as dead ones. Jephthah could have offered his daughter to the Lord as a living sacrifice. For the remainder of her life, she would serve the Lord in the temple and remain a virgin.

Third, a living sacrifice of perpetual virginity was a tremendous sacrifice in the Jewish context of that day. As a perpetual virgin dedicated to the service of the Lord, she would not be able to bring up children to continue her father’s lineage. Jephthah acted as a man of honor and great faith in the Lord by not going back on the vow that he had made to the Lord his God.

Fourth, this view is supported by the fact that when Jephthah’s daughter went out to weep for two months, she did not go out to mourn her impending death. Rather, she went out “and bewailed her virginity” (v. 38 ).

Finally, if she was facing death at the end of the two month period, it would have been very simple for her to marry some young man and live with him for the two months prior to her death. There was no reason for Jephthah’s daughter to mourn her virginity unless she was facing a life of perpetual virginity. Being the only child of Jephthah, his daughter was not mourning her virginity because of any illicit sexual desire.   

Critics Ask: Jdg 11:40

JUDGES 11:29-40 —How could God allow Jephthah to offer his daughter up as a burnt offering?

PROBLEM: Just before Jephthah went into battle against the people of Ammon, he made a vow to the Lord. The vow he made was that if God would grant him victory over his enemies, then “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace … I will offer it up as a burnt offering” ( Judges 11:31 ). When Jephthah returned, the first one to come out to meet him was his daughter. Jephthah refused to go back on the vow he had made. But, the Bible clearly states that human sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord ( Lev. 18:21 ; 20:2-5 ; Deut. 12:31 ; 18:10 ). How could God allow Jephthah to offer up his daughter, and then list Jephthah among the champions of faith in Hebrews 11:32 ?

SOLUTION: Many have taken this to mean that Jepthah offered his daughter’s life to the Lord, claiming the inviolable nature of an oath made to the Lord (cf. Ecc. 5:2-6 ). In addition, they note that a “burnt offering” involves a sacrifice of the life. They justify it on the grounds that a vow to God takes precedence over all else, even human life (cf. Gen. 22 ). God is sovereign over life and takes it if He wishes ( Deut. 32:39 ), as He does eventually ( Heb. 9:27 ).

However, for several reasons, it is not necessary to assume that Jephthah ever offered a human sacrifice. First, Jephthah was aware of the law against human sacrifice, and if he had intended to offer a human sacrifice, he would have known this would have been a blatant rejection of God’s law.

Secondly, the text does not actually say he killed his daughter in a sacrificial offering. This is simply inferred by some from the fact that he promised that whatever came out of his house first “shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” ( 11:31 ). As Paul indicated, human beings are to be offered to God “as a living sacrifice” ( Rom. 12:1 ), not as dead ones. Jephthah could have offered his daughter to the Lord as a living sacrifice. For the remainder of her life, she would serve the Lord in the temple and remain a virgin.

Third, a living sacrifice of perpetual virginity was a tremendous sacrifice in the Jewish context of that day. As a perpetual virgin dedicated to the service of the Lord, she would not be able to bring up children to continue her father’s lineage. Jephthah acted as a man of honor and great faith in the Lord by not going back on the vow that he had made to the Lord his God.

Fourth, this view is supported by the fact that when Jephthah’s daughter went out to weep for two months, she did not go out to mourn her impending death. Rather, she went out “and bewailed her virginity” (v. 38 ).

Finally, if she was facing death at the end of the two month period, it would have been very simple for her to marry some young man and live with him for the two months prior to her death. There was no reason for Jephthah’s daughter to mourn her virginity unless she was facing a life of perpetual virginity. Being the only child of Jephthah, his daughter was not mourning her virginity because of any illicit sexual desire.   

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Judges (Book Introduction)

JUDGES is the title given to the next book, from its containing the history of those non-regal rulers who governed the Hebrews from the time of Joshua to that of Eli, and whose functions in time of peace consisted chiefly in the administration of justice, although they occasionally led the people in their wars against their public enemies. The date and authorship of this book are not precisely known. It is certain, however, that it preceded the Second Book of Samuel (compare Jdg 9:35 with 2Sa 11:21), as well as the conquest of Jerusalem by David (compare Jdg 1:21 with 2Sa 5:6). Its author was in all probability Samuel, the last of the judges (see Jdg 19:1; Jdg 21:25), and the date of the first part of it is fixed in the reign of Saul, while the five chapters at the close might not have been written till after David's establishment as king in Israel (see Jdg 18:31). It is a fragmentary history, being a collection of important facts and signal deliverances at different times and in various parts of the land, during the intermediate period of three hundred years between Joshua and the establishment of the monarchy. The inspired character of this book is confirmed by allusions to it in many passages of Scripture (compare Jdg 4:2; Jdg 6:14 with 1Sa 12:9-12; Jdg 9:53 with 2Sa 11:21; Jdg 7:25 with Psa 83:11; compare Jdg 5:4-5 with Psa 7:5; Jdg 13:5; Jdg 16:17 with Mat 2:13-23; Act 13:20; Heb 11:32).

JFB: Judges (Outline)

• THE ACTS OF JUDAH AND SIMEON. (Jdg 1:1-3)
• ADONI-BEZEK JUSTLY REQUITED. (Jdg. 1:4-21)
• SOME CANAANITES LEFT. (Jdg 1:22-26)
• AN ANGEL SENT TO REBUKE THE PEOPLE AT BOCHIM. (Jdg 2:1-10)
• WICKEDNESS OF THE NEW GENERATION AFTER JOSHUA. (Jdg 2:11-19)
• NATIONS LEFT TO PROVE ISRAEL. (Jdg 3:1-4)
• BY COMMUNION WITH THESE THE ISRAELITES COMMIT IDOLATRY. (Jdg 3:5-7)
• OTHNIEL DELIVERS ISRAEL. (Jdg 3:8-11)
• EHUD SLAYS EGLON. (Jdg. 3:12-30)
• DEBORAH AND BARAK DELIVER ISRAEL FROM JABIN AND SISERA. (Jdg. 4:1-17)
• DEBORAH AND BARAK'S SONG OF THANKSGIVING. (Jdg. 5:1-31)
• THE ISRAELITES, FOR THEIR SINS, OPPRESSED BY MIDIAN. (Jdg 6:1-6)
• A PROPHET REBUKES THEM. (Jdg 6:7-10)
• AN ANGEL SENDS GIDEON TO DELIVER THEM. (Jdg 6:11-16)
• GIDEON'S PRESENT CONSUMED BY FIRE. (Jdg. 6:17-32)
• THE SIGNS. (Jdg 6:33-39)
• GIDEON'S ARMY. (Jdg 7:1-8)
• HE IS ENCOURAGED BY THE DREAM AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BARLEY CAKE. (Jdg 7:9-15)
• HIS STRATAGEM AGAINST MIDIAN. (Jdg 7:16-24)
• THE EPHRAIMITES OFFENDED, BUT PACIFIED. (Jdg 8:1-9)
• ZEBAH AND ZALMUNNA TAKEN. (Jdg. 8:10-27)
• MIDIAN SUBDUED. (Jdg 8:28)
• ABIMELECH IS MADE KING BY THE SHECHEMITES. (Jdg 9:1-6)
• JOTHAM BY A PARABLE REPROACHES THEM. (Jdg 9:7-21)
• GAAL'S CONSPIRACY. (Jdg. 9:22-49)
• ABIMELECH SLAIN. (Jdg 9:50-57)
• TOLA JUDGES ISRAEL IN SHAMIR. (Jdg 10:1-5)
• ISRAEL OPPRESSED BY THE PHILISTINES AND AMMONITES. (Jdg 10:6-9)
• THEY CRY TO GOD. (Jdg 10:10-15)
• THEY REPENT; GOD PITIES THEM. (Jdg 10:16-18)
• JEPHTHAH. (Jdg 11:1-3)
• THE GILEADITES COVENANT WITH JEPHTHAH. (Jdg 11:4-11)
• HIS VOW. (Jdg 11:29-31)
• HE OVERCOMES THE AMMONITES. (Jdg 11:32-33)
• THE EPHRAIMITES QUARRELLING WITH JEPHTHAH. (Jdg 12:1-3)
• DISCERNED BY THE WORD SIBBOLETH, ARE SLAIN BY THE GILEADITES. (Jdg 12:4-15)
• ISRAEL SERVES THE PHILISTINES FORTY YEARS. (Jdg 13:1)
• AN ANGEL APPEARS TO MANOAH'S WIFE. (Jdg 13:2-10)
• THE ANGEL APPEARS TO MANOAH. (Jdg 13:11-14)
• MANOAH'S SACRIFICE. (Jdg 13:15-23)
• SAMSON BORN. (Jdg 13:24-25)
• SAMSON DESIRES A WIFE OF THE PHILISTINES. (Jdg 14:1-5)
• HE KILLS A LION. (Jdg 14:5-9)
• HIS MARRIAGE FEAST. (Jdg 14:10-11)
• HIS RIDDLE. (Jdg 14:12-18)
• HE SLAYS THIRTY PHILISTINES. (Jdg 14:19-20)
• SAMSON IS DENIED HIS WIFE. (Jdg 15:1-2)
• HE BURNS THE PHILISTINES' CORN. (Jdg 15:3-8)
• HE IS BOUND BY THE MEN OF JUDAH, AND DELIVERED TO THE PHILISTINES. (Jdg 15:9-13)
• SAMSON CARRIES AWAY THE GATES OF GAZA. (Jdg 16:1-3)
• DELILAH CORRUPTED BY THE PHILISTINES. (Jdg 16:4-14)
• HE IS OVERCOME. (Jdg 16:15-20)
• THE PHILISTINES TOOK HIM AND PUT OUT HIS EYES. (Jdg 16:21-22)
• THEIR FEAST TO DAGON. (Jdg 16:23-25)
• HIS DEATH. (Jdg 16:26-31)
• MICAH RESTORING THE STOLEN MONEY TO HIS MOTHER, SHE MAKES IMAGES. (Jdg 17:1-4)
• THE DANITES SEEK OUT AN INHERITANCE. (Jdg. 18:1-26)
• THEY WIN LAISH. (Jdg 18:27-29)
• THEY SET UP IDOLATRY. (Jdg 18:30-31)
• A LEVITE GOING TO BETHLEHEM TO FETCH HIS WIFE. (Jdg 19:1-15)
• AN OLD MAN ENTERTAINS HIM AT GIBEAH. (Jdg 19:16-21)
• THE GIBEAHITES ABUSE HIS CONCUBINE TO DEATH. (Jdg 19:22-28)
• THE LEVITE, IN A GENERAL ASSEMBLY, DECLARES HIS WRONG. (Jdg 20:1-7)
• THEIR DECREE. (Jdg 20:8-17)
• THE PEOPLE BEWAIL THE DESOLATION OF ISRAEL. (Jdg 21:1-15)
• THE ELDERS CONSULT HOW TO FIND WIVES FOR THOSE THAT WERE LEFT. (Jdg 21:16-21)

TSK: Judges (Book Introduction)

The book of Judges forms an important link in the history of the Israelites. It furnishes us with a lively description of a fluctuating and unsettled nation; a striking picture of the disorders and dangers which prevailed in a republic without magistracy; when " the high-ways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through by-ways" (Jdg 5:6), when few prophets were appointed to control the people, and " every one did that which was right in his own eyes" (Jdg 17:6). It exhibits the contest of true religion with superstition; and displays the beneficial effects that flow from the former, and the miseries and evil consequences of impiety. It is a most remarkable history of the long-suffering of God towards the Israelites, in which we see the most signal instances of his justice and mercy alternately displayed. the people sinned, and were punished; they repented, and found mercy. These things are written for our warning. none should presume, for God is just; none need despair, for God is merciful. Independently of the internal evidence of the authenticity of this sacred book, the transactions it records are not only cited or alluded to by other inspired writers, but are further confirmed by the traditions current among heathen nations.

TSK: Judges 11 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Jdg 11:1, The covenant between Jephthah and the Gileadites, that he should be their head; Jdg 11:12, The treaty of peace between him and the Ammonites is in vain; Jdg 11:29, Jephthah’s vow; Jdg 11:32, His conquest of the Ammonites; Jdg 11:34, He performs his vow on his daughter.

Poole: Judges (Book Introduction)

BOOK OF JUDGES

THE ARGUMENT

THE author of this book is not certainly known, whether it was Samuel, or Ezra, or some other prophet; nor is it material to know.

1. It matters not who was the king’ s secretary, or with what pen it was written, if it be once known that it was. the king who made the order or decree: it is sufficient that unto the Jews were committed to the oracles of God , Rom 3:2 , i.e. the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, one part of which this was, by confession of all; and that the Jews did not falsify their trust therein, but kept those holy books themselves, and delivered them to the world, entire, without addition or diminution; for neither Christ nor his apostles, who severely rebuke them for their mistakes and misunderstandings of some passages of Scripture, ever charge them with any perfidiousness about the canon or books of the Scripture. This book is called the Book of Judges , because it treats of the judges, or of the state of the commonwealth of Israel under all the judges, except Eli and Samuel, who being the last of the judges, and the occasions or instruments of the change of this government, are omitted in this book. The judges were a sort of magistrates inferior to kings, and could neither make new laws, nor impose any tributes, but were the supreme executors of God’ s laws and commands, and the generals of their armies.

Poole: Judges 11 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 11

Jephthah dwells in the land of Tob, Jud 11:1-3 ; is called by the elders of Gilead to command in chief against the Ammonites, Jud 11:4-6 . He demands to be continued head after the war should cease; they swear it shall be so, Jud 11:7-11 . He sendeth twice messengers to the king of the Ammonites to treat of peace, but in vain, Jud 11:12-28 . Jephthah marcheth against him; maketh a vow; smiteth the Ammonites; performeth his vow on his daughter, Jud 11:29-40 .

MHCC: Judges (Book Introduction)

The book of Judges is the history of Israel during the government of the Judges, who were occasional deliverers, raised up by God to rescue Israel from their oppressors, to reform the state of religion, and to administer justice to the people. The state of God's people does not appear in this book so prosperous, nor their character so religious, as might have been expected; but there were many believers among them, and the tabernacle service was attended to. The history exemplifies the frequent warnings and predictions of Moses, and should have close attention. The whole is full of important instruction.

MHCC: Judges 11 (Chapter Introduction)

(Jdg 11:1-11) Jephthah and the Gileadites.

(v. 12-28) He attempts to make peace.

(Jdg 11:29-40) Jephthah's vow. He vanquishes the Ammonites.

Matthew Henry: Judges (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of Judges

This is called the Hebrew Shepher Shophtim , the Book of Judges, which the Syriac and Arabic versions enlarge upon, and call it, The Book of the Judges of the Children of Israel; the judgments of that nation being peculiar, so were their judges, whose office differed vastly from that of the judges of other nations. The Septuagint entitles it only Kritai , Judges. It is the history of the commonwealth of Israel, during the government of the judges from Othniel to Eli, so much of it as God saw fit to transmit to us. It contains the history (according to Dr. Lightfoot's computation) of 299 years, reckoning to Othniel of Judah forty years, to Ehud of Benjamin eighty years, to Barak of Naphtali forty years, to Gideon of Manasseh forty years, to Abimelech his son three years, to Tola of Issachar twenty-three, to Jair of Manasseh twenty-two, to Jephtha of Manasseh six, to Ibzan of Judah seven, to Elon of Zebulun ten, to Abdon of Ephriam eight, to Samson of Dan twenty, in all 299. As for the years of their servitude, as were Eglon is said to oppress them eighteen years and Jabin twenty years, and so some others, those must be reckoned to fall in with some or other of the years of the judges. The judges here appear to have been of eight several tribes; that honour was thus diffused, until at last it centred in Judah. Eli and Samuel, the two judges that fall not within this book, were of Levi. It seems, there was no judge of Reuben or Simeon, Gad or Asher. The history of these judges in their order we have in this book to the end of ch. 16. And then in the last five chapters we have an account of some particular memorable events which happened, as the story of Ruth did (Rth 1:1) in the days when the judges ruled, but it is not certain in which judge's days; but they are put together at the end of the book, that the thread of the general history might not be interrupted. Now as to the state of the commonwealth of Israel during this period, I. They do not appear here either so great or so good as one might have expected the character of such a peculiar people would be, that were governed by such laws and enriched by such promises. We find them wretchedly corrupted, and wretchedly oppressed by their neighbours about them, and nowhere in all the book, either in war or council, do they make any figure proportionable to their glorious entry into Canaan. What shall we say to it? God would hereby show us the lamentable imperfection of all persons and things under the sun, that we may look for complete holiness and happiness in the other world, and not in this. Yet, II. We may hope that though the historian in this book enlarges most upon their provocations and grievances, yet there was a face of religion upon the land; and, however there were those among them that were drawn aside to idolatry, yet the tabernacle-service, according to the law of Moses, was kept up, and there were many that attended it. Historians record not the common course of justice and commerce in a nation, taking that for granted, but only the wars and disturbances that happen; but the reader must consider the other, to balance the blackness of them. III. It should seem that in these times each tribe had very much its government in ordinary within itself, and acted separately, without one common head, or council, which occasioned many differences among themselves, and kept them from being or doing any thing considerable. IV. The government of the judges was not constant, but occasional; when it is said that after Ehud's victory the land rested eighty years, and after Barak's forty , it is not certain that they lived, much less that they governed, so long; but they and the rest were raised up and animated by the Spirit of God to do particular service to the public when there was occasion, to avenge Israel of their enemies, and to purge Israel of their idolatries, which are the two things principally meant by their judging Israel. Yet Deborah, as a prophetess, was attended for judgment by all Israel, before there was occasion for her agency in war, Jdg 4:4. V. During the government of the judges, God was in a more especial manner Israel's king; so Samuel tells them when they were resolved to throw off this form of government, 1Sa 12:12. God would try what his own law and the constitutions of that would do to keep them in order, and it proved that when there was no king in Israel every man did that which was right in his own eyes; he therefore, towards the latter end of this time, made the government of the judges more constant and universal that it was at first, and at length gave them David, a king after his own heart; then, and not till then, Israel began to flourish, which should make us very thankful for magistrates both supreme and subordinate, for they are ministers of God unto us for good. Four of the judges of Israel are canonized (Heb 11:32), Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephtha. The Learned bishop Patrick thinks the prophet Samuel was the penman of this Book.

Matthew Henry: Judges 11 (Chapter Introduction)

This chapter gives as the history of Jephthah, another of Israel's judges, and numbered among the worthies of the Old Testament, that by faith did great things (Heb 11:32), though he had not such an extraordinary call as the rest there mentioned had. Here we have, I. The disadvantages of his origin (Jdg 11:1-3). II. The Gileadites' choice of him to be commander-in-chief against the Ammonites, and the terms he made with them (Jdg 11:4-11). III. His treaty with the king of Ammon about the rights of the two nations, that the matter might be determined, if possible, without bloodshed (v. 12-28). IV. His war with the Ammonites, which he enters upon with a solemn vow (Jdg 11:29-31), prosecutes with bravery (Jdg 11:32), and ends with a glorious victory (Jdg 11:33). V. The straits he was brought into at his return to his own house by the vow he had made (Jdg 11:34-40).

Constable: Judges (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The English title, Judges, comes to us from the Latin translation (Vulgate) that the Greek translation (Septuagint) influenced. In all three languages the title means "judges." This title is somewhat misleading, however, because most English-speaking people associate the modern concept of a judge with Israel's judges. As we shall see, judges then were very different from judges now. The Hebrew title is also Judges (Shophetim). The book received its name from its principle characters, as the Book of Joshua did.

The judge in Israel was not a new office during the period of history that this book records. Moses ordered the people to appoint judges in every Israelite town to settle civil disputes (Deut. 16:18). In addition, there was to be a chief justice at the tabernacle who would, with the high priest, help settle cases too difficult for the local judges (Deut. 17:9). Evidently there were several judges at the tabernacle who served as a supreme court (Deut. 19:17).

When Joshua died God did not appoint a man to succeed him as the military leader of the entire nation of Israel. Instead each tribe was to proceed to conquer and occupy its allotted territory. As the need arose God raised up several different individuals who were judges in various parts of Israel at various times to lead segments of the Israelites against local enemies. These judges were similar to modern mayors of towns. God endowed them with certain qualities and identified them in various ways as being those He had chosen to lead His people. This leadership sometimes involved military command. As God had raised up Moses and Joshua, and as he would raise up David (1 Sam. 16:13), so He also raised up the judges. The writer also described Yahweh as a judge in Judges (11:27). This points out the fact that the judges were God's agents in Israel who judged under Him at this period in the nation's history.

"Though the judge enjoyed great prestige, he was in no sense a king. His authority was neither absolute, nor permanent, nor in any case hereditary; it rested solely in those personal qualities (the charisma) that gave evidence that he was the man of Yahweh's spirit. It was a type of authority perfectly expressive of the faith and constitution of early Israel: the God-King's direct leadership of his people through his spirit-designated representative. . . .

"The judges were by no means men of identical character. Some (e.g., Gideon) rose to their task at the behest of a profound experience of divine vocation; one (Jephthah) was no better than a bandit who knew how to strike a canny bargain; one (Samson) was an engaging rogue whose fabulous strength and bawdy pranks became legendary. None, so far as we know, ever led a united Israel into battle. All, however, seem to have had this in common: they were men who, stepping to the fore in times of danger, by virtue only of those personal qualities (charisma) which gave evidence to their fellows that Yahweh's spirit was upon them, rallied the clans against the foe."¹

Judges is the second book of the Former Prophets section of the Hebrew Old Testament. As I pointed out in the notes on Joshua, the fact that the Hebrews placed the book in this section of their canon is significant. It demonstrates that they recognized it as God's selective history of the period designed to teach spiritual lessons more than simply to record historical facts. God revealed Himself through the events of life and history as well as through the sermons of the prophets.

Date and Writer

Internal references help us locate the approximate date of composition of this book. The clause, "In those days there was no king in Israel," (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) suggests that someone wrote Judges during the monarchical period that followed the period of rule by judges (amphictyony). Someone probably wrote it after 1051 B.C. when Saul became king. However at the time of writing Jerusalem was still in the hands of the Jebusites (1:21). David captured Jerusalem about 1004 B.C. Therefore the writing of Judges seems to date between 1051 and 1004 B.C.

Jewish tradition suggests that Samuel wrote Judges.² This was the opinion of the writers of the Talmud, the collection of Jewish writings that grew up around revealed Scripture beginning very early in Israel's history. Samuel is a likely writer because of his role in Israel when someone wrote Judges. Samuel's ministry began about 1090 B.C. and apparently ended a few years before Saul's death (ca. 1021 B.C.). If Samuel wrote Judges, he probably did so between 1051 and about 1021 B.C.

Scope

In contrast to Joshua, which spans only about 35 years, Judges covers a much longer period of Israel's history.

The book opens shortly after the death of Joshua (1:1). God did not give us sufficient information to enable us to fix the date of Joshua's death. Leon Wood figured that he died about 1390 B.C.³ Eugene Merrill calculated his death at about 1366 B.C.⁴ The latest event the writer of Judges recorded is probably the death of Samson (16:30-31). Wood believed Samson died about 1055 B.C.⁵ Merrill wrote that he died near 1084 B.C.⁶ Consequently the Book of Judges records about 300 years of Israel's history (cf. 11:26).⁷ The period of rule by the judges, however, extended beyond the events the Book of Judges records to Saul's coronation in 1050 or 1051 B.C.⁸ According to Wood's chronology this was five years beyond the end of Judges and according to Merrill's it was 33 years beyond.

The judgeships of some of the individual judges apparently overlapped. Some ruled in one area of Israel while one or more others ruled elsewhere in some cases.⁹

The Book of Judges does not record the ministries of all Israel's judges. Eli and Samuel were also judges whose work the writer of 1 Samuel recorded. Only the judges whom the divine Author selected for inclusion appear in this book.

Purpose

Arthur Cundall suggested that one of the purposes of Judges may have been to provide apologetic justification for Israel's monarchy.¹⁰ William Dumbrell believed its purpose was primarily to show the sovereign grace of God in preserving Israel in spite of Israel.¹¹ Leon Wood wrote that its primary purpose was to show why Israel did not experience God's promised blessings.¹² Herbert Wolf believed the primary purpose was to show that Israel's spiritual condition determined its political and material situation.¹³ Daniel Block argued that it was to reveal the Canaanization of Israel in the premonarchic period of Israel's history.¹⁴ All these explanations seem to me to be in harmony with what the book records.

Message¹⁵

Joshua reveals that victory, success, and progress result when God's people trust and obey Him consistently. Judges shows that defeat, failure, and retrogression follow when they fail to trust and obey consistently. In this respect Joshua and Judges are like two sides of one coin. The former is a positive lesson and the latter a negative one.

Judges portrays the deterioration of the nation of Israel: what caused it, the course it followed, and the chaos that resulted.

Israel failed because her heart turned from Yahweh, and then her head forsook His covenant. Keil and Delitzsch wrote, "The writer writes throughout from a prophet's point of view. He applies the standard of the law to the spirit of the age by which the nation was influenced as a whole, and pronounces a stern and severe sentence upon all deviations from the path of rectitude set before it in the law."¹⁶

We could visualize the structure of the book as a descending spiral. Israel departed from God, fell under His discipline, repented, experienced deliverance from her oppressors, dedicated herself anew to Yahweh, experienced His blessing, and then apostatized again. In each cycle Israel seems to have sunk lower than she had been previously even though each cycle included a spiritual revival.

Judges reveals the course and process by which Israel deteriorated as a nation. The same process takes place on the personal level as well as on the national level, but it is easier to observe on the national level in Judges.

The root cause of Israel's deterioration was religious apostasy. The Israelites turned from God. They did not drive out the Canaanites as God had commanded (1:21, 27-33). Instead they made covenants with them (2:1-2). Rather than destroying the pagan altars, the Israelites served idols and forsook the Lord (2:11-12, 17, 19).

Their apostasy began with toleration of things that God had condemned and prohibited. In time the Israelites began to admire these things. Finally they conformed to them.

The story of Micah and the Danites (chs. 17-18) is a short illustration of the religious apostasy in Israel at this time. Chapters 17-21 are an appendix to the book.

Religious apostasy led to political disorganization in Israel. Shortly after Israel departed from God it began to come apart as a nation. The people stopped working together toward their God-given goal of possessing the entire land and began fighting with one another instead. At the beginning of the amphictyony the tribes were fairly united, but by the end of this period of Israel's history anarchy prevailed (21:25).

The government in Israel deteriorated from theocracy (rule by God) to anarchy (no rule or government). Israel became fragmented, weak, and unable to withstand her enemies. This is ironic because after Joshua died Israel was in position to begin to enjoy the benefits of the theocracy in the land for the first time. Until Judges opens, God was preparing Israel to enjoy the theocracy in the land.

There are several examples of tribal jealousies in Judges (e.g., 8:1-3; 12:1-6), but the worst example of political disorganization is the vignette that concludes the book. This is the civil war in which 11 of the tribes almost annihilated the twelfth, Benjamin (chs. 20-21). Instead of destroying the Canaanites, God's people allowed them to live among them while the Israelites proceeded to destroy one another.

Another evidence of Israel's deterioration as a nation was social chaos.

Three characteristics marked the social chaos in Israel during the period of the judges. Lawlessness characterized national life. People were afraid to go out in public and traveled the byways rather than the highways of the land (5:6). People committed violent crimes without fear of punishment (ch. 19). Blindness also characterized the people. They were blind to what was happening in their midst, namely, God using discipline after apostasy to bring them to repentance and deliverance. They were also blind to God's dealings with their ancestors in their history. Third, immorality marked Israel's social life. Even Samson, one of the judges, was a victim of this cancer.

The story of the Levite and his concubine who visited the town of Gibeah (ch. 19) is a slice of life out of the period of the judges that shows the immorality that characterized Israel's social life. The behavior demonstrated in this story was the fruit of departure from God. The sin that had previously characterized the Canaanites of Sodom (Gen. 19) now marked God's people. Chapter 19 is a third part of the appendix to the book.

God revealed this process of deterioration to warn all people. Spiritual apostasy leads to political disorganization and social chaos. Social and governmental evils rise out of spiritual conditions. When the Israelites repented and rededicated themselves to God, God brought political deliverance and restored social order.

Judges not only reveals what causes deterioration, but it also clarifies the steps to restoration. Israel's history during this period resembles a downward spiral. The general trend was downward. Nevertheless there were six revivals of the peoples' faith in God and commitment to him too. These revivals cycled in Israel's history at this time.

Israel began from a privileged position of divine blessing.

In time the people apostatized by turning away from God and His covenant to the gods and practices of the Canaanites.

To bring them back to Himself God disciplined His people by allowing them to fall under the control and domination of their enemies. Israel chose to bow down to idols, so God allowed the idolaters to bend her over in bondage. The Israelites tolerated the Canaanites, but God made the Canaanites intolerant of them. The people with the birthright to the land had to hide in caves and among the rocks fearing to show themselves (6:2). God disciplined them severely for their apostasy. In Joshua God dealt with sin primarily among the Canaanites, but in Judges He dealt with it primarily among the Israelites. However, God's discipline was always remedial. God designed it to bring the Israelites back to a consciousness of sin and their need for God.

When the Israelites cried out to Yahweh in repentance, God heard their cry and delivered them mercifully. I mean "repentance" in the general sense of turning to God, not in the specific sense of cleaning up the life. God did not give deliverance as a reward the people had earned, but as grace in response to their helpless cry, as the text makes clear.

When they truly repented, He delivered them by raising up a judge. In each case, deliverance came at the right moment. It always came by the right instrument. God raised up the right person in each case. In almost every case God used one person, either a man or a woman. Judges reveals how God remarkably works through all types of different individuals to accomplish His purposes. He raised up the judge whom He had prepared for the needs of his time and place. Each judge was just right for his mission. In almost every case God used one single individual to change the whole course of history in Israel. E. M. Bounds wrote, "The Holy Spirit does not flow through methods, but through man. He does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but people--people of prayer."

As a result of this deliverance the people rededicated themselves anew to Yahweh. Spiritual revival was the result of God's physical deliverance.

The people then began to enjoy God's blessing again. God gave them rest from the oppression of their enemies. Arthur Cundall labeled these stages "sin, servitude, supplication, and salvation."¹⁷

God's methods are the same today as they were in the days of the judges.

The fact that the writer repeated this cycle of events six times in Judges points to its timeless quality and its universality. Charles Feinberg wrote, "If ever there were history with a purpose it is here."¹⁸

I would state the message of the Book of Judges therefore as follows. Apostasy leads to disorganization and chaos, but repentance results in deliverance and blessing. This is true nationally and personally.

Constable: Judges (Outline)

Outline

I. The reason for Israel's apostasy 1:1-3:6

A. Hostilities between the Israelites and the Canaanites after Joshua's death 1:1-2:5

1. Initial successes and failures ch. 1

2. The announcement of God's discipline 2:1-5

B. Israel's conduct toward Yahweh and Yahweh's treatment of Israel in the period of the judges 2:6-3:6

1. Review of Joshua's era 2:6-10

2. The pattern of history during the judges' era 2:11-23

3. God's purposes with Israel 3:1-6

II. The record of Israel's apostasy 3:7-16:31

A. The first apostasy 3:7-11

B. The second apostasy 3:12-31

1. Oppression under the Moabites and deliverance through Ehud 3:12-30

2. Oppression under the Philistines and deliverance through Shamgar 3:31

C. The third apostasy chs. 4-5

1. The victory over Jabin and Sisera ch. 4

2. Deborah's song of victory ch. 5

D. The fourth apostasy 6:1-10:5

1. The story of Gideon 6:1-8:32

2. Israel's departure from Yahweh 8:33-35

3. The story of Abimelech ch. 9

4. The judgeships of Tola and Jair 10:1-5

E. The fifth apostasy 10:6-12:15

1. Renewed oppression 10:6-7

2. Oppression under the Ammonites 10:8-18

3. Deliverance through Jephthah 10:1-12:7

4. The judgeships of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon 12:8-15

F. The sixth apostasy chs. 13-16

1. Samson's birth ch. 13

2. Samson's intended marriage to the Timnite ch. 14

3. Samson's vengeance on the Philistines ch. 15

4. Samson's final fatal victory ch. 16

III. The results of Israel's apostasy ch. 17-21

A. The idolatry of Micah and the Danites ch. 17-18

1. The idolatry of Micah ch. 17

2. The apostasy of the Danites ch. 18

B. The immorality of Gibeah and the Benjamites chs. 19-21

1. The atrocity in Gibeah ch. 19

2. The civil war in Israel ch. 20

3. The preservation of Benjamin ch. 21

Constable: Judges

Judges

Bibliography

Aharoni, Yohanan. Land of the Bible. Phildelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985.

Amit, Yairah. "Judges 4: Its Contents and Form." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39 (October 1987):89-111.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Armerding, Carl. "Samson." Interest 49:3 (October 1983):4-7.

Auld, A. G. "Judges I and History: A Reconsideration." Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975):261-85.

"Avraham Biran--Twenty Years of Digging at Tell Dan." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:4 (July-August 1987):12-25.

Barré, Michael L. "The Meaning of prsdn in Judges III 22." Vetus Testamentum 41:1 (1991):1-11.

Bienkowski, Piotr. "The Role of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age." Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 119:1 (January-June 1987):50-61.

Block, Daniel I. "Gideon: A Rough Vessel." The Standard 77:2 (February 1987):25-27.

_____. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

_____. "The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration under Tribal Rule." In Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, pp. 39-58. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

_____. "The Role of Language in Ancient Israelite Perception of National Identity." Journal of Biblical Literature 103:3 (September 1984):321-340.

_____. "Will the Real Gideon Please Stand Up? Narrative Style and Intention in Judges 6-9." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:3 (September 1997):353-66.

Boling, Robert G. Judges. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Bruce, F. F. "Judges." In The New Bible Commentary: Revised, pp. 252-276. Edited by D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

Bush, George. Notes on Judges. New York: Newman & Ivison, 1852; reprint ed., Minneapolis: James & Klock Publishing, 1976.

Cassel, Samuel H. "Strong Man: A Scripture Study of the Weaknesses in Strength." Foundations 2 (1959):264-68.

Childe, V. Gordon. New Light on the Most Ancient East. New York: Norton, 1969.

Constable, Thomas L. "A Theology of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 89-113. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Cottrell, Leonard. The Anvil of Civilization. New York: New American Library, 1957.

Craigie, Peter C. "A Reconsideration of Shamgar ben Anath (Judg. 3:31 and 5:6)." Journal of Biblical Literature 91.2 (June 1971):239-40.

_____. Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Creason, James Frederick, Jr. "A Biblical Theology of Judges." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):73-77.

Culver, Robert D. "Did Jephthah Really Slay His Daughter and Offer Her Body as a Burnt Offering?" Evangelical Christian 55:2 (February 1959):69-70.

Cundall, Arthur E. "Judges." In Judges and Ruth by Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

_____. "Judges--An Apology for the Monarchy." Expository Times 81 (October 1969-September 1970):178-81.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. "Gideon's Few." Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1956):155-61.

Davis, Dale Ralph. "Comic Literature--Tragic Theology: A Study of Judges 17-18." Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984):156-63.

_____. Such a Great Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

Davis, John J. "Conquest and Crisis." In A History of Israel by John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb. N.p., 1970; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Day, John. "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):385-408.

Dothan, Trude. "What We Know About the Philistines." Biblical Archaeology Review 8:4 (July-August 1982):20-44.

Dumbrell, William J. "In Those Days There Was No King in Israel; Every Man Did What Was Right in His Own Eyes.' The Purpose of the Book of Judges Reconsidered." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 25 (1983):23-33.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Emmrich, Martin. "The Symbolism of the Lion and the Bees: Another Ironic Twist in the Samson Cycle." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):

Exum, J. Cheryl. "Aspects of Symmetry and Balance in the Samson Saga." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981):3-29.

_____. "The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (July 1990):410-31.

_____. "The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga." Vetus Testamentum 33:1 (1983):30-45.

Exum, J. Cheryl, and J. William Whedbee. "Isaac, Samson, and Saul: Reflections on the Comic and Tragic Visions." Semeia 32 (1984):5-40.

Feinberg, Charles L. "Notes on the Book of Judges." Unpublished class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.

Ferguson, Robert U., Jr. "The Danger of Playing Games with God." Pulpit Digest 64:468 (July-August 1984):31-34.

Fritz, Volkmar. "Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine." Biblical Archaeologist 50:2 (June 1987):84-100.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Garstang, John. Joshua, Judges. The Foundations of Bible History series. New York: Richard R. Smith, 1931.

Gooding, D. W. "The Composition of the Book of Judges." Eretz Israel 16 (1982):70-79.

Gordon, Cyrus. The Ancient Near East. New York: W. W. Horton, 1965.

Gottlieb, Freema. "Three Mothers." Judaism 30 (Spring 1981):194-203.

Gray, G. Buchanan. The Forms of Hebrew Poetry. Library of Biblical Studies series. Revised ed. New York: Ktav Publishing Co., 1972.

Gray, John. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967.

Greenspahn, Frederick E. "An Egyptian Parallel to Judg 17:6 and 21:25." Journal of Biblical Literature 101:1 (1982):129-35.

_____. "The Theology of the Framework of Judges." Vetus Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):385-96.

Gunn, D. M. "Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel." Vetus Testamentum 24:3 (July 1974):286-317.

Halpern, Baruch. "The Rise of Abimelek Ben-Jerubbaal." Hebrew Annual Review 2 (1978):79-100.

Hawkes, Jacquetta. The First Great Civilizations. New York: Knopf, 1973.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. 6 vols. New York: Revell, n.d.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Inrig, Gary. Hearts of Iron, Feet of Clay. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1939 ed. S.v. "Judges, Book of," by A. S. Geden, 3:1772-75.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kallai, Z. "The Conquest of Northern Palestine in Joshua and Judges." Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Vol I. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 3 From Joshua to Solomon." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 61 (1971):5-14.

Klein, L. R. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 68. Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1987.

Lasine, Stuart. "Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot's Hospitality in an Inverted World." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (1984):37-59.

Laughlin, John C. H. "Dan." Biblical Illustrator 9:4 (Summer 1983):40-46.

Lawhead, Alvin S. "Grace in the Book of Judges." Preacher's Magazine 58:3 (March-May 1983):25-27.

Lewis, Arthur H. Judges and Ruth. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Lindars, Barnabas. "Deborah's Song: Women in the Old Testament." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 65:2 (Spring 1983):158-75.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Judges." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 373-414. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

MacIntosh, A. A. "The Meaning of MKLYM in Judges XVIII 7." Vetus Testamentum 35:1 (January 1985):68-76.

Malamat, A. "The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern." Biblica 51 (1970):1-16.

Manor, Dale W. "The Topography and Geography of the Jezreel Valley as they Contribute to the Battles of Deborah and Gideon." Near Eastern Archaeology Society Bulletin NS28 (Winter 1987):25-32.

Margalith, Othniel. "The Legends of Samson/Heracles." Vetus Testamentum 37:1 (January 1987):63-70.

_____. "More Samson Legends." Vetus Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):397-405.

_____. "Samson's Foxes." Vetus Testamentum 35:2 (April 1985):224-29.

_____. "Samson's Riddle and Samson's Magic Locks." Vetus Testamentum 36:2 (April 1986):225-34.

Matthews, Victor H. "Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4." Biblical Theology Bulletin 21 (Spring 1991):13-21.

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

_____. "Bronze Bull Found in Israelite High place' From the Time of the Judges." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:5 (September-October 1983):34-40.

_____. "On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan." Biblical Archaeology Review 15:4 (July-August 1988):45.

_____ "A Philistine Temple at Tell Qasile." Biblical Archaeologist 36 (1973):43-48.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "Paul's Use of About 450 Years' in Acts 13:20." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):246-57.

Mitchell, T. Crichton. "Abimelech--The Bramble King." Preacher's Magazine 58:3 (March-May 1983):16-19, 61.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the Author, P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Mosca, Paul G. "Who Seduced Whom? A Note on Joshua 15:18// Judges 1:14." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984):18-22.

Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr. "The Minor Judges': Some Literary and Historical Considerations." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (April 1982):185-201.

Nel, Philip. "The Riddle of Samson (Judg. 14, 14.18)." Biblica 66:4 (1985):534-45.

The New Bible Dictionary. 2nd ed. S.v. "Judges," by G. T. Manley and D. J. Wiseman.

_____. 2nd ed. S.v. "Mesopotamia," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. 2nd ed. S.v. "Mill, Millstone," by A. R. Millard.

_____. 2nd ed. S.v. "Number," by R. A. H. Gunner.

Niditch, Susan. "The Sodomite' Theme in Judges 19-20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44:3 (July 1982):365-78.

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1960.

O'Connell, R. H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 63. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1996.

O'Connor, M. "The Women in the Book of Judges." Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986):277-93.

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Second ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Paterson, John H. "The Touchy Tribe." Toward the Mark 16:6 (November-December 1987):110-13.

Peet, J. H. John. "The Chronology of the Judges--Some Thoughts." Journal of Christian Reconstruction 9:1-2 (1982-83):161-81.

Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941.

Rediger, G. Lloyd. "The Samson Syndrome." Church Management--The Clergy Journal 60:7 (May-June 1984):78-79.

Rendall, Ted S. "The Samson Syndrome." Prairie Overcomer 27:7 (July-August 1984):4-19.

Revell, E. J. "The Battle with Benjamin (Judges xx 29-48) and Hebrew Narrative Techniques." Vetus Testamentum 35:4 (October 1985):417-33.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Scott, Walter. Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. London: Pickering and Inglis Ltd., n.d.

Shanks, Hershel. "Two Early Cult Sites Now Questioned." Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-February 1988):48-52.

Soggin, J. A. Judges: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981.

Stek, John H. "The Bee and the Mountain Goat: A Literary Reading of Judges 4." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 53-86. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Tanner, J. Paul. "The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:594 (April-June 1992):146-61.

Torcszyner, Harry. "The Riddle in the Bible," Hebrew Union College Annual 1 (1924):125-49.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Two Old Testament Stories [Gen. 32:23-32 and Judg. 10:1-5; 12:7-15] and their Hittite Analogues." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):321-26.

Unger's Bible Dictionary. 1957 ed., S.v. "Philistines," by Merrill F. Unger, pp. 859-61.

Unterman, Jeremiah. "The Literary Influence of The Binding of Isaac' (Genesis 22) on The Outrage at Gibeah' (Judges 19)." Hebrew Annual Review 4 (1980):161-66.

van Wyk, W. C. "The Fable of Jotham in its Ancient Near Eastern Setting." In Studies in Wisdom Literature, pp. 89-95. Edited by W. C. van Wyk. OTWSA Series, nos. 15 & 16. N.p., n.d.

Vickery, John B. "In Strange Ways: The Story of Samson." In Images of Man and God: Old Testament Short Stories in Literary Focus. Edited by Burke O. Long. Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1981.

Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Washburn, David L. "The Chronology of Judges: Another Look." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):414-25.

Webb, Barry G." The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading. JSOT Supplement Series 46. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

_____. The Theme of the Jephthah Story (Judges 10:6-12:7)." Reformed Theological Review 45:2 (May-August 1986):34-43.

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. College ed. Cleveland and New York: World Publishing Co., 1953.

Wilkinson, Elizabeth. "The Hapax Legomenon of Judges IV 18." Vetus Testamentum 33:4 (1983):512-13.

Williams, J. G. "The Structure of Judges 2:6-16:31." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991):77-85.

Wolf, Herbert. "Judges." In Deuteronomy-2 Samuel. Vol. 3 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Wood, Leon. Distressing Days of the Judges. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

_____. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Wright, G. Ernest. Shechem, the Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Judges (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION.

THE BOOK OF JUDGES.

This Book is called Judges, because it contains the history of what passed under the government of the judges, who ruled Israel before they had kings. The writer of it, according to the more general opinion, was the prophet Samuel. (Challoner) --- Some are of opinion, that the judges might have each left records of their respective administration, (Menochius) which might be put in order by Samuel. The author of this book seems to have lived under the reign of Saul, before David had expelled the Jebusites, chap. xviii. 31. (Du Hamel) --- The captivity, which is mentioned [in] ver. 30, must be understood of that when the ark of God, as well as the idol Micha, and may of the people were taken by the Philistines. (Huet) --- Many passages of the Psalms, &c., are taken from this book, which shew its antiquity, Psalm lxvii. 8., and 2 Kings xi. 21. The divine Providence is here displayed in a very striking manner. (Du Hamel) --- The theocracy still subsisted and God generally chose these judges to be his ministers, and to deliver the people, on their repentance, from some dreadful calamity. (Haydock) --- They exercised a supreme power, yet without bearing the insignia of regal authority, or imposing taxes, or making any alteration in the established laws. The Suffetes, who were Carthaginian magistrates, seem to have taken their name from these Ssuptim. (Du Hamel) --- When God did not raise up judges, in an extraordinary manner, a kind of ananchy prevailed. (Haydock) --- Each of the tribes regarded only their own affairs, and the republic was dissolved. (Grotius) --- Prosperous and unfortunate days succeeded each other, in proportion as the people gave themselves up to repentance or to dissolution. Sicut se habebant peccata populi & misericordia Dei, alternaverunt prospera & adversa bellorum. (St. Augustine, City of God xviii. 23.) St. Jerome (ep. ad Eust. & ad Paulin.) exhorts us to penetrate the spiritual sense of the historical books, and he regards "the judges as so many figures" of the apostles, who established the church of Christ. Though some of them had been noted for their misconduct, they were reclaimed by the grace of God. Then all the judges, every one by name, whose heart was not corrupted, who turned not away from the Lord, that their memory might be blessed, &c., Ecclesiasticus xlvi. 13, 14. (Worthington) --- St. Paul mentions four of them, though the conduct of Jephte and of Samson might have been regarded as more exceptionable than that of Othoniel, who is said to have been filled with the spirit of the Lord, chap. iii. 10. Serarius doubts not but they are all in heaven. Salien (in the year of the world 2640,) supposes that the transactions recorded in the five last chapters, took place before this 40th year from the death of Josue, which was the last of Othoniel. With respect to the chronology of these times, there are many opinions. Houbigant endeavours to shew that the system of Usher is inadmissible, as well as that of Petau. Marsham maintains that many of the captivities, and of the Judges, related only to some tribes, so that the different years which are specified, must be referred to the same period of time. Thus while Jephte ruled over those on the east side of the Jordan, and fought against the Ammonites, other judges endeavoured to repel the armies of the Philistines on the west. See 3 Kings vi. 1., and Judges xi. 16. By this expedient, he finds no difficulty in shewing that 480 years elapsed from the departure out of Egypt till the building of the temple, and that the Israelites had occupied the country of the Ammonites during the space of 300 years. (Haydock) --- Houbigant seems to adopt this system in some respects, and he thinks that errors have crept into some of the numbers, so that Aod procured a peace of only 20 instead of 80 years, &c. He observes that the name of judge here designates, 1. A warrior, like Samson; 2. a person who passes sentence according to the law, which was the office of Heli; 3. one divinely commissioned to exercise the sovereign authority, as Samuel did, even after Saul had been elected king. (Proleg. Chronol.) Others have compared the power of these judges with that of the Roman Dictators, or the Archontes of Athens. (Serarius) --- They were properly God's lieutenants. Their revenue seems to have been very precarious, and their exterior deportment modest and unassuming. They were guided by the declarations of the high priests, when arrayed with the Urim and Thummim; and their business was to promote the observance of the true religion, and to defend the people of God. This book concludes with the history of Samson, describing the transactions of 317 years, (Calmet) according to the calculation of Usher, which has met with the approbation of many of the learned, and is therefore chiefly inserted in this edition, as it was in that which was published in 1791, at Dublin, by the care of the Rev. B. Mac Mahon, who seems to have made some alterations. It is not indeed free from many serious difficulties. But we have not leisure to examine them at present. See chap. iii. 11, 30. We shall only subjoin the chronological table of Houbigant, which is not very common, that the reader may perceive where they are chiefly at variance. Moses governed 40 years, Josue 20, the Ancients 20, king of Mesopotamia 8, Othoniel 40, Moabites 18, Aod 20, Samgar 0, the Chanaanites 20, Debora and Barac 40, Madianites 7, Gedeon 40, Abimelech 3, Thola 23, Ammonites 0, Jair 22, Jephte 6, Abesan 7, Ahialon 10, Abdon 8, Philistines 0, Samson 20, and with Heli 20, Heli and Samuel 25, Samuel and Saul 20, David 40, Solomon 3. In the 4th year of his reign the temple was begun, 480 years after the liberation from Egypt. Those to whom no years are assigned, lived at the same time with others whose years enter into the calculation. Thus Samgar gained a victory over the Philistines, while the Chanaanites held the Israelites in subjection, chap. iii. 31. For other particulars we must refer to the author. (Chron. sacra.) (Haydock)

Gill: Judges (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JUDGES

The title of this book in the Hebrew copies is Sepher Shophetim, the Book of Judges; but the Syriac and Arabic interpreters call it,

"the Book of the Judges of the Children of Israel;''

and the Septuagint only Judges; so called, not because it was written by them, though some think it was compiled out of annals and diaries kept by them; but it seems to be the work of one person only: the true reason of its name is, because it treats of the judges of Israel, gives an account of their lives and actions, and especially such as concerned their office; which office was different from that of kings, and seems only to have been occasional, and chiefly lay in delivering the people out of the hands of their enemies, when oppressed, distressed, or carried captive by them; in protecting them in the enjoyment of their country, rights, and liberties; in leading out their armies against their enemies when needful; and in settling differences, judging law suits, and administering justice. The government of the nation, during their time, was a theocracy. It is not certain who was the penman of this book; some ascribe it to King Hezekiah, others to Ezra; but the Jewish writers ^a are generally of opinion that it was written by Samuel, which is most likely, who was the last of the judges; and it seems plainly to be written before the times of David, us appears from a speech of Joab, 2Sa 11:21; and from some passages in Psa 68:8, which seem to refer or allude to Jdg 5:4; and from Jerusalem being called Jebus, which shows it to be inhabited by the Jebusites in the time of the writer of this book, whereas it was taken out of their hands by David; besides, Samuel himself refers to the annals of this book; 1Sa 12:9; and from whose testimonies, as well as from others in the New Testament, there is no doubt to be made of its being genuine and authentic, and written by divine inspiration; as is evident from the use the Apostle Paul, and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, have made of it, Act 13:20; it is useful as an history, and without which the history of the people of Israel would not be complete; it containing an account of all their judges, excepting the two last, Eli and Samuel, of whom an account is given in the following books, and of some facts incidental to those times, related in an appendix at the end of it, concerning the idol of Micah, and the war of Benjamin; and furnishes out many useful moral observations concerning God's displeasure at sin in his own people Israel, and his corrections for it; and about his providential care of them in raising up for them deliverers in their time of need, as well as points at various virtues and excellencies in great and good men, worthy of imitation. It contains, according to Piscator, Dr. Lightfoot, and others, an history of two hundred ninety and nine years.

Gill: Judges 11 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO JUDGES 11

This chapter gives an account of another judge of Israel, Jephthah, of his descent and character, Jdg 11:1 of the call the elders of Gilead gave him to be their captain general, and lead out their forces against the Ammonites, and the agreement he made with them, Jdg 11:4 of the message he sent to the children of Ammon, which brought on a dispute between him and them about the land Israel possessed on that side Jordan the Ammonites claimed; Israel's right to which Jephthah defended, and made it clearly to appear, hoping thereby to put an end to the quarrel without shedding of blood, Jdg 11:12 but the children of Ammon not attending to what he said, he prepared to give them battle, and previous to it he made a vow, and then set forward and fought them, and got the victory over them, Jdg 11:28 and the chapter concludes with the difficulties Jephthah was embarrassed with upon his return home, on account of his vow, and the performance of it, Jdg 11:34.