Jephthah’s vow – some issues discussed (Judg 11:29-40)
It is confusing for us to know what to think about Jephthah’s vow when Scripture doesn’t give an explicit value judgement. God seems to have responded by giving him victory, but if so, is such a vow from God? If the tragedy is that Jephthah inadvertently vowed something he didn’t intend to give (human sacrifice) how could God expect him to go through with it? Could he have gone back on the vow? Should we interpret his vow to mean that an animal would be sacrificed while a person would be dedicated for temple service? In this post I discuss some of these issues. It is not necessary to read this to understand my Bible reading notes on Jephthah’s sacrifice, but it provides some background to them.
Burnt offering or temple service?
The end of the story does not explicitly say that the daughter was burnt on the altar, but simply states that Jephthah did to her what he had vowed (Judg 11:39) and this has given rise to speculation as to what really happened. While I take the majority view in both Jewish and Christian interpretation that the vow was for a burnt offering (v.31), there is some ambiguity in the Hebrew, which allows for the alternative that the daughter was dedicated to temple service. For a credible argument for this latter view see a post here. What inclines me to think that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter is the overall message of Judges, which is a warning against God’s people becoming immersed in and shaped by the pagan beliefs around them. The book shows the gradual decline of Israel and her judges in this respect and we see in Jephthah’s story a number of ambiguities relating to his faith and attitudes (see posts on Jephthah). True, God’s Spirit comes on Jephthah, though note that this is not an indwelling as in the NT but only empowerment for the task. Thus, God works with ‘material’ that is available. (This is similar to Samson, who breaks his Nazirite vows, marries a Philistine woman and later lives with another woman without marriage, yet God’s spirit comes on him too – Judges 13–16.) Given these considerations Jephthah’s tragic sin despite his spiritual empowerment fits well into the overall shape of the book.
Animal sacrifice or human sacrifice?
The referent of Jephthah’s vow (‘whatever/whoever comes out of… my house’ – Judg 11:31) is ambiguous. Israelites typically kept some animals indoors (a four-room house had three rooms along the outer walls and an open courtyard in the middle accommodating kitchen, storeroom, bedroom and general living area).[1] It is hard to know if animals would have been roaming freely around in the house. If they were tethered, or at least, enclosed in a space, they would not be coming out of the house on their own, though. The expression ‘to meet me’ (v.31) also suggests a human being.[2] Jephthah’s vow then would at the least include the possibility of human sacrifice. This should put the reader on the alert: human sacrifice is forbidden for Israel (Lev 18:2; Deut 12:30–31) and it is as basic a command as the one to worship only the Lord.
Clues to Scripture’s disapproval
The disapproval of the passage is not explicit, but there are some clues to it. In the Hebrew, vv.29, 32 are drawn together by the repeated use of the same word for ‘crossing over’, which woodenly translated reads like this.
29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed over to Gilead and Manasseh, he crossed over to Mizpah of Gilead and from there he crossed over to the Ammonites. […] 32 Jephthah crossed over to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gave them into his hands.
God’s Spirit empowers, Jephthah acts, the Lord gives victory. In this sequence, the vow (vv.30–31) is an interruption.[3] Though an argument from silence, it is also noteworthy that there is no connection made between the vow and the outcome of the battle such as ‘the Lord heard Jephthah’s vow and gave him victory’ (cf. Num 21:2–3). Finally, sacrificing his only child to God will cut off Jephthah’s line, which is generally associated with a curse and would be seen as a negative outcome by ancient Israelite readers.
There is also a potential comparison to be made here with Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Gen 22:1-19),[4] which shows up the difference between the two incidents. First, Abraham did not give his child to ensure a desired outcome but responded to God in obedience. He was also in the early stages of relationship with God learning about His character and requirements, without the fuller revelation of the law. Thus, he would not have been aware that human sacrifice was wrong and should not be condemned for not querying God’s command. God stops Abraham going through with it and provides an animal instead, thereby teaching him precisely that the Lord does not desire human sacrifice.
Could Jephthah have reversed his vow?
It is frequently assumed that Jephthah could have reversed his vow, if only he knew the details of the law. The passage sometimes cited is Lev 27:1-8, which is about someone’s vow to give God the monetary equivalent of a person and lists the value placed on males and females in different age groups.[5] However, the law is not about the redemption of a vow (i.e. the object of the vow is money from the start, rather than a person). Also, the same chapter lists some cases where redeeming a vow is unacceptable (vv.28-29). Although the criteria for changing a vow may not be entirely clear to us today, the point remains that vows are too serious to be altered willy-nilly and some are absolutely irreversible. Another passage that is potentially applicable is Lev 5:4-5,[6] where in exchange for a sacrifice, one might go back on a rash vow. The question remains, however, as to what counts as such. It cannot mean just any vow, otherwise it makes a mockery of a vow as a solemn promise to God.
From a modern context, it is difficult for us to appreciate
the weightiness of a vow, but the repeated injunctions throughout Scripture to
keep one’s vows may help us see this point (Num 30:2; Deut 23:21-23; Prov
20:25; Eccl 5:4-5). Further, the annulment of a vow is otherwise only mentioned
in the case of women who were seen as having limited responsibility and their
husbands or fathers (if they were unmarried) could veto their vows at the time
they heard of it, though not later (Num 30:3-14). The specific details and the
strictly circumscribed nature of when a vow would or would not stand underline
the same point that vows were serious business. Finally, Mal 1:14 is even more
forceful in invoking a curse on the person who vows an animal to God and gives
a blemished one instead (i.e. he compromises on the vow). However, as I mention
in this post, the real issue is not about the mechanics of getting out
of the vow, but Jephthah’s ignorance regarding human sacrifice. Would God have
wanted a vow fulfilled that was abhorrent to Him? Unlikely. Thus, breaking the
vow would have been the lesser evil. It is a reflection of Jephthah’s utter
absorption of cultural norms that he understands the seriousness of vows
(well-recognised in pagan cultures as well) but is tragically unaware how abhorrent
human sacrifice is to God.
[1] K.L. Younger Jr., Judges and Ruth (Zondervan: 2002), 263.
[2] B.G. Webb, The Book of Judges (Eerdmans: 2012), 329.
[3] Webb, The Book of Judges, 330.
[4] D.I. Block, Judges, Ruth (B&H, 1999), 371.
[5] Block, Judges, Ruth, 377.
[6] Webb, The Book of Judges, 336. He takes this as a vow whose content is (morally) evil, but the emphasis is on thoughtlessness or rashness. The expression ‘whether good or bad’ in Lev 5:4 simply has the sense of whatever the vow is about. In Hebrew ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are generic terms that do not necessarily have a moral connotation. They could be used like we might say ‘I had a bad day’.
