11:30 Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, 11:31 then whoever is the first to come through the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites—he will belong to the LORD and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.”

Summary.  This passage appears to teach that Jephthah made a vow that resulted in him killing his own daughter.  According to many sceptics, this is done with divine approval.  In the opinion of many believing commentators, the vow was rash and its consequences tragic.  There is, however, another way of reading this account which does not entail the most serious difficulties associated with the first two interpretations.

Reviewing these in turn:

(a) Sceptics tend to read this passage as if God actually approved of Jephthah’s killing of his daughter.

For example, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion, 243) compares this account of Jephthah’s rash vow with the incident involving Abraham and Isaac. Only, ’God did not see fit to intervene on this occasion.’ In fact, ‘God was obviously looking forward to the promised burnt offering’.

Jonah Conner (All That’s Wrong With the Bible) adopts a similar view.  For him,

‘Scripture presents stabbing a child to death as a logical way to prove dedication to a loving God.’

This represents a superficial reading of the text.  In particular, there is nothing in the narrative that indicates that Jephthah’s vow and resultant action was approved by God.

(b) Most commentators think that Jephthah made a rash vow to kill, as a human sacrifice to the Lord, the first person to come out of his house to greet him on his return home.  This terrible vow, and its fulfilment stand as part of the downwards moral trajectory that characterises the time of the Judges.

Almost all early Christians writers adopted this view.

Matthew Poole notes that:

‘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.’

(On this, see (c) below).  Poole offers a lengthy and even-handed discussion, but concludes that Jephthah did indeed sacrifice his daughter.

Harper’s Bible Commentary notes that some commentators think that Jephthah may have been thinking of an animal as being the first to come out of the house, but points out that neither the text nor the context supports this; nor does the expression ‘to meet me’.

Augstine wryly remarks:

‘It is neither customary now nor was it in the past that cattle would run to meet generals returning victoriously from war.’

In making this vow, Jephthah put his whole family at risk. He might have guessed that the outcome would be tragic.  And part of the tragedy was that the vow was an unnecessary attempt to bargain with God.  Those of us who are tempted to bargain with God in our prayers (“If you do this, I will do that…”) should take note.

‘Human sacrifice was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law (Lev 18:21; Deut 12:31); so Jephthah should have known that God’s favor could not be gained in this terrible way. Yet Israel’s neighbors—ironically, especially the Ammonites—sacrificed their children (see 2 Kings 3:27); and this custom might have influenced Jephthah.’ (EBC)

In fact, Jephthah’s behaviour shows

‘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…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 this 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.’ (Cundall, TOTC)

Kaiser (HSB) concludes:

‘That Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter, tragic as that would be, seems the most natural reading of the text. If Jephthah’s “sacrifice” of his daughter meant relegating her to a life of perpetual virginity and service at the temple, not one word in the text says so. The only possible support is the comment that whoever comes out of the house “will be the LORD’s” (Judg 11:31). But the statement immediately after this proves he had a whole burnt offering in mind—“sacrifice … as a burnt offering.”’

Cheryl Brown (UBCS) thinks that we should not avoid what (for her) is the inescapable meaning of the text:

‘The most logical conclusion…is that Jephthah did intend a human sacrifice. But could or would Jephthah, an Israelite, a hero of the faith (Heb. 11:32), have made such a vow? It is not impossible that he could or would have done so. Biblical heroes were never perfect but were capable of committing all kinds of gross immoral acts. David, who violated almost every one of the Ten Commandments in his sin against Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sam. 11), is a case in point. It will not do to distort the Bible’s presentation of a character in a way the text does not, just to make it conform to our ideas of moral propriety. We must hear what the text says on its own terms, even if it presents theological difficulties or moral dilemmas that would easily be resolved if we made a few adjustments here and there. The text must inform our theology rather than our theology inform the text. This passage has given rise to many interpretations that start from everywhere but the text. The truth is that Jephthah was a master manipulator and a “big mouth” who did not always use the best judgment in how he used his mouth, or when he used it.’

For Block (NAC), Jephthah’s behaviour is not simply rash.  It is, rather, an expression of deadly serious, but pagan, devotion:

‘In this instance Jephthah was neither rash nor pious (in the orthodox Yahwistic sense)—he was outrightly pagan. Rather than a sign of spiritual immaturity and folly, like Gideon’s ephod, his vow arose from a syncretistic religious environment. In 10:10 the narrator testifies to the fact that at this time the Israelites worshiped Milkom, the Ammonite god, and Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, whose leaders are known to have sacrificed children (2 Kgs 3:27). One should not expect too much from this man, who made a name for himself as a brigand in the hills of Gilead. It is conceivable that in his travels he had many contacts and had learned much from the neighboring/oppressing Ammonites.’

Block comments on the significance of someone coming out of the house in exuberant welcome:

‘The clause “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me” envisages the exuberant welcome by children of a father who has been away on a military campaign. For the moment the reader does not know that Jephthah has only one child, that in putting her at risk he also jeopardizes himself, and that, ironically, in securing his own victory he sentences his lineage to death.’

In response to the suggestion that the narrator does not condemn Jephthah’s actions, Block responds that he does. He does so partly in the way he tells the story, emphasising the terms of the vow in order to bring out its grotesqeness.  But he does so also simply by placing the story where he does:

‘The narrator’s disposition is explicitly expressed by the location of the Jephthah cycle within the “Book of Deliverers.” In light of the editorial principle declared in 2:18–20 and following the Gideon story, which ended in the construction of the paganized ephod, Jephthah’s conduct is to be interpreted as a further illustration of Israel’s increasingly Canaanized character. The placement of the Jephthah cycle immediately after the story of Abimelech also invites a negative comparison with this man. Abimelech had sacrificed his Israelite half-brothers at the altar of his own ambition so he could rule over his Canaanite half-brothers. Jephthah did one better—he sacrificed his own daughter and with her himself that he might rule over a tribe of his Israelite half-brothers.’

Block discusses the treatment of this passage by feminists.  They sometimes use it as an illustration of all that is wrong with patriarchy.  But, Block reponds, Jephthath’s terrible abuse of his own daughter:

‘is not the normative biblical pattern, nor is the problem resolved by eliminating all hierarchical structures in society. The answer lies in the transformation of society so that those in authority, including fathers as heads of households, view themselves as servants of those under them and, like Christ, sacrifice all personal advantage for the well-being of others. This is true spiritual headship. Given the abuses that men have imposed upon women and children, it may be necessary to abandon the word “patriarchy,” “the rule of the father,” but this does not mean that the institution of fatherhood or the responsible headship of men in the homes should be abolished.’

This is, in substance, the view of Calvin, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Block, Wilcock, Davis, Webb (NBC), Bruce (Answers to Questions), Younger and Harper’s Bible Commentary.  This interpretation is defended by Claude Mariottini (Re-reading the Biblical Text).

This is also the view of Isabelle Hamley (God of Justice and Mercy: a Theological Commentary on Judges, chapter 5) who emphasises the supposed mysogyny of the passage and gives reign to her imagination on what the daughter’s thought processes might have been (see an extended review of and extract from Hamley’s book in Transforming Ministry, Spring, 2022).

It may be that although Jephthah knows Israel’s history quite well, his knowledge of Yahweh is much more limited.  He treats the Lord as though he was one of the pagan deities (cf. v24), delighting in human sacrifice.  He does not seem aware that only certain ‘clean’ animals were acceptable as sacrifices to the Lord.

It is clear that the vow was a very serious one, more serious than the sacrifice of an animal would suggest.  In any case, Jephthah could not have known that the first, second, or even third animal to come out of his house would be acceptable (‘clean’) for sacrifice.

‘Not only were human sacrifices prohibited in the law under pain of death as an abomination in the sight of Jehovah (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut. 12:31; 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.’ (Keil and Delitsch)

Although there is no explicit condemnation of this vow within the text, the overall tenor of Judges is that ‘this is not how life in Israel was meant to be.’ (Evans)

If Jephthah had intended his vow to refer to an animal, then ‘his daughter’s approach could have been seen as irrelevant to the vow.’ (Evans)

Evans notes the similarly rash vow made by Saul, which was inadvertantly transgressed by his son Jonathan.  There were no consequence when Saul’s men refused to fulfil the requirements of the oath (1 Sam 14:24f).

If the thought was to redeem the daughter’s life by the offering of an animal sacrifice, this would have left her free (supposing that Ex 13:12–15 applies here).

(c) There is, however, a third interpretation, according to which Jephthah’s vow concerned the dedicating to the service of the Lord in the sanctuary the first person to come out of his house to greet him.

Gleason Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) thinks that this incident has been seriously misunderstood.  He says that it is well known that the Lord deplored the practice of human sacrifice; that it is inconceivable that the Lord would have granted Jephthah victory of the foe as a ‘reward’ for an oath that involved human sacrifice; and that there is no record in the text that even hints at a condemnation of Jephthah’s actions.  (Indeed, Heb 11:32 remembers Jephthah as a man of faith).

In Archer’s view, the entire narrative points to the vow as being one, not concerning human sacrifice, but of dedicating a member of his household to the Lord’s service in the sanctuary (cf. Ex 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22).  The text makes it clear that the daughter was allowed a two-month period, not to mourn her approaching death, but to lament the fact that she would remain a virgin, and her father’s line would become extinct (she being his only child).

Jordan remarks that the daughter’s wish to be given two months of mouring makes no sense if she was to be put to death, but a lotof sense if she was destined to remain a virgin.

The above is also the view of Adam Clarke, Keil and Delitzsch, Lange, and JFB.  It is also mentioned as a distinct possibility by R.A. Torrey (Difficulties in the Bible).

This interpretation is discussed in some detail and adopted by the author of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary.

This is also the view of Gordon Keddie.  Matthew Henry allows it as a possibility, but inclines to interpretation (b).

This view is discussed in some detail, but then dismissed, by Evans.  However, I do not find her arguments conclusive.

Jonathan Edwards wrote a long piece defending this interpretation.  He thinks that the daughter was dedicated to be a Nazirite, and thus to perpetual virginity (Num 6:2 indicates that a woman could be a Nazirite).  He cites Heb 11 in favour of this.

As for Jephthah’s grief, Edwards explains:

‘She, being his only child, by her being devoted to be a Nazarite, his family was entirely extinct. He had no issue to inherit his estate, or keep his name in remembrance, which in those days was looked upon an exceeding great calamity.’

Wiersbe, in a thoughtful analysis of this passage, asks where Jephthah would have made his human sacrifice, if that is what he had vowed to do:

‘He would have to travel to Shiloh to fulfill his vow (Deut. 16:2, 6, 11, 16), and it’s doubtful that even the most unspiritual priest would offer a human sacrifice on God’s sanctified altar, victory or no victory.’

James B. Jordan notes that any number of priests and people would have weighed in to prevent Jephthah from committing such an abomination (just as the people prevent Saul from killing David, 1 Sam 14:45).

Wiersbe adds that any priest of Shiloh could have told Jephthah about the proper amount of money that could have redeemed his daughter (Lev 27:1-8).

Wiersbe offers the same solution as Archer, noting that the conjunction in v31, usually translated ‘and’ could be translated ‘or’:

‘he will belong to the LORD and [or?] I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.’

This possible translation is noted by JFB (but without committing to it).

The sense would be that Jephthah vowed that whatever met him when he returned home would be dedicated to the Lord (if a person), or sacrificed to the Lord (if an animal).  Kaiser, however, calls this solution ‘ingenious’ but inadmissible, saying that this translation is never permitted in the OT (with the possible exception of 2 Kings 18:27).

The NET Bible, in a note, indicates that this translation is possible, but unlikely:

‘Some translate “or,” suggesting that Jephthah makes a distinction between humans and animals. According to this view, if a human comes through the door, then Jephthah will commit him/her to the LORD’s service, but if an animal comes through the doors, he will offer it up as a sacrifice. However, it is far more likely that the Hebrew construction…specifies how the subject will become the LORD’s, that is, by being offered up as a sacrifice. For similar constructions, where the apodosis of a conditional sentence has at least two perfects (each with vav) in sequence, see Gen 34:15–16; Exod 18:16.’

Wiersbe concludes:

‘Nowhere in the text are we told that Jephthah actually killed his daughter, nor do we find anybody bewailing the girl’s death. The emphasis in Judges 11:37–40 is the fact that she remained a virgin. It’s difficult to believe that “the daughters of Israel” would establish a custom to celebrate (not “lament” as in KJV) the awful sacrifice of a human being, but we can well understand that they would commemorate the devotion and obedience of Jephthah’s daughter in helping her father fulfill his vow. She deserves to stand with Isaac as a faithful child, who was willing to obey both father and God, no matter what the cost.’

According to this interpretation, Jephthah’s daughter joined the other women who served in the Temple (Ex 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22).

The OT consistently views human sacrifice with horror (Lev 18:21; 20:1–5; Deut 12:31; 18:10;  2 Kings 3:27; 16:3; 21:6).

Gen 22; Ex 22:29–30 and Mic 6:7–8.

According to Harper’s Bible Commentary,

‘The most startling feature of the narrative is the absence of any condemnation of Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter to God.’

This ‘startling’ omission may be taken as evidence in favour of this third interpretation.

A similar misunderstanding can occur in relation to Ex 22:29f, where, at first sight, the command seems to involve the sacrifice of the first-born son.  In this case, however, it has already been made clear (in Ex 13:13-15) that the first-born were not slaughtered, but redeemed – bought back from God by the payment of a price.  And there were other variants on this: in Num 8:16-19, it is the Levites, consecrated to sacral service, who are understood to take the take the place of the first-born.

Jephthah receives a positive evaluation in the NT.  In particular, Heb 11:32-34 remembers him as a notable man of faith, along with Gideon, Barak, Samson, David and Samuel.  Of course, these men were not all exemplary in their moral behaviour (we need look no further than Samson), but none were guilty of the henous sin of human sacrifice, as Jephthah is thought by many to have been.

Jephthah, along with the other judges, also receives a positive evaluation in the OT.  Of course, no prophet, priest, judge or king was perfect, but whereas the text notes clearly the failings of Moses and David (to give two examples), there is no explicit condemnation of Jephthah in this matter of his daughter.  It might be argued that the text condemns his behaviour implicitly, but this is not obviously the case.

According to Judges 11:29, Jephthat was empowered by the Holy Spirit.  In the very next verse, he makes his vow.  This suggests a close connection between the two.

It seems clear that Jephthah expected a person to come out and greet him and to begin the victory celebrations.  It was customary for women to lead such celebrations (Ex 15:20; Jud 5:28; 1 Sam 18:6).  It seems that he did not expect it to be his own daughter.

It is possible that Jephthah was using the language of sacrifice symbolically in 11:31 (cf. Psa 51:17).

The reference to Jephthah fulfilling his vow is vague.  It certainly does not specify the fate of the daughter.

There is no evidence in the OT that young girls were ever dedicated to perpetual virginity.  However, this did happen in some other ANE religions.  On the other hand, many commentators suppose that Jephthah’s knowledge of the Mosaic law was deficient (he was a half-Canaanite), and, for all we know, it might have been deficient on this very point.  Such enforced barrenness would have been somewhat tragic for both father and daughter.

The behaviour of Jephthah’s daughter seems to contradict the idea that she was to be the victim of human sacrifice.  Such sacrifices were an abomination in Israel (Deut 12:31; 18:9–12; cf. 2 Kings 3:27; 23:10; Isa 57:5).  But the text is not concerned with death, but virginity (11:37, 39).

The suggestion of Trible, that this text indicates that ‘the text does indeed perhaps [sic] assume that women are more expendable than men’ is of doubtful validity, given the evident belovedness of the daughter.  As Evans comments:

‘There is no suggestion that if Jephthah’s only child had been a son, the result would in this case have been any different.’

After reviewing such arguments, Miles Van Pelt concludes:

‘It appears, therefore, that Jephthah’s vow consisted of offering a member of his house to the full-time service of the LORD, and thus not to the normal duties of a household, such a marriage and having children. Service of this type in not unknown in the Old Testament (Ex. 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22; cf. 1 Sam 1:11, 22–28).’

Some practical lessons

1. Let us be people who keep our word.
2. It is especially important not to make promises to God, which you either cannot, or should not, keep.
3. There is no virtue in fulfilling an evil vow.
4. Never try to bargain with God.