l. Jephthah and the Ammonites (10:6–11:40)
l. Jephthah and the Ammonites (10:6–11:40)
10:6–16. The effect of apostasy. This section forms the second extensive commentary (cf. 2:6–3:6) by the editor and provides the introduction to the oppressions of the Philistines and Ammonites. These, as was noted in the Introduction, were almost certainly contemporaneous. The Ammonite attack was the lesser menace and is dealt with first, before the account of Samson’s private war with the Philistines (chapters 13–16), which has a minimum of editorial comment, and the Danite migration in the first of the two appendices (chapters 17, 18). The editor is always concerned to impress upon Israel the consequences of apostasy and the structure of this section bears the unmistakable impression of this policy; for instance, the sevenfold idolatry of verse 6 is balanced by the sevenfold oppression of verses 11 and 12. Thus, while most of the facts here noted deal with the period immediately connected with the Ammonite and Philistine oppressions, verse 6 is a more general comment covering the apostasy of the whole period of the judges. The worship of the Baalim and the Ashtaroth has already been dealt with (see notes on 2:11–19; 3:7, etc.) and the worship of the gods of Syria and Zidon was of a similar pattern, with local variations. The evidence suggests that the gods of the Philistines were also of the same type, as the Philistines rapidly adopted the customs and the culture of the peoples over whom they ruled. The three gods mentioned elsewhere in connection with the Philistines, Dagon, Ashtoreth and Baal-zebul, were all Canaanite deities. The gods of Moab and Ammon, two kingdoms which came into existence within fifty years of the Israelite settlement, were Chemosh and Malcam (with its associated forms Milcom, Molech and Moloch) respectively. The only kingdom contiguous to Israel which did not make any religious impact upon the Israelites was, significantly, the profane kingdom of Edom. The subtle attractions of these heathen religions, with their material and sensuous satisfactions, proved too much for Israel.
Now the Philistines and the Ammonites became the rod of God’s anger (cf. Isa. 10:5) just as he had used Cushan-rishathaim (3:8), Eglon (3:12), Jabin and Sisera (4:2) and the Midianites (6:1) on earlier occasions. The main weight of the Ammonite attacks fell on Gilead in Transjordania, i.e. on the Israelite territory adjacent to their kingdom, but there were also forays against the west-Jordan tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim. As there was undoubtedly pressure from the Philistines against the western frontiers of these tribes their predicament can be imagined. The acuter pressure at this stage came from the Ammonites who were crueller in nature and more predatory in their methods than the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam. 11:1, 2).
10–16. The extremity of the plight of the Israelites led to a recognition of their waywardness and an appeal to God. This met with no easy response, for the cycle of deliverance followed by forgetfulness, ingratitude and apostasy had occurred too often for a facile overlooking of their sin. God required, and requires still, the steadfast love, loyalty and obedience of his subjects, in which he can operate continually on their behalf, rather than a relationship, lightly severed, in which he is used in times of emergency only. He reminded them therefore of his former deliverances. The reference to the Egyptians concerns the Exodus and its associated events, there being no historical evidence of any oppression subsequent to the settlement in Canaan; the Amorite deliverance relates to the great victories over Sihon and Og (Num. 21:21–24, 33–35); the Ammonites were associated with the Moabites (3:13); Shamgar had saved Israel by his exploit against the Philistines (3:31). There is no specific reference to the Zidonians, but they may have been allied with Jabin and Sisera, which would account for the non-mention of Asher in the battle at the Kishon; the Amalekites appear as the allies of both the Moabites (3:13) and the Midianites (6:3). The reference to the Maonites is possibly a scribal error for Midianites, which is found in the LXX, the Maonites themselves appearing as Judah’s adversaries at a later date (1 Chr. 4:41; 2 Chr. 20:1; 26:7). There can be no certainty on this point, for the name is a common one: there is a Ma‘an south of Petra, a Ma‘în south of Hebron, whilst a Ma‘on is listed among the descendants of Caleb (1 Chr. 2:45). No complete catalogue is intended, however, as the Moabites and Canaanites are not mentioned; probably the number seven, as in the case of the sevenfold idolatory (6), is significant, with its religious association of completeness.
God declared that by their absolute apostasy and their ingratitude for his deliverances the people have no legitimate claim upon him (13). Let the gods they have accepted instead of him deliver them, if they could! But this apparent rejection, and the apparent indifference to the pleas of his people, was designed to test the sincerity of their response. Action was required, not words which can be no more than a shallow profession. But God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and he met the limited response of Israel. He knew that it would be of short duration and that the old familiar pattern would be repeated many a time before the nation finally learned the folly of forsaking him. Perhaps before we condemn Israel for its slowness of heart we would do well to acknowledge our dependence upon the patience of a long-suffering God. In the case of Israel the gods which could neither save nor satisfy were put away as the people sought the Lord in penitence.
10:17, 18. Renewed Ammonite pressure. This particular invasion of the Ammonites, Israel’s eastern neighbour, whose capital was at Rabbah, was presumably at the end of the eighteen years’ oppression noted in verse 8. Gilead is normally used to designate the central of the three main divisions of the Israelite settlement east of the Jordan, between Bashan in the north and the southern tableland, but the term is used somewhat loosely. To meet this emergency the people of the Israelite tribes involved assembled themselves together, with possibly a new morale and a will to resist following their repentance and return to the Lord. All they lacked was a suitable commander to marshal their forces. Mizpeh (AV) or Mizpah (RV, RSV), which means ‘watchtower’, was a common place-name in a country often subjected to attack by marauding bands, and any identification is hazardous. The Mizpah associated with Jacob’s covenant with Laban (Gen. 31:46ff.) and Ramoth-mizpeh (usually identified with Ramoth-gilead, Josh. 13:26; cf. Josh. 20:8; Deut. 4:43; 1 Kgs 22:3) have been suggested as possible sites, but there can be no certainty. The frequent mention of the leaders of Gilead (RSV) in the narrative indicates that this was the area principally threatened at this time and that the deliverance of Jephthah was achieved without any general appeal to the tribes.
11:1–3. The rejection of Jephthah. Here we are introduced to Jephthah, in a parenthetical section, the main narrative being resumed at 11:4. The cloud upon his birth appears greater than that of Abimelech. He was the son of Gilead, whose name is identical with the grandson of Manasseh who was the founder of the clan, but his mother was a harlot (1), a strange woman (2, AV) who may have been a non-Israelite. Living in his father’s house Jephthah was deprived of his family rights by his illegitimacy and, unlike Abimelech, he had no share in his mother’s clan. Eventually he was thrust out by his stepbrothers, an event which determined his whole future, for he became a brigand-chief over a group of outcasts and social misfits. There is some correspondence with the factors that shaped the career of David who, driven into the wilderness by Saul’s jealousy, gathered to himself those who were in distress or debt, or who were discontented (1 Sam. 22:2), and welded them into a formidable force. At a later stage, still pursued by Saul and unsure of the loyalty of his own countrymen, David went over to the Philistines as a mercenary captain, learning the arts of warfare which were to serve him in good stead in the course of his long reign. So Jephthah the despised, through dire misfortune, was prepared for the task of saving the very people who had thrust him out. Tob has been tentatively identified with the modern el-Taiyibeh, about 15 miles east-north-east of Ramoth-gilead, in the desolate area which lay just outside the eastern boundary of Israel and the northern frontier of Ammon.
11:4–11. The recall of Jephthah. The encroachments of the Ammonites made the elders of Gilead desperate enough to seek help from Jephthah, who must have built up a considerable reputation for leadership in the course of his brigandage. His answer to their request implies that they were as blameworthy as his own brethren in his expulsion from the family, but in spite of the sting in his words, there is not the vindictiveness that is revealed in 12:1–6. Jephthah probably realized that the conventions of society left them no alternative but to acquiesce in the harsh action of his brethren. Illegitimacy remains a stigma upon the innocent, who are compelled to suffer for the sin of their parents. The elders of Gilead had swallowed their pride in approaching him and he was opportunist enough not to let his pride stand in the way, not only of advancement, but of acceptance into normal society. His reluctance was soon overcome after he had established the fact that he would be accepted as their leader after, and not only during, the Ammonite war. The word for captain (AV; leader, RSV) (Heb. qāṣîn) has an Arabic equivalent, which indicates one who discharges a judicial function. The invitation to Jephthah was virtually that he should become a local dictator for the rest of his life. But while his self-seeking impulse is evident, his strong faith in Yahweh is evident. It was the Lord who would be the real deliverer (9). The compact between Jephthah and the elders was sealed in a solemn ceremony, almost a coronation, at the local sanctuary of Mizpeh (see note on 10:17). It will be observed that Yahweh, the covenant-God of Israel, was invoked as the witness to this agreement (10, 11).
11:12–28. Charge and countercharge. Wrangling over frontiers and claims to prior possession of areas have been commonplace in relationships between countries since time immemorial, and almost invariably there has been no settlement short of war. Jephthah, in his first act as a statesman, accused Ammon of violating his territory (12). His accusation was countered by the Ammonites who claimed that the region had originally belonged to them and that they were therefore within their rights in acting to restore the situation (13). This was matched in turn by a detailed statement of history, defending Israel’s right to its territory east of Jordan, and attempting to show that there was no violation of the land of the Moabites or the Ammonites (15). The reference to the Moabites is explained by the fact that they had a better claim to the disputed area than did the Ammonites, since the region between the Arnon and the Jabbok had been wrested from them by the Amorite king Sihon (Num. 21:23ff.). There is, of course, the possibility that Sihon had enlarged his kingdom at the expense of the Ammonites as well as the Moabites, since some of the region allocated to the east-Jordan tribes is stated to have been taken from Ammon (Josh. 13:24–26; but note Num. 21:24, which appears to exclude any Israelite violation of Ammonite territory). At the end of his message Jephthah pointed out that the Moabite king at the time of the occupation had not laid claim to the territory which was formerly his, the inference being that as he had remained silent when he had greater justification for intervening, the Ammonites were completely without justification for their intervention at this stage (25).
But, as we shall observe, the reply of Jephthah was not entirely based on sweet reason! The first point which he emphasized was that Israel, on the journey from Egypt, had behaved with restraint and propriety in its relationships with Edom and Moab. The two kingdoms were established about fifty years before the Israelites entered Canaan, but during this period their frontiers had become well established and secured by a series of fortresses. Israel had not violated their land although this involved a long detour around their frontiers. The reference to the Red Sea (16) indicates the Gulf of Aqaba. Kadesh is Kadesh-barnea, where the Israelites spent the major period of their sojourn in the wilderness. A glance at the map will show how greatly Edomite approval of a passage through her territory would have shortened the journey of Israel. A similar request to Sihon, the Amorite king, was met with downright hostility as well as refusal. There being no kinship between the Israelites and the Amorites, as there was between Israel, Edom and Moab (cf. Deut. 2:4–9), Israel dealt resolutely with this barrier to their access to the Promised Land. Jahaz (20) has been tentatively identified as either the modern Jālûl or Khirbet et-Teim, both of which are about 7 miles south of Heshbon. The victory over Sihon was the first major military success in the conquest of Canaan. Jephthah stressed that the country was taken from the Amorites (not the Ammonites, witness the reference at the end of verse 21; cf. 23; and the delineation of the frontiers in verse 22, which corresponds to the accusation of the Ammonite king in verse 13). The real point at issue was the eastern frontier, defined as the wilderness (22), and where this was in relation to the Ammonite kingdom; but statesmen rarely confine themselves to such points. Jephthah confined himself to the assertion that the disputed territory never belonged to the Ammonites but was wrested from the Amorites and no others.
The reference to Chemosh (24) is perplexing in the context, since Chemosh was the god of the Moabites, Malcam being the deity of the Ammonites (cf. 1 Kgs 11:5). On the basis of this verse, together with the prominence given to Moabite cities and kings elsewhere in the chapter, it has been conjectured that Jephthah’s campaign was directed against the Moabites, not the Ammonites, but such utter confusion appears improbable. Less objectionable, but still conjectural, is the view that the Moabites were associated with the Ammonites in this campaign. Alternatively, it has been argued that there was a wide diffusion of the worship of the various deities, but this is extremely unlikely at such an early period in the history of these petty kingdoms. In the seventh century BC parts of Moab and Gilead were occupied by the Ammonites which resulted in a merging of religions, but by this time the territories affected had lost their former virility. A fourth possibility is that verses 21–28 date from the seventh century BC, in which such an interchange of religions was likely, and that a later writer is here asserting the claim of his country to this east-Jordan territory, but there is little in favour of this view.
A fifth alternative is that Jephthah himself was confused, which raises the question as to whether we should look for precision and accuracy in the realms of history and comparative religion from such a man. Jephthah was the captain of a robber-band whose depredations probably took him impartially into Israelite, Moabite and Ammonite territory. His actions subsequent to this show how unfamiliar he was with the requirements of the God of his own people, and it is possible that he was in error at this point. We must avoid the tendency to view Jephthah’s message to the Ammonite king as we would a statement from a great, modern world-power to a neighbouring power on some controversial issue. The doctrine of inspiration does not necessitate the elimination of all inaccuracies in the statements of a man of the character and background of Jephthah.
The reference to Chemosh does not indicate that Jephthah or the editor placed Chemosh and Yahweh on exactly the same level, as merely the national deities of the two countries, although Jephthah’s apprehension of Yahweh may have reached no higher level than monolatry. On the other hand it may be an argumentum ad hominem. In either case it represented a change of attack. Formerly the argument had rested on Israel’s vastly superior claim to the disputed region; now it rested on the superiority of Israel’s God. His argument was clinched by two further points. First Balak, the Moabite king at the time of the Israelite conquest, when any adjustments ought to have been made, had made no effort to regain the territory which once pertained to his country. Secondly, the Israelites had enjoyed a very long period of undisputed occupation of this region, so there was hardly a case at such a late stage for questioning her right to do so. Heshbon and Aroer (26) were both in the territory of Reuben and were both on the ‘King’s Highway’, the main north-south trade route, between 12 and 15 miles east of the Dead Sea. But Heshbon was in the extreme north of Reuben and Aroer was by the river Arnon, the southern boundary. Both cities were captured by Sihon, who made Heshbon his capital (Num. 21:26) but at a later date they reverted to Moab (Isa. 15:4; Jer. 48:2, 19, etc.).
The three hundred years (26) is remarkably close to the total of the various figures for the judges and the periods of oppression given up to this point. The exact figure is 319 years, but since Ammon’s claim could be held to have commenced at the beginning of the eighteen-year oppression (10:8) it would be reduced to 301 years. As was pointed out in the Introduction,28 the entire period of the judges cannot be extended much beyond 180 years, and the actual interval between Israel’s conquest of Transjordania and the rise of Jephthah was no more than 160 years. The reference to the 300 years may be an editorial amplification of the remainder of the verse, or it may be a broad generalization for approximately seven or eight generations, or it may represent Jephthah’s rough guess, since he would hardly have access to reliable historical records. Jephthah concluded that right was on his side and invoked Yahweh as the ultimate Judge, but this ancient diplomatic wrangle ended with the Ammonite king completely unimpressed and uninfluenced by Jephthah’s reasoning.
11:29–31. Jephthah’s vow. The lack of a sense of chronological sequence is illustrated here, since this account of Jephthah’s recruiting campaign takes the narrative back beyond the statement of 10:17. It is, in a sense, a recapitulation of events before the account of the battle and may indicate a stage in the oral tradition where it was necessary for the narrator, having digressed, to set the scene afresh before passing on. The troops of Jephthah were drawn from the Israelites settled east of the Jordan, the base-camp being Mizpeh of Gilead (see note on 10:17). Two facts in this section stand in sharp contrast. First, Jephthah, by the coming of the Spirit of the Lord upon him, became a charismatic hero, empowered by God to effect the deliverance of his people. But then, in the second place, he showed his lack of appreciation of the character and requirements of the Lord, and also a lack of confidence in the divine enablement, by seeking to secure the favour of God by his rash vow. Attempts have been made to show that Jephthah had an animal sacrifice in mind and that he was taken by surprise when his daughter came to greet him; but these cannot be substantiated, since the designation whoever comes forth from the doors of my house (31, RSV) must refer to an intended human sacrifice. It is certain that this was intended as an act of devotion on Jephthah’s part, a recompense for God’s action through him; but had he been better versed in the traditions of Moses he would have known that God did not desire to be honoured in this way. The ‘fruit of my body’ (or anyone else’s body) cannot be offered ‘for the sin of my soul’, or as a mark of devotion to the Lord (Mic. 6:6–8). The lives of others are sacred and are not to be terminated for the private end of an individual, however laudable that end may appear. As Bishop Hall observed, ‘It was his zeale to vow, it was his sinne to vow rashly.’29 On a considerably lower level may be instanced the case of the Moabite king who sacrificed his son in a desperate attempt to placate Chemosh and effect a deliverance from Israel, Judah and Edom (2 Kgs 3:27). Human sacrifice was practised amongst Israel’s neighbours, although the custom was not so prevalent as is commonly supposed. But apart from this instance, which is clearly exceptional, there is little evidence of any widespread observance of this evil custom in Israel until the later period of the monarchy, notably in the reigns of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:6).
11:32, 33. Defeat of the Ammonites. The conclusive victory over the Ammonites is recorded with very little detail, especially when compared with Gideon’s encounter with the Midianites, but the credit for it is given unreservedly to the Lord. The location of Aroer has already been noted (see comment on 11:26). Minnith and the plain of the vineyards (AV), which is best read as a proper name, Abelkeramim (RSV), are both unidentified. It may be assumed that Aroer was the starting-point of the battle and that the twenty cities were in Ammonite territory on the line of retreat of the defeated army. The Ammonites were to re-emerge as a threat to Israel about fifty years after this defeat (1 Sam. 11:1ff.).
11:34–40. The fulfilment of Jephthah’s vow. The victorious general returned to Mizpeh, no doubt expecting that the fulfilment of his vow would involve no more than the sacrifice of one of his many household servants. To his horror, however, he was greeted by his daughter, coming to meet her conquering father in a typically Hebrew manner (cf. Exod. 15:20; 1 Sam. 18:6; Ps. 68:25). The story is narrated with consummate skill. No garish details of the sacrifice itself are given but by a delicate touch here, and an understatement there, an impression of dignified tragedy is created. Great stress is placed upon the fact that Jephthah’s daughter was an only child (34), the Hebrew reading literally ‘and she only was an only child’ (cf. Gen. 22:2; John 3:16). The fact of her virginity is also bewailed (38, 39). Corporate personality, that sense of identification within the clan or group, was very strong at this early stage in Israel’s history. The individual lost something of his identity within the group, and the concept of an individual resurrection was hardly possible in this setting. But there were compensations; the individual lived on in his descendants. He would not see the future himself but it belonged to him so long as his line was maintained; hence the power in a curse which involved a man’s offspring (2 Sam. 3:28, 29), and the tragedy when a family line died out (cf. 2 Sam. 18:18). The fact that Jephthah’s daughter bore no child was more than a tragedy of a life unfulfilled (an attitude in ancient Israel which stands in contrast with that of modern western women generally). It represented the termination of the clan of Jephthah himself, since she was his only child. Thus the moment of triumph almost coincided with the moment of tragedy.
All the earlier commentators and historians accepted that Jephthah actually offered up his daughter as a burnt offering. It was not until the Middle Ages that well-meaning but misguided attempts were made to soften down the plain meaning of the text. The susceptibilities of enlightened minds may well be shocked at such an action, particularly by one of Israel’s judges; but the attempt to commute the sentence of death to one of perpetual virginity cannot be sustained. The final reference to the virginity of Jephthah’s daughter is added to point the tragedy of the affair and the perfect tense is best read as a pluperfect, a use which it often has in Hebrew, ‘she had known no man’ (cf. RSV, She had never known a man). The plain statement, that he did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, must be allowed to stand. The desolation of Jephthah (35), the two-month reprieve (37, 38), and the institution of an annual four-day feast would hardly be likely if nothing more was involved than perpetual virginity.
The noble character of Jephthah’s daughter has been the theme of poets down through the ages. Anticipating with feminine insight the content of her father’s rash vow before he had divulged it openly, she nevertheless submitted herself immediately to what awaited her. The Lord had granted a great victory over the Ammonites and, if this involved a price, she was prepared to pay it. The pathos of such submissive nobility is enhanced for the modern reader by the realization that human sacrifice is repugnant to the Lord and a virtual contradiction of the love which is central in his character. With no hope of immortality to light the pathway to a childless death she lamented the impending tragedy, but made no attempt to avert it. The incident witnesses to the sacredness of a vow undertaken before the Lord (cf. Num. 30:1ff.; Deut. 23:21, 23) and we must at least respect this man and his daughter who were loyal, at such a cost, to their limited beliefs. There comes the challenge to the modern reader, whose knowledge of God is much greater than that of Jephthah, to offer to him a comparable but enlightened loyalty.
The annual lamentation in remembrance of Jephthah’s daughter is not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament and it may have been confined to the region of Gilead. The inference of the verb, an imperfect of frequentative action, suggests that the custom was still practised in the time of the editor. Attempts have been made to connect this incident with the worship of the deities of the underworld which was widely diffused throughout the ancient world, particularly with the custom of ‘weeping for Tammuz’ (Ezek. 8:14). There is no certain evidence of any such connection.