Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 11:12
And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?
12. with me ] i.e. the people represented by Jephthah; see on Jdg 11:17.
my land from Arnon even unto Jabbok ] The Arnon, now called Wadi el-Mjb, descends from the E. and flows into the Dead Sea at a point almost in the middle of the eastern shore; it formed the southern boundary of Moab at the time of the Exodus ( Jdg 11:18, Num 21:13). The Jabbok, now Nahr ez-Zer = ‘the blue river,’ like the Arnon, is a perennial stream; it rises to the S. of ‘Ammn (Rabbath-ammon), runs northward and hence is called ‘the border of the sons of Ammon’ (Deu 3:16, Jos 12:2), curves round to the W., and so winds its way down to the Jordan which it enters 44 m. due N. of the Arnon. The district between the two rivers naturally lay exposed to the incursions of the Ammonites, who lived to the E. of it (Num 21:24); but there is no support for the Ammonites’ claim to regard it as my land at the time of the Israelite invasion, when the territory in question was held by the Amorites, Jdg 11:21 f., Num 21:23 f.
those lands] Rather, the cities of the district understood ( Jdg 11:33); lit. them.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 12. Jepthah sent messengers] He wished the Ammonites to explain their own motives for undertaking a war against Israel; as then the justice of his cause would appear more forcibly to the people.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Messengers, i.e. ambassadors, to prevent bloodshed, and make peace, as far as in him lay; that so the Israelites might be acquitted before God and men from all the sad consequences of this war: herein he showed great prudence, and no less piety.
What hast thou to do with me? what pretence or reasonable cause hast thou for this invasion?
My land; he speaks this in the name of all the people, whose the land was.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12-28. Jephthah sent messengers untothe king of the children of AmmonThis first act in hisjudicial capacity reflects the highest credit on his character forprudence and moderation, justice and humanity. The bravest officershave always been averse to war; so Jephthah, whose courage wasindisputable, resolved not only to make it clearly appear thathostilities were forced upon him, but to try measures for avoiding,if possible, an appeal to arms: and in pursuing such a course he wasacting as became a leader in Israel (De20:10-18).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon,…. Being now declared chief and sole governor of the tribes on the other side Jordan, he acted in character, and as such sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites, to know the reason of his invading the land that belonged to Israel, being desirous of adjusting things in an amicable way, and to prevent the shedding of blood; in which he behaved as a good man, and not at all inconsistent with a man of valour and courage:
saying, what hast thou to do with me; to invade my land, and disturb my people, what have I or they done to give occasion for it?
that thou art come against me to fight in my land? he speaks in the language of a governor, and as a man of spirit concerned for the good of his country, and determined to defend the rights and liberties of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jephthah’s Negotiations with the King of the Ammonites. – Jdg 11:12. Before Jephthah took the sword, he sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites, to make complaints to him of his invasion of the land of the Israelites. “ What have we to do with one another (‘what to me and thee?’ see Jos 22:24; 2Sa 16:10), that thou hast come to me to fight against my land? ” Jephthah’s ambassadors speak in the name of the nation; hence the singulars “ me ” and “ my land.”
Jdg 11:13 The king of the Ammonites replied, that when Israel came up out of Egypt, they had taken away his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok (on the north), and to the Jordan (on the west), and demanded that they should now restore these lands in peace. The plural (them) refers ad sensum to the cities and places in the land in question. The claim raised by the king of the Ammonites has one feature in it, which appears to have a certain colour of justice. The Israelites, it is true, had only made war upon the two kings of the Amorites, Sihon and Og, and defeated them, and taken possession of their kingdoms and occupied them, without attacking the Ammonites and Moabites and Edomites, because God had forbidden their attacking these nations (Deu 2:5, Deu 2:9, Deu 2:19); but one portion of the territory of Sihon had formerly been Moabitish and Ammonitish property, and had been conquered by the Amorites and occupied by them. According to Num 21:26, Sihon had made war upon the previous king of Moab, and taken away all his land as far as the Arnon (see the comm. on this passage). And although it is not expressly stated in the Pentateuch that Sihon had extended his conquests beyond Moabitis into the land of the Ammonites, which was situated to the east of Moab, and had taken a portion of it from them, this is pretty clearly indicated in Jos 13:25, since, according to that passage, the tribe of Gad received in addition to Jaezer and all the towns of Gilead, half the land of the children of Ammon, namely, the land to the east of Gilead, on the western side of the upper Jabbok (Nahr Ammn: see at Jos 13:26).
(Note: The explanation which Masius gives of this passage ( Eatenus moao sursum in Galaaditidem exporrectam jacuisse Gaditarum haereditatem, quatenus dimidia Ammonitarum ditio Galaaditidem ab oriente ambiebat ) is not sufficiently in keeping with the words, and too unnatural, to be regarded as correct, as it is by Reland (Pal. ill. p. 105) and Hengstenberg (Dissertations on the Pentateuch, ii. p. 29); and the reasons assigned by Masius, viz., “that the Israelites were prohibited from occupying the land of the Ammonites,” and “the Ammonites are not mentioned in Num 21:26,” are too weak to establish anything. The latter is an argumentum e silentio , which loses all significance when we bear in mind, that even the allusion to the land of the Moabites in Num 21:26 is only occasioned by the prominence given to Heshbon, and the poetical saying founded upon its fall. But the prohibition against taking the land of the Ammonites from them had just as much force in relation to the land of the Moabites, and simply referred to such land as these tribes still possessed in the time of Moses, and not to that which the Amorites had taken from them.)
Jdg 11:14-15 Jephthah then sent ambassadors again to explain to him the true state of the case, namely, that Israel had neither taken away the land of Moab nor the land of the Ammonites. As a proof of this, Jephthah adduced the leading facts connected with the journey of the Israelites through the desert of Arabia to Canaan, by which this assertion was confirmed, in exact agreement with the accounts of the Pentateuch respecting the matter in dispute.
Jdg 11:16-18 On leaving Egypt, Israel passed through the desert to the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh (Num 20:1). They then sent messengers to the king of Edom, to obtain permission to pass through his land; and this the king of Edom refused (Num 20:14-21). They also sent to the king of Moab, who sent back a similar refusal. The embassy to the king of Moab is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, as it had no direct bearing upon the further course of the Israelites (see Pentateuch, p. 741, note 1). “ And Israel abode in Kadesh ” (word for word, as in Num 20:1), and “ then passed through the desert, ” namely to Mount Hor, then down the Arabah to the Red Sea, and still farther past Oboth to Ijje-abarim in the desert (Num 20:22-21:11). In this way they went round the land of Edom and the land of Moab ( , like in Num 21:4); and came from the east to the land of Moab (i.e., along the eastern boundary, for Ijje-abarim was situated there, according to Num 21:11); and encamped on the other side of the Arnon (Num 21:13), i.e., on the upper course of the Arnon where it still flows through the desert (see Pent. p. 749). On this march, therefore, they did not enter the territory of Moab, as the Arnon formed the boundary of Moab, i.e., the boundary between Moab and the territory of the Amorites (Num 21:13).
Jdg 11:19-22 Jdg 11:19-22 are almost verbatim the same as Num 21:21-25. Israel then sent messengers to Sihon the king of the Amorites at Heshbon, to ask permission to pass through his land. “ Into my place, ” i.e., into the land of Canaan, that Jehovah has appointed for me. But Sihon “ trusted not Israel to pass through his land, ” i.e., he did not trust to the assurance of Israel that they only wanted to pass peaceably through his land, but supposed the petition to cover an intention to take forcible possession of it. (In Num 21:23 we have instead of .) He did not confine himself, therefore, to a refusal of the permission they asked for, but collected his men of war, and marched against the Israelites to the desert as far as Jahza, on the east of Medeba and Dibon (see at Num 21:23), and fought with them. But he was defeated, and lost all his land, from the Arnon (Mojeb) on the south to the Jabbok (Zerka) on the north, and from the desert on the east to the Jordan on the west, of which the Israelites took possession.
Jdg 11:23-24 From these facts Jephthah drew this simple but indisputable conclusion: “ Jehovah the God of Israel has rooted out the Amorites before His people Israel, and thou wilt take possession of it (viz., the land of the Amorites).” The suffix to refers to , the Amorites, i.e., their land. The construction of with the accusative of the people (as in Deu 2:12, Deu 2:21-22; Deu 9:1) may be explained on the simple ground, that in order to take possession of a country, it is necessary first of all to get the holders of it into your power. Jephthah then proved still further how unwarrantable the claim of the king of the Ammonites was, and said to him (Jdg 11:24), “ Is it not the fact ( , nonne), that what thy god Chemosh gives thee for a possession, of that thou takest possession; and all that Jehovah makes ownerless before us, of that we take possession? ” – an appeal the validity of which could not be disputed. For Chemosh, see at Num 21:29. The verb combines the three meanings: to drive out of a possession, to deprive of a possessor, and to give for a possession; inasmuch as it is impossible to give a land for a possession without driving away or exterminating its former possessor.
Jdg 11:25-26 But not contenting himself with this conclusive deduction, Jephthah endeavoured to remove the lost appearance of right from the king’s claim by a second and equally conclusive argument. “ And now art thou better than Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab? Did he strive ( , inf. abs. of or ) with Israel, or did he fight against them? ” By the repetition of (Jdg 11:25, cf. Jdg 11:23), the new argument is attached to the previous one, as a second deduction from the facts already described. Balak, the king of the Moabites, had indeed bribed Balaam to destroy Israel by his curses; but he did so not so much with the intention of depriving them of the territory of the Amorites which they had conquered, as from the fear that the powerful Israelites might also conquer his still remaining kingdom. Balak had neither made war upon Israel on account of the territory which they had conquered from the Amorites, nor had he put forward any claim to it as his own property, which he certainly might have done with some appearance of justice, as a large portion of it had formerly belonged to the Moabites (see Num 21:26 and the comm. on this passage). If therefore Balak the king of the Moabites never thought of looking upon this land as being still his property, or of asking it back from the Israelites, the king of the Ammonites had no right whatever to lay claim to the land of Gilead as belonging to him, or to take it away from the Israelites by force, especially after the lapse of 300 years. “ As Israel dwells in Heshbon, … and in all the cities by the side of the Arnon for three hundred years, why have ye not taken away (these towns and lands) within that time ” (i.e., during these 300 years)? If the Ammonites had had any right to it, they ought to have asserted their claim in Moses’ time. It was much too late now, after the expiration of 300 years. For “if no prescriptive right is to be admitted, on account of length of time, and if long possession gives no title, nothing would ever be held in safety by any people, and there would be no end to wars and dissension” ( Clericus). On Heshbon and its daughters, see at Num 21:25. Aror ( , another form for , or possibly only a copyist’s error) is Aror of Gad, before Rabbah (Jos 13:25), and is to be sought for in the Wady Nahr Ammn, on the north-east of Ammn (see at Josh. l. c.), not Aror of Reuben, on the border of the valley of Arnon (Num 32:34; Deu 2:36; Deu 4:48; Jos 12:2; Jos 13:9). This is evident from the fact, that it is distinguished from “all the cities on the side ( , see at Num 34:3) of the Arnon,” which included Aror of Reuben. Aror of Gad, with its daughter towns, was probably Ammonitish territory before the time of Sihon. On the 300 years, a round number that comes very near the reality, see the Chronol. p. 285.
Jdg 11:27 After Jephthah had adduced all that could be said, to prove that the Israelites were the rightful possessors of the land of Gilead,
(Note: “Jephthah urged everything that could be pleaded in support of their prescriptive right: possession, length of time, the right of conquest, and undisputed occupation.” – Rosenmller.)
he closed with these words: “ I (i.e., Israel, whose cause Jephthah was pleading) have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong in that thou makest war against me. Let Jehovah the Judge be judge this day (now) between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.” God should decide between the two nations, by giving the victory in war to the side whose cause was the just one.
Jdg 11:28 But the king of the Ammonites did not hearken to the words of Jephthah “which he had sent to him,” i.e., had instructed his messengers to address to him; so that it was necessary that Jehovah should decide for Israel in battle.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The War with the Ammonites. | B. C. 1143. |
12 And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? 13 And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. 14 And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon: 15 And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon: 16 But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness unto the Red sea, and came to Kadesh; 17 Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh. 18 Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. 19 And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place. 20 But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. 21 And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. 22 And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. 23 So now the LORD God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess it? 24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. 25 And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, 26 While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? 27 Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon. 28 Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him.
We have here the treaty between Jephthah, now judge of Israel, and the king of the Ammonites (who is not named), that the controversy between the two nations might, if possible, be accommodated without the effusion of blood.
I. Jephthah, as one having authority, sent to the king of Ammon, who in this war was the aggressor, to demand his reasons for invading the land of Israel: “Why hast thou come to fight against me in my land? v. 12. Had I come first into thy land to disturb thee in thy possession, this would have been reason enough for fighting against me, for how must force be repelled but by force? but what hast thou to do to come thus in a hostile manner into my land?” so he calls it, in the name both of God and Israel. Now this fair demand shows, 1. That Jephthah did not delight in war, though he was a mighty man of valour, but was willing to prevent it by a peaceable accommodation. If he could by reason persuade the invaders to retire, he would not compel them to do it by the sword. War should be the last remedy, not to be used till all other methods of ending matters in variance have been tried in vain, ratio ultima regum–the last resource of kings. This rule should be observed in going to law. The sword of justice, as well as the sword of war, must not be appealed to till the contending parties have first endeavoured by gentler means to understand one another, and to accommodate matters in variance, 1 Cor. vi. 1. 2. That Jephthah did delight inequity, and designed no other than to do justice. If the children of Ammon could convince him that Israel had done them wrong, he was ready to restore the rights of the Ammonites. If not, it was plain by their invasion that they did Israel wrong, and he was ready to maintain the rights of the Israelites. A sense of justice should guide and govern us in all our undertakings.
II. The king of the Ammonites now gives in his demand, which he should have published before he had invaded Israel, v. 13. His pretence is, “Israel took away my lands long since; now therefore restore those lands.” We have reason to think the Ammonites, when they made this descent upon Israel, meant no other than to spoil and plunder the country, and enrich themselves with the prey, as they had done formerly under Eglon (ch. iii. 13) when no such demand as this was made, though the matter was then fresh; but when Jephthah demanded the cause of their quarrel, and they could not for shame own what was their true intent and meaning, some old musty records were searched, or some ancient traditions enquired into, and from them this reason was drawn to serve the present turn, for a colourable pretence of equity in the invasion. Even those that do the greatest wrong yet have such a conviction in their consciences of justice that they would seem to do right. Restore those lands. See upon what uncertain terms we hold our worldly possessions; what we think we have the surest hold of may be challenged from us, and wrested out of our hands. Those that have got to the heavenly Canaan need not fear having their titles questioned.
III. Jephthah gives in a very full and satisfactory answer to this demand, showing it to be altogether unjust and unreasonable, and that the Ammonites had no title to this country that lay between the rivers Arnon and Jabbok, now in the possession of the tribes of Reuben and Gad. As one very well versed in the history of his country, he shows,
1. That Israel never took any land away either from the Moabites or Ammonites. He puts them together because they were brethren, the children of Lot, near neighbours, and of united interests, having the same god, Chemosh, and perhaps sometimes the same king. The lands in question Israel took away, not from the Moabites or Ammonites (they had particular orders from God not to meddle with them nor any thing they had, Deu 2:9; Deu 2:19, and religiously observed their orders), but they found them in the possession of Sihon king of the Amorites, and out of his hand they took them justly and honourably, as he will show afterwards. If the Amorites, before Israel came into that country, had taken these lands from the Moabites or Ammonites, as it should seem they had (Num 21:26; Jos 13:25), Israel was not concerned to enquire into that or answer for it. If the Ammonites had lost these lands and their title to them, the children of Israel were under no obligation to recover the possession for them. Their business was to conquer for themselves, not for other people. This is his first plea, “Not guilty of the trespass.”
2. That they were so far from invading the property of any other nations than the devoted posterity of cursed Canaan (one of the branches of which the Amorites were, Gen. x. 16) that they would not so much as force a passage through the country either of the Edomites, the seed of Esau, or of the Moabites, the seed of Lot; but even after a very tedious march through the wilderness, with which they were sadly tired (v. 16), when the king of Edom first, and afterwards the king of Moab, denied them the courtesy of a way through their country (v. 17), rather than give them any offence or annoyance, weary as they were, they put themselves to the further fatigue of compassing both the land of Edom and that of Moab, and came not within the border of either, v. 18. Note, Those that behave themselves inoffensively may take the comfort of it, and plead it against those that charge them with injustice and wrong doing. Our righteousness will answer for us in time to come (Gen. xxx. 33) and will put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, 1 Pet. ii. 15.
3. That in that war in which they took this land out of the hands of Sihon king of the Amorites he was the aggressor, and not they, Jdg 11:19; Jdg 11:20. They sent a humble petition to him for leave to go through his land, willing to give him any security for their good behaviour in their march. “Let us pass (say they) unto our place, that is, to the land of Canaan, which is the only place we call ours, and to which we are pressing forward, not designing a settlement here.” But Sihon not only denied them this courtesy, as Edom and Moab had done (had he only done so, who knows but Israel might have gone about some other way?) but he mustered all his forces, and fought against Israel (v. 20), not only shut them out of his own land, but would have cut them off from the face of the earth (Num 21:23; Num 21:24), aimed at nothing less than their ruin, v. 20. Israel therefore, in their war with him, stood in their own just and necessary defence, and therefore, having routed his army, might justly, in further revenge of the injury, seize his country as forfeited. Thus Israel came to the possession of this country, and doubted not to make good their title to it; and it is very unreasonable for the Ammonites to question their title, for the Amorites were the inhabitants of that country, and it was purely their land and their coasts that the Israelites then made themselves masters of, Jdg 11:21; Jdg 11:22.
4. He pleads a grant from the crown, and claims under that, Jdg 11:23; Jdg 11:24. It was not Israel (they were fatigued with their long march, and were not fit for action so soon), but it was the Lord God of Israel, who is King of nations, whose the earth is and the fulness thereof, he it was that dispossessed the Amorites and planted Israel in their room. God gave them the land by an express and particular conveyance, such as vested the title in them, which they might make good against all the world. Deut. ii. 24, I have given into thy hand Sihon and his land; he gave it to them, by giving them a complete victory over the present occupants, notwithstanding the great disadvantages they were under. “Can you think that God gave it to us in such an extraordinary manner with design that we should return it to the Moabites or Ammonites again? No, we put a higher value upon God’s favours than to part with them so easily.” To corroborate this plea, he urges an argument ad hominem—directed to the man: Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee? He not only appeals to the common resolutions of men to hold their own against all the world, but to the common religion of the nations, which, they thought, obliged them to make much of that which their gods gave them. Not that Jephthah thought Chemosh a god, only he is thy god, and the worshippers even of those dunghill deities that could do neither good nor evil yet thought themselves beholden to them for all they had (Hos. ii. 12, These are my rewards which my lovers have given me; and see Judg. xvi. 24) and made this a reason why they would hold it fast, that their gods gave it to them. “This thou thinkest a good title, and shall not we?” The Ammonites had dispossessed those that dwelt in their land before them; they thought they did it by the help of Chemosh their god, but really it was Jehovah the God of Israel that did it for them, as is expressly said, Deu 2:19; Deu 2:20. “Now,” says Jephthah, “we have as good a title to our country as you have to yours.” Note, One instance of the honour and respect we owe to God, as our God, is rightly to possess that which he gives us to possess, receive it from him, use it for him, keep it for his sake, and part with it when he calls for it. He has given it to us to possess, not to enjoy. He himself only must be enjoyed.
5. He pleads prescription. (1.) Their title had not been disputed when they first entered upon it, v. 25. “Balak who was then king of Moab, from whom the greatest part of these lands had been taken by the Amorites, and who was most concerned and best able to oppose us, if he had had any thing to object against our settlement there, yet sat still, and never offered to strive against Israel.” He knew that for his own part he had fairly lost it to the Amorites and was not able to recover it, and could not but acknowledge that Israel had fairly won it of the Amorites, and therefore all his care was to secure what was left: he never pretended a title to what was lost. See Num 22:2; Num 22:3. “He then acquiesced in God’s way of disposing of kingdoms, and wilt not thou now?” (2.) Their possession had never yet been disturbed, v. 26. He pleads that they had kept this country as their own now about 300 years, and the Ammonites in all that time had never attempted to take it from them, no, not when they had it in their power to oppress them, Jdg 3:13; Jdg 3:14. So that, supposing their title had not been clear at the first (which yet he had proved it was), yet, no claim having been made for so many generations, the entry of the children of Ammon, without doubt, was barred for ever. A title so long unquestioned shall be presumed unquestionable.
6. By these arguments Jephthah justifies himself and his own cause (“I have not sinned against thee in taking or keeping what I have no right to; if I had, I would instantly make restitution” ), and condemns the Ammonites: “Thou doest me wrong to war against me, and must expect to speed accordingly,” v. 27. It seems to me an evidence that the children of Israel, in the days of their prosperity and power (for some such days they had in the times of the judges) had conducted themselves very inoffensively to all their neighbours and had not been vexatious or oppressing to them (either by way of reprisal or under colour of propagating their religion), that the king of the Ammonites, when he would seek an occasion of quarrelling with them, was forced to look 300 years back for a pretence. It becomes the people of God thus to be blameless and harmless, and without rebuke.
7. For the deciding of the controversy, he puts himself upon God and his sword, and the king of Ammon joins issue with him (Jdg 11:27; Jdg 11:28): The Lord the Judge be judge this day. With this solemn reference of the matter to the Judge of heaven and earth he designs either to deter the Ammonites from proceeding and oblige them to retire, when they saw the right of the cause was against them, or to justify himself in subduing them if they should go on. Note, War is an appeal to heaven, to God the Judge of all, to whom the issues of it belong. If doubtful rights be disputed, he is hereby requested to determine them. If manifest rights be invaded or denied, he is hereby applied to for the vindicating of what is just and the punishing of wrong. As the sword of justice was made for lawless and disobedient persons (1 Tim. i. 9), so was the sword of war made for lawless and disobedient princes and nations. In war therefore the eye must be ever up to God, and it must always be thought a dangerous thing to desire or expect that God should patronise unrighteousness.
Neither Jephthah’s apology, nor his appeal, wrought upon the king of the children of Ammon; they had found the sweets of the spoil of Israel, in the eighteen years wherein they had oppressed them (ch. x. 8), and hoped now to make themselves masters of the tree with the fruit of which they had so often enriched themselves. He hearkened not to the words of Jephthah, his heart being hardened to his destruction.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Attempted Diplomacy, vs. 12-28
Jephthah was an interesting character. The Scriptures make it quite clear that he worshipped the Lord, even when he was an outlaw. His dealing with the king of Ammon also demonstrates his faith in the Lord. Furthermore, Jephthah was well versed in the Scriptures and history of Israel, as is revealed in these words. Jephthah was a shrewd and intelligent diplomat. The case he made for Israel to the Ammonite king could not be answered, and that king made no attempt to answer it.
Jephthah began his diplomacy by getting a firm answer as to the cause for the Ammonite invasion. The charge came back to Jephthah that it was because Israel had taken the lands of Ammon when they came out of Egypt. Now he demanded that Israel restore those lands peaceable. The land in question lay between the Arnon, the very southern border of the tribe of Reuben, and the Jabbok, which bisected the tribe of Gad. It was the land which had been taken from Sihon, the king of the Amorites, by Israel under Moses, as they approached Canaan after the forty years in the wilderness (Num 21:21-30).
Jephthah replied to this charge with a detailed account of Israel’s approach to the land of Canaan. They had been encamped at Kadesh, west of the Arabah, southwest of the Dead Sea. They appealed to Edom to allow them to traverse the land in coming to Canaan, but were refused, and God would not allow them to force their way through (Num 20:14-21). Neither did the Lord allow Israel to invade the land of Moab, the brother nation of the Ammonites (both were descended from Lot, the nephew of Abraham), who often allied themselves in their wars. So Israel had been compelled to traverse the horrible desert in bypassing these lands, and going up on their east side they came to Arnon.
At the Arnon the Israelites had confronted Sihon, the mighty king of the Amorites. His capital was at Heshbon, a city which at some previous time had been possessed by the Moabites, but was now securely in the hands of Sihon. They applied to Sihon that they might traverse his land in peace also, but he refused and belligerantly mobilized his army to oppose them. The Lord allowed Israel to defeat Sihon and the Amorites at the Battle of Jahaz, by which the land under dispute by the king of Ammon with Jephthah came into the possession of Israel.
Jephthah considered that it was the Lord who had dispossessed Sihon, and who had therefore given Israel its possession. The Ammonites worshipped the false god, Chemosh, and if they considered their god had given them a land they would certainly possess it. By the same token, then, Israel would certainly possess what the Lord their God gave them.
And now Jephthah continued to sound a warning to the king of Ammon, by recalling the mistake of Balak, the king of Moab. The Moabites and Ammonites had coveted this land ever since Israel had possessed it. Before Israel could cross the Jordan Balak had sent for the false prophet and soothsayer, Balaam, to curse Israel and help him to get possession of the land which God had given them. (Read Numbers, chapter 22-25). This is mentioned that the Ammonite king might consider what had happened to Balak when he attempted to wrest the same territory from Israel. Furthermore, if Ammon had any claim on the land they had been very tardy in asserting it. Israel had already possessed the land for three hundred years, and Ammon had not previously laid such a claim.
Clearly Jephthah perceived that the purported claim to the land was only a ploy on the king’s part in an attempt to intimidate Jephthah to cede the land without war. But Jephthah and his people were clear in the matter, and the Ammonites at fault in seeking war against Israel. Jephthah left the outcome in the hands of the divine Judge, with apparent confidence that he would win the victory, (Pro 3:5-6). Of course, the king of Ammon did not hearken to all this.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(12) What hast thou to do with me?Literally, What to me and to thee? (Jos. 22:24; 2Sa. 16:10, &c.). Jephthah speaks in the name of Israel, as an acknowledged prince. His message resembles the preliminary negotiations of the Roman generals when they sent the Fetiales to proclaim the justice of their cause (Liv. i. 24).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
JEPHTHAH’S MESSAGE TO AMMON, Jdg 11:12-28.
12. Sent messengers He would know the ground and reasons on which the Ammonites pretended to wage war with Israel. “This is highly interesting, because it shows that even in that age a cause for war was judged necessary no one being supposed to war without provocation.” Kitto.
Me my land The messengers speak in the name of the nation, as represented by the chosen leader.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon, saying, “What have you to do with me that you are come to me to fight against my land.” ’
Jephthah’s fighting experience was immediately revealed. He knew that nothing was more important than to try to put fear in the hearts of the enemy and to show them that his own army were unafraid. His words were really a challenge. They would also help to delay things until a reply was received, giving him time to organise his forces.
Note the words ‘my land’. He was now its head and its chief and could so speak of it. But we must also remember that he was speaking to the king of Ammon as ‘king’ to king. It emphasised to the king of Ammon to whom the land belonged. He did not expect the king simply to acknowledge his claim and go away. But he knew that the challenge would make him more uncertain.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jephthah’s Message to the Ammonites
v. 12. And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, v. 13. And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan, v. 14. And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon,
v. 15. and said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab nor the land of the children of Ammon;
v. 16. but when Israel came up from Egypt and walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh, v. 17. then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto, v. 18. Then they went along through the wilderness, v. 19. And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place.
v. 20. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel.
v. 21. And the Lord God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them; so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country.
v. 22. And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. v. 23. So now the Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel, v. 24. Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh, thy god, giveth thee to possess? v. 25. And now art thou anything better than Balak, the son of Zipper, king of Moab, v. 26. while Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? Why, therefore, v. 27. Wherefore I, v. 28. Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him;
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Jephthahs diplomatic negotiations with the king of Ammon
Jdg 11:12-28.
12And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children [sons] of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me [What is there between me and thee], that thou art come against [unto] me to fight in my land? 13And the king of the children [sons] of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because5 Israel took away my land, when they [he] came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto [the] Jabbok, and unto [the] Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. 14And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children 15[sons] of Ammon: And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away 16the land of Moab, nor the land of the children [sons] of Ammon: But [For] when Israel [they] came up from Egypt, and [then Israel] walked through the wilderness 17unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; [.] Then [And] Israel6 sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land:7 but the king of Edom would not hearken [hearkened not] thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not consent. And Israel abode in Kadesh. 18Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed8 the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by [on] the east side9 of [to] the land of Moab, and pitched [encamped] on the other [yonder] side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was [is] the border of Moab.10 19And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites,11 the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land12 unto my place. 20But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast [territory]: but Sihon gathered all his people together,13 and [they] pitched [encamped] in Jahaz, and [he] fought against [with] Israel.14 21And the Lord [Jehovah, the] God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them;15 so [and] Israel possessed [took possession of, i. e. conquered] all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. 22And they possessed [conquered] all the coasts [the entire territory] of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto [the] Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto [the] Jordan. 23So now the Lord [Jehovah, the] God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess [dispossess]16 it [i. e. the people Israel]? 24Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever [whatsoever] the Lord [Jehovah] our God shall drive out from 25before us [shall give us to possess], them [that] will we possess. And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab? did he ever strive 26against [litigate with]17 Israel, or did he ever fight against them, [?] While [Since] Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns [daughter-cities], and in Aroer [Aror] and her towns [daughter-cities], and in all the cities that be along by the coasts [banks] of Arnon [there have passed] three hundred years? [;] why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? 27Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the Lord [Jehovah] the Judge be judge this day between 28the children [sons] of Israel and the children [sons] of Ammon. Howbeit, the king of the children [sons] of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg 11:13.Dr. Cassel omits Because. , in this place, may be either the sign of a direct quotation, as which it would be sufficiently indicated by a colon after Jephthah; or a causal conjunction (E. V., De Wette). If the latter, the sentence is elliptical: We have much to do with each other, or, I am come to fight against thee, because, etc.Tr.]
[2 Jdg 11:23., lit. seize him. The construction of with the accusative of the people, says Keil, arises from the fact that in order to seize upon a land, it is necessary first to overpower the people that inhabits it. Both he and Bertheau, however, refer the suffix to the Amorite, and are then obliged to make the Amorite stand for the land of the Amorite.Tr.]
[3 Jdg 11:25., to contend in words, to plead before a judge. Dr. Cassel translates by rechten, to litigate, which must here of course be taken in a derivative sense.Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg 11:12. The peaceable negotiations into which Jephthah, before he proceeds to war, enters with Ammon, demonstrateand the less successful such efforts usually are, the more characteristicallythe truly God-fearing character of the new chieftain. The Ammonites were a strong and valiant people (cf. Numbers 21.; Deu 2:20-21); but it was not on this account that he sought to negotiate with them once more. The Ammonites were descended from Lot, the nephew of Abraham; and Israel, on their journey to Canaan, had not been allowed to assail them (Deu 2:19). Jephthah, before he draws the sword, wishes to free himself from every liability to be truthfully charged with the violation of ancient and sacred prescriptions. He desires to have a clear, divine right to war, in case Ammon will not desist from its hostile purposes. He hopes for victory, not through strength of arms, but through the righteousness of his cause. This he would secure; so that he may leave it to God to decide between the parties.
What is there between me and thee, . A proverbial form of speech, which may serve the most divergent states of mind to express and introduce any effort to repel and ward off. While it might here be rendered, What wilt thou? what have I done to thee? in the mouth of the prophet Elisha, repelling the unholy king (2Ki 3:13), it means, How comest thou to me? I know thee not! and in that of the woman whose sorrow for the loss of her child breaks out afresh when she sees Elijah (1Ki 17:18), Alas, let me alone, stay away! The Gospel translates it by ; in which form it appears in the celebrated passage, Joh 2:4, where Jesus speaks to Mary. But it has there not the harsh sense, What have I to do with thee! (which it has not even here in the message of Jephthah), but only expresses a hurried request for silence, for his hour was not yet come.
Jdg 11:13. Israel took away my land. For a question of right, Ammon, like other robbers and conquerors, was not at all prepared; but since it is put, the hostile king cannot well evade it. Reasons, however, have never been wanting to justify measures of violence. Although unacquainted with the arts of modern state-craft, ancient nations, as well as those of later times, understood how to base the demands of their desires on historical wrongs. Only, such claims, when preferred by nations like the Ammonites, usually did not wear even the appearance of truth. The king of Ammon seeks to excuse his present war against Israel, by asserting that when Israel came up out of Egypt they took from him the territory between Arnon, Jabbok, and Jordan, about coextensive with the inheritance of Reuben and Gad. It was utterly untrue. For when Israel went forth out of Egypt, this territory was in the hands of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon (Numbers 21). This king, it is true, had obtained it by conquest; but not so much from Ammon as from Moab, even though some connection of the Ammonites with the conquered lands is to be inferred from Jos 13:25. Israel itself had fought with neither Moab nor Ammon, taken nothing from them, nor even crossed their borders.
Jephthah does not fail to reduce this false pretense to its nothingness; for it was of the utmost importance in his view to make it manifest that the war, on the side of the Ammonites, was thoroughly unjust. The memoir which he sends to the king of Ammon, is as clear as it is instructive. It shows the existence of a historical consciousness in the Israel of that day, asserting itself as soon as the people became converted to God. For only a believing people is instructed and strengthened by history. Jephthah unfolds a piece of the history of Israel in the desert. It has been asked, in what relation the statements here made stand to those contained in the Pentateuch. The answer is, that the message of Jephthah makes a free use of the statements of the Pentateuch.
Jdg 11:15-28. Thus saith Jephthah. This introduction to Jdg 11:15 already indicates the free combination by Jephthah, of statements derived from the ancient records. That which is of peculiar interest in this document, and strongly evinces its originality, is, that while the turns of the language and the various verbal repetitions (already pointed out in the text) indicate the source whence it was borrowed, its departures from that source evidence the freedom with which the material is used for the end in view. Nothing is said which is not contained in the Pentateuch; only a few facts, of present pertinence, are brought forward and freely emphasized. Bertheau is inaccurate, when he thinks that the statement in Jdg 11:17, concerning Israels sending to Moab to ask for passage through their land and Moabs refusal, is altogether new. For in the first place the perfect equality of Edom and Moab as regards the policy pursued towards them by Moses, is already intimated in Deu 2:9; and in the next place, Jdg 11:29 of the same chapter makes Moses request Sihon to give a passage to Israel through his land, and that he will not do as the sons of Esau and the Moabites did, to wit, deny them. That which connects Jdg 11:29 with Jdg 11:28 (Deuteronomy 2), is not that Esau and Moab had granted what Moses now requests of Sihon, but that they had not allowed his petition, by reason of which he is compelled to demand it of Sihon.18 Here, therefore, it is plainly intimated, that Moab also refused a passage. This fact, Jephthah clothes in his own language, and weaves into his exact narrative with the selfsame design with which Moses alluded to it in the passage already quoted, namely, to prove that Israel was compelled by necessity to take its way through the land of the Amorite. The same tracing of events to their causes, leads Jephthah in Jdg 11:20 to say of Sihon: he trusted not Israel, whereas Num 21:23 merely says: he permitted not. Jephthah seeks to give additional emphasis to the fact, that if Sihon lost his land, the fault lay not with Israel. Sihon could not but see that no other passage remained for Israel; but he refused to credit the peaceable words of Moses. His distrust was his ruin. Further: instead of the expression, until I pass over Jordan, into the land which Jehovah our God giveth us (Deu 2:29), Jephthah writes, let us pass through thy land to my place. At that time, he means to say, the Canaan this side the Jordan was Israels destination; for not till after thatand this is why he changes the phraseologydid God give us Canaan beyond the Jordan also. For the same reason he substitutes Israel for Moses in the expression, And Moses sent messengers (Num 20:14). Over against Ammon, he brings Israel into view as a national personality.
On the basis of this historical review, Jephthah in a few sentences places the unrighteousness of his demands before the king of Ammon. What, therefore, Jehovah our God allowed us to conquerthat thou wilt possess? thou, who hadst no claims to it at any time, since, properly speaking, it was never thine? If any party could maintain a claim, it was Moab; but Balak, the king of Moab, never raised it, nor did he make war on that account. The conquest, by virtue of which Israel held the land, was not the result of wrongful violence, but of a war rashly induced by the enemy himself. God gave the victory and the land. A more solid title than that which secures to Israel the country between the Arnon and the Jabbok, there cannot be. Or has Ammon a better for his own possession? Were they not taken by force of arms from the Zamzummim (Deu 2:21)? or, as Jephthah expresses it, were they not given thee by Chemosh, thy god? He makes use of Ammons own form of thought and expression. Chemosh (the desolater, from = ) is the God of War. As such, he can here represent the god of Ammon, although usually regarded as the Moabitish deity; for it is the martial method in which Ammon obtained his land on which the stress is laid. Chemosh is war personified, hence especially honored by the Moabites, whose Ar Moab, the later Areopolis, is evidently related to the Greek Ares19 (Mars). Hence also the representation of him on extant specimens of ancient Areopolitan coins, where he appears with a sword in his right, and a lance and shield in his left hand, with torches on either side (Eckhel, Doctr. Nummor, iii. 394; Movers, Phnizier, i. 334).
Jephthah is sincere in this reference to the title by which Ammon holds his land. He does not dispute a claim grounded on ancient conquest. For in Deu 2:21, also, it is remarked, from a purely Israelitish point of view, that Jehovah gave the land to the sons of Ammon for a possession. Quite rightly too; inasmuch as Jehovah is the God of all nations. But as Jephthah desires to speak intelligibly and forcibly to Ammon, who does not understand the world-wide government of Jehovah, he connects the same sentiment with the name of Chemosh, to whom Ammon traces back his warlike deeds and claims.20 He thereby points out, in the most striking and conclusive manner, that if Ammon refuses to recognize the rights of Israel to its territory, he at the same time undermines, in principle, his own right to the country he inhabits. Aside from this, 300 years have passed since Israel first dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer, and on the banks of the Arnon. The statement exhibits a fine geographical arrangement: Heshbon, as capital of the ancient kingdom, is put first; then, to the north of it, Aroer (or Aror, probably so called to distinguish it from the southern Aroer) in Gad, over against the capital of Ammon; and finally, in the south, the cities on the Arnon. Possession, so long undisputed, cannot now be called in question. Jephthah concludes, therefore, that on his side no wrong had been committed; but Ammon seeks a quarrelmay God decide between them! But Ammon hearkened nota proof how little the best and most righteous state papers avail, when men are destitute of good intentions. On the other hand, let this exposition of Jephthah be a model for all litigating nations, and teach them not only to claim, but truly to have, right and justice on their side. For God, the judge, is witness and hearer for all.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
[P. H. S.: Jephthah as Diplomatista noble model for modern imitation. His document Isaiah , 1. Straightforward and convincing by its truthfulness; 2. Firm in its maintenance of righteous claims; yet, withal, 3. Winning and conciliating in its tone.The most upright diplomacy may fail to avert war; but it is nevertheless powerful for the right. Israel doubtless fought better, and with higher feelings, when it saw the righteousness of its cause so nobly set forth; while the enemy must have been proportionably depressed by convictions of an opposite character.Jephthahs diplomacy as contrasted with that of the king of Moab. Alas, that representatives of Christian nations should so often imitate the heathen king rather than the Hebrew Judge, and that Christian nations should uphold them in it!
Henry: Jephthah did not delight in war, though a mighty man of valor, but was willing to prevent it by a peaceable accommodation. War should be the last remedy, not to be used till all other methods of ending matters in variance have been tried in vain. This rule should also be observed in going to law. The sword of justice, as the sword of war, must not be appealed to till the contending parties have first endeavored by gentler means to understand one another, and to accommodate matters in variance (1Co 6:1).The same: (on Jdg 11:17-18): Those that conduct themselves inoffensively, may take the comfort of it, and plead it against those that charge them with injustice and wrong. Our righteousness will answer for us in time to come, and will put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.The same: One instance of the honor and respect we owe to God, as our God, is, rightly to possess that which He gives us to possess, receive it from Him, use it for Him, keep it for his sake, and part with it when He calls for it.The same: (on Jdg 11:27-28): War is an appeal to heaven, to God the Judge of all, to whom the issues of it belong. If doubtful rights be disputed, He is thereby requested to determine them; if manifest rights be invaded or denied, He is thereby applied to to vindicate what is just, and punish what is wrong. As the sword of justice was made for lawless and disobedient persons (1Ti 1:9), so was the sword of war for lawless and disobedient princes and nations. In war, therefore, the eye must be ever up to God; and it must always be thought a dangerous thing to desire or expect that God should patronize unrighteousness.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[5][Bp. Hall: Men love to go the nearest way, and often fail. God commonly goes about, and in his own time comes surely home.Tr.]
[6]Jdg 11:17.The words printed in blackfaced type are found in Num 20:21. The first part of Jdg 11:17 is from Num 20:14, except that there Moses takes the place of Israel. On the other hand, the expression, Thus saith thy brother Israel, there used, is here wanting.
[7]Jdg 11:17.Num 20:17; only, let me pass, is there read, let us pass.
[8]Jdg 11:18.Num 21:4 has .
[9]Jdg 11:18.Num 21:11
[10]Jdg 11:18.Num 21:13.
[11]Jdg 11:19.Num 21:21.
[12]Jdg 11:19.Num 21:22 has for .
[13]Jdg 11:20.Num 21:23.
[14]Jdg 11:20.Num 21:23, the words they encamped being substituted for he came.
[15]Jdg 11:21.Num 21:24; Israel smote him.
[16][Jdg 11:23., lit. seize him. The construction of with the accusative of the people, says Keil, arises from the fact that in order to seize upon a land, it is necessary first to overpower the people that inhabits it. Both he and Bertheau, however, refer the suffix to the Amorite, and are then obliged to make the Amorite stand for the land of the Amorite.Tr.]
[17][Jdg 11:25., to contend in words, to plead before a judge. Dr. Cassel translates by rechten, to litigate, which must here of course be taken in a derivative sense.Tr.]
[18][This interpretation of Deu 2:29, which would clear it of all appearance of conflict with Num 20:14-20, is unfortunately not supported by the language of the original. The natural rendering of the text is substantially that of the E. V.: Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and thou shalt give me water for money, that I may drink; only I will pass through on my feet: as did unto me the sons of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar: until I pass over Jordan, into the land which Jehovah our God giveth us. The readers first thought is, that the conduct of Edom and Moab is referred to as a precedent covering both parts of the present request to Sihon: Sell me food and grant me a passageas Edom and Moab did, so do thou. But history relates that Edom denied a passage, and that Israel made a detour around the Edomite territories. May we then regard the precedent as referring only to the matter of supplies? and the clause which recalls it to the memory of Sihon, as occupying a place after that which a logical arrangement of the clauses would assign it? This supposition, by no means unlikely in itself, seems to be favored by the construction of the sentence. It does not, however, relieve the passage of all difficulty. For it still leaves the implication that Edom and Moab sold food and water to Israel, whereas according to Num 20:20 they refused to do that also. Keil therefore argues that this refusal was made when Israel was on the western boundary of Edom, where the character of the mountains made it easy to repulse an army; but that when Israel had reached their eastern boundary, where the mountains sink down into vast elevated plains, and present no difficulty to an invading army, the Edomites took counsel of prudence, and instead of offering hostilities to the Israelites, contented themselves with the profitable sale of what would otherwise have been taken by force. This is at least a plausible explanation, although not founded on historical evidence, unless, what is by no means improbable, Deu 2:2-9 is designed to explain the course of actual events by a statement of divine instructions.Tr.]
[19]Hence, the name Aroer proves also that the worship of the War-god obtained in Ammon as well as in Moab. For a city of that name existed in the territories of each of these nations.
[20][Wordsworth: It does not seem that Jephthah is here using the language of insult to the Ammonites, but is giving them a courteous reply. He appears to recognize Chemosh as a local deity; and he speaks of the Lord as the God of Israel, and as our God; and calls Israel his people. He regards Him [speaks of Him?] as a national deity, but does not claim universal dominion for Him.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
I include the whole of the treaty, which passed between Jephthah, and the leader of the Ammonites, in one point of view, not only for the sake of shortness, but also for the sake of connection. In the perusal of this passage, I would desire the Reader to keep in remembrance the spiritual state of God’s church, while he reads the historical events of God’s people. And in this sense, I would call upon him to look back, and recollect how Moses was commanded to go in unto Pharaoh, and demand the release of God’s people, before that the Lord brought them out. And was not Ammon ‘ s oppression of Israel similar? Was it not the church of Jesus, Satan endeavored to ruin and destroy? Let my people go, that they may serve me, was the demand of God? Was not our nature God’s right by creation, before that Satan ruined that nature by the fall? And if Ammon pleaded long possession of those territories, were not these lands the Lord’s gift to his people before? Reader! If Satan hath had long possession of our poor humbled nature, do not forget you are the Lord’s prior possession, both by creation and by redemption. For Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 11:12 And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?
Ver. 12. And Jephthah sent messengers. ] He would treat before he would fight: not for want of courage, as Philip said of the Athenians, but in obedience to God. Deu 20:10 So the Romans first sent heralds to require right, and proffer peace, before they proclaimed war: Cuncta prius tentanda, saith the poet. a And Omnia prius experiri consilio quam armis sapientem decet, saith the comedian. b It becometh a wise man to prevent blows as much as may be.
To fight in my land.
a Ovid.
b Terent.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a Warning from History
Jdg 11:12-28
Jephthah acted with great prudence. Before rushing into war, he endeavored to argue the matter at issue in peaceful and courteous terms. In answer to the contention that Ammon was only trying to regain its own territories, he insisted that, when Israel came on the scene, they wrested the land, not from Ammon, but from the Amorites. Besides, the occupation of 300 years, which had never before been challenged, surely disproved the claim of the Ammonite king.
When a nation has right and justice on its side and is fighting against aggression, especially when the choice between two ideals is in the scale, there is every reason why it should appeal to the Lord, the Judge, to vindicate its cause. It was a question whether the worship of Jehovah or of Chemosh should dominate the country; on that issue there could be no vacillation nor hesitancy. It is interesting to notice how accurately Jephthah had studied the sacred annals of his people and how reverently he alludes to God. There is more religion in the hearts of men like Jephthah than certain Pharisees and priests give them credit for!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
sent messengers: In this Jephthah acted in accordance with the law of Moses; and hence the justice of his cause would appear more forcibly to the people. Num 20:14, Num 21:21, Deu 2:26, Deu 20:10, Deu 20:11, Pro 25:8, Pro 25:9, Mat 18:15, Mat 18:16
What hast: 2Ki 14:8-12
Reciprocal: Jdg 12:2 – I and my 2Sa 10:1 – king Neh 4:7 – the Ammonites Joe 3:4 – and what
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jephthah then tried to use diplomatic means to avert a war. He sent to the king of the Ammonites and asked why he had come to fight against their land. His answer was that Israel had taken away his land when they came up out of Egypt. Jephthah sent back messengers to remind the king that Israel had come to Kadesh and then asked first the king of Edom and then the king of Moab to let them pass through. They circled the land of both kings and then asked the king of the Amorites if they could pass through his land. He too denied them passage and then brought his army out to war against Israel. He was defeated and Israel took possession of the land which God had given them. Also, Balak the king of Moab had not tried to fight with Israel over the conquered land nor had he laid any claim to it. Israel had occupied the land for 300 years without challenge so there was no force to the king of Ammon’s challenge. Despite the force of Jephthah’s arguments, the king of Ammon would not be swayed from warring against Israel ( Jdg 11:12-28 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Jdg 11:12. Jephthah sent messengers That is, ambassadors, to prevent bloodshed, that so the Israelites might be acquitted before God and men from all the sad consequences of the war; and herein he showed great prudence, and no less piety. What hast thou to do with me, &c. What reasonable cause hast thou for this invasion? To fight in my land He speaks this in the name of all the people.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jdg 11:12-28. Jephthahs Negotiations with the King of Ammon.As generally happens, there was a war of diplomacy before the war of swords. The history of 300 years was reviewed in an attempt to settle a present question of meum and tuum. Jephthah speedily acquainted himself with the rights and wrongs of the case, and would not have it said that he made no effort to settle matters amicably. But he argued in vain. Perhaps he was not sorry when the solemn palaver was over, and the hour come for the stern arbitrament of war. He was essentially a soldier, only incidentally and reluctantly a politician.
Jdg 11:14-28. The point of the long speech of Jephthahs messengers is that the Israelites, in their journey from Egypt, scrupulously respected the neutrality of Ammon. They failed to obtain a transit through either Edom or Moab, and rather than trespass on forbidden ground they compassed both these lands. The only territory which they seized to the east of Jordan was that of Sihon, king of the Amorites. (These facts are stated in Num 20:14-18; Num 21:21-24, only there is no reference to an embassy to Moab.) It will be observed that from Jdg 11:15 onwards there is a flaw in the argument of the messengers, who reason as if they were negotiating with Moab instead of Ammon; and the error becomes most apparent in Jdg 11:24, where they speak of Chemosh thy god. Chemosh was the god of Moab, Milcom of Ammon. The Israelites speak as men who have a national deity, Yahweh, to men who have a national deity, Chemosh. While they devoutly worshipped the one, they did not question the reality of the other. The truth of monotheism had not yet dawned on even the greatest minds in Israel.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Jephthah’s negotiations with the king of Ammon 11:12-28
Jephthah did not rush into battle but wisely tried to settle the Ammonites’ grievance with Israel peacefully. His approach reveals his humility as well as his wisdom. Most men would have wanted to demonstrate their prowess in battle to impress the ones who had expressed confidence in them and to guarantee their future security with a victory. However, Jephthah restrained himself and appealed to the king of Ammon very logically through messengers. He initiated peace talks rather than launching a war.
Jephthah appealed to the king of Ammon with three arguments. His point was that the Ammonites had no right to Israel’s territory east of the Jordan that they were trying to obtain by force. First, he traced the history whereby this territory had come into Israel’s possession, showing that Ammon had no claim on Gilead (Jdg 11:15-22). Israel had not attacked any territory held by Ammon or Moab when God’s people approached the Promised Land in Moses’ day. Israel had taken the land in dispute from the Amorites who had previously wrested it from the Ammonites.
Second, he emphasized the fact that Yahweh had given Israel this land. Thus it would have been wrong theologically to allow the Ammonites to take it from them (Jdg 11:23-25).
"Even the pagans recognized that when victory was given by a deity, the victors had full right to possess that territory." [Note: Davis and Whitcomb, p. 123.]
"Jephthah’s theology contains at least one serious flaw: Chemosh was not the patron deity of the Ammonites but of Moab. The divine patron of Ammon was Milkom." [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 361.]
This mistake could have been inadvertent or intentional and designed to denigrate the Ammonites. [Note: See Lindsey, p. 401, for three other possible interpretations.] King Balak of Moab had never fought with Israel (Numbers 22-24). This powerful king realized that opposing Israel in battle would be futile in view of the power of Israel’s God.
Third, Jephthah appealed logically that Ammon had not tried to take the land she now claimed for 300 years. If she had a legitimate claim on it, she should have tried to secure it long ago (Jdg 11:26).
Jephthah’s reference to 300 years (Jdg 11:26) is an important benchmark in biblical chronology. It had been approximately 300 years since the Israelites had defeated Sihon and captured Heshbon (in 1406 B.C.). Shortly after Jephthah spoke these words he defeated the Ammonites (Jdg 11:33; about 1106 B.C.) and ended the 18-year Ammonite oppression (Jdg 10:8). The Philistine oppression of Israel began at the same time as the Ammonite oppression (Jdg 10:7; in 1124 B.C.). The Philistines harassed Israel for 40 years (Jdg 13:1; ca. 1124-1084 B.C.). The dates of the Philistine oppression are important because they provide a framework for the ministries of Eli and Samuel as well as Samson. This time reference, along with the one in 1Ki 6:1, indicates that the Exodus took place about 1446 B.C. rather than about 1280 B.C. Advocates of the 1280 B.C. date of the Exodus usually take the 300 years as a round number indicating several generations, as they also interpret 1Ki 6:1, or as a total of overlapping periods. [Note: For further discussion of the chronology of Judges, see Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., pp. 146-51.]
Finally, Jephthah called on Yahweh the Judge to judge who had rightful title to the land (Jdg 11:27). The Ammonite king disregarded Jephthah’s message (Jdg 11:28). He obviously believed he could take Gilead in battle.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE TERRIBLE VOW
Jdg 11:12-40
AT every stage of their history the Hebrews were capable of producing men of passionate religiousness. And this appears as a distinction of the group of nations to which they belong. The Arab of the present time has the same quality. He can be excited to a holy war in which thousands perish. With the battle cry of Allah and his Prophet he forgets fear. He presents a different mingling of character from the Saxon, -turbulence and reverence, sometimes apart, then blending magnanimity and a tremendous want of magnanimity; he is fierce and generous, now rising to vivid faith, then breaking into earthly passion. We have seen the type in Deborah. David is the same and Elijah; and Jephthah is the Gileadite, the border Arab. In each of these there is quick leaping at life and beneath hot impulse a strain of brooding thought with moments of intense inward trouble. As we follow the history we must remember the kind of man it presents to us. There is humanity as it is in every race, daring in effort, tender in affection, struggling with ignorance yet thoughtful of God and duty, triumphing here, defeated there. And there is the Syrian with the heat of the sun in his blood and the shadow of Moloch on his heart, a son of the. rude hills and of barbaric times, yet with a dignity, a sense of justice, a keen upward look, the Israelite never lost in the outlaw.
So soon as Jephthah begins to act for his people, marks of a strong character are seen. He is no ordinary leader, not the mere fighter the elders of Gilead may have taken him to be. His first act is to send messengers to the king of Ammon saying, What hast thou to do with me that thou art come to fight against my land? He is a chief who desires to avert bloodshed-a new figure in the history.
Natural in those times was the appeal to arms, so natural, so customary that we must not lightly pass this trait in the character of the Gileadite judge. If we compare his policy with that of Gideon or Barak we see of course that he had different circumstances to deal with. Between Jordan and the Mediterranean the Israelites required the whole of the land in order to establish a free nationality. There was no room for Canaanite or Midianite rule side by side with their own. The dominance of Israel had to be complete and undisturbed. Hence there was no alternative to war when Jabin or Zebah and Zalmunna attacked the tribes. Might had to be invoked on behalf of right. On the other side Jordan the position was different. Away towards the desert behind the mountains of Bashan the Ammonites might find pasture for their flocks, and Moab had its territory on the slopes of the lower Jordan and the Dead Sea. It was not necessary to crush Ammon in order to give Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben space enough and to spare. Yet there was a rare quality of judgment shown by the man who, although called to lead in war, began with negotiation and aimed at a peaceful settlement. No doubt there was danger that the Ammonites might unite with Midian or Moab against Israel. But Jephthah hazards such a coalition. He knows the bitterness kindled by strife. He desires that Ammon, a kindred people, shall be won over to friendliness with Israel, henceforth to be an ally instead of a foe.
Now in one aspect this may appear an error in policy, and the Hebrew chief will seem especially to blame when he makes the admission that the Ammonites hold their land from Chemosh their god. Jephthah has no sense of Israels mission to the world, no wish to convert Ammon to a higher faith, nor does Jehovah appear to him as sole King, sole object of human worship. Yet, on the other hand, if the Hebrews were to fight idolatry everywhere it is plain their swords would never have been sheathed. Phoenicia was close beside; Aram was not far away; northward the Hittites maintained their elaborate ritual. A line had to be drawn somewhere and, on the whole, we cannot but regard Jephthah as an enlightened and humane chief who wished to stir against his people and his God no hostility that could possibly be avoided. Why should not Israel conquer Ammon by justice and magnanimity, by showing the higher principles which the true religion taught? He began at all events by endeavouring to stay the quarrel, and the attempt was wise.
The king of Ammon refused Jephthahs offer to negotiate. He claimed the land bounded by the Arnon, the Jabbok, and Jordan as his own and demanded that it should be peaceably given up to him. In reply Jephthah denied the claim. It was the Amorites, he said, who originally held that part of Syria. Sihon who was defeated in the time of Moses was not an Ammonite king, but chief of the Amorites. Israel had by conquest obtained the district in dispute, and Ammon must give place.
The full account given of these messages sent by Jephthah shows a strong desire on the part of the narrator to vindicate Israel from any charge of unnecessary warfare. And it is very important that this should be understood, for the inspiration of the historian is involved. We know of nations that in sheer lust of conquest have attacked tribes whose land they did not need, and we have read histories in which wars unprovoked and cruel have been glorified. In after times the Hebrew kings brought trouble and disaster on themselves by their ambition. It would have been well if David and Solomon had followed a policy like Jephthahs rather than attempted to rival Assyria and Egypt. We see an error rather than a cause of boasting when David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: strife was thereby provoked which issued in many a sanguinary war. The Hebrews should never have earned the character of an aggressive and ambitious people that required to be kept in check by the kingdoms around. To this nation, a worldly nation on the whole, was committed a spiritual inheritance, a spiritual task. Is it asked why, being worldly, the Hebrews ought to have fulfilled a spiritual calling? The answer is that their best men understood and declared the Divine will, and they should have listened to their best men. Their fatal mistake was, as Christ showed, to deride their prophets, to crush and kill the messengers of God. And many other nations likewise have missed their true vocation, being deluded by dreams of vast empire and earthly glory. To combat idolatry was indeed the business of Israel and especially to drive back the heathenism that would have overwhelmed its faith: and often this had to be done with an earthly sword because liberty no less than faith was at stake. But a policy of aggression was never the duty of this people.
The temperate messages of the Hebrew chief to the king of Ammon proved to be of no avail: war alone was to settle the rival claims. And this once clear Jephthah lost no time in preparing for battle. As one who felt that without God no man can do anything, he sought assurance of divine aid; and we have now to consider the vow which he made, ever interesting on account of the moral problem it involves and the very pathetic circumstances which accompanied its fulfilment.
The terms of the solemn engagement under which Jephthah came were these:-“If Thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, then it shall be that whatsoever” (Septuagint and Vulgate, “whosoever”) “cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon shall be the Lords, and I will offer it (otherwise, him) for a burnt offering.” And here two questions arise; the first, what he could have meant by the promise; the second, whether we can justify him in making it. As to the first, the explicit designation to God of whatever came forth of the doors of his house points unmistakably to a human life as the devoted thing. It would have been idle in an emergency like that in which Jephthah found himself, with a hazardous conflict impending that was to decide the fate of the eastern tribes at least, to anticipate the appearance of an animal, -bullock, goat, or sheep, -and promise that in sacrifice. The form of words used in the vow cannot be held to refer to an animal. The chief is thinking of some one who will express joy at his success and greet him as a victor. In the fulness of his heart he leaps to a wild savage mark of devotion. It is a crisis alike for him and for the people and what can he do to secure the favour and help of Jehovah? Too ready from his acquaintance with heathen sacrifices and ideas to believe that the God of Israel will be pleased with the kind of offerings by which the gods of Sidon and Aram were honoured, feeling himself as the chief of the Hebrews bound to make some great and unusual sacrifice, he does not promise that the captives taken in war shall be devoted to Jehovah, but some one of his own people is to be the victim. The dedication shall be all the more impressive that the life given up is one of which he himself shall feel the loss. A conqueror returning from war would, in ordinary circumstances, have loaded with gifts the first member of his household who came forth to welcome him. Jephthah vows to give that very person to God. The insufficient religious intelligence of the man, whose life had been far removed from elevating influences, this once perceived-and we cannot escape from the facts of the case-the vow is parallel to others of which ancient history tells. Jephthah expects some servant, some favourite slave to be the first. There is a touch of barbaric grandeur and at the same time of Roman sternness in his vow. As a chief he has the lives of all his household entirely at his disposal. To sacrifice one will be hard, for he is a humane man; but he expects that the offering will be all the more acceptable to the Most High. Such are the ideas moral and religious from which his vow springs.
Now we should like to find more knowledge and a higher vision in a leader of Israel. We would fain escape from the conclusion that a Hebrew could be so ignorant of the divine character as Jephthah appears; and moved by such feelings many have taken a very different view of the matter. The Gileadite has, for example, been represented as fully aware of the Mosaic regulations concerning sacrifice and the method for redeeming the life of a firstborn child; that is to say, he is supposed to have made his vow under cover of the Levitical provision by which in case his daughter should first meet him he would escape the necessity of sacrificing her. The rule in question could not, however, be stretched to a case like this. But, supposing it could, is it likely that a man whose whole soul had gone out in a vow of life and death to God would reserve such a door of escape? In that case the story would lose its terror indeed, but also its power: human history would be the poorer by one of the great tragic experiences, wild and supernatural, that show man struggling with thoughts above himself.
What did the Gileadite know? What ought he to have known? We see in his vow a fatalistic strain; he leaves it to chance or fate to determine who shall meet him. There is also an assumption of the right to take into his own lands the disposal of a human life; and this, though most confidently claimed, was entirely a factitious right. It is one which mankind has ceased to allow. Further, the purpose of offering a human being in sacrifice is unspeakably horrible to us. But how differently these things must have appeared in the dim light which alone guided this man of lawless life in his attempt to make sure of God and honour Him! We have but to consider things that are done at the present day in the name of religion, the lifelong “devotion” of young women in a nunnery, for example, and all the ceremonies which accompany that outrage on the divine order to see that centuries of Christianity have not yet put an end to practices which under colour of piety are barbaric and revolting. In the modern case a nun secluded from the world, dead to the world, is considered to be an offering to God. The old conception of sacrifice was that the life must pass out of the world by way of death in order to become Gods. Or again, when the priest describing the devotion of his body says: “The essential, the sacerdotal purpose to which it should be used is to die. Such death must be begun in chastity, continued in mortification, consummated in that actual death which is the priests final oblation, his last sacrifice,” -the same superstition appears in a refined and mystical form.
His vow made, the chief went forth to battle, leaving in his home one child only, a daughter beautiful, high spirited, the joy of her fathers heart. She was a true Hebrew girl and all her thought was that he, her sire, should deliver Israel. For this she longed and prayed. And it was so. The enthusiasm of Jephthahs devotion to God was caught by his troops and bore them on irresistibly. Marching from Mizpah in the land of Bashan they crossed Manasseh, and south from Mizpeh of Gilead, which was not far from the Jabbok, they found the Ammonites encamped. The first battle practically decided the campaign. From Aroer to Minnith, from the Jabbok to the springs of Arnon, the course of flight and bloodshed extended, until the invaders were swept from the territory of the tribes. Then came the triumphant return.
We imagine the chief as he approached his home among the hills of Gilead, his eagerness and exultation mingled with some vague alarm. The vow he has made cannot but weigh upon his mind now that the performance of it comes so near. He has had time to think what it implies. When he uttered the words that involved a life the issue of war appeared doubtful. Perhaps the campaign would be long and indecisive. He might have returned not altogether discredited, yet not triumphant. But he has succeeded beyond his expectation. There can be no doubt that the offering is due to Jehovah. Who then shall appear? The secret of his vow is hid in his own breast. To no man has he revealed his solemn promise; nor has he dared in any way to interfere with the course of events. As he passes up the valley with his attendants there is a stir in his rude castle. The tidings of his coming have preceded him and she, that dear girl who is the very apple of his eye, his daughter, his only child, having, already rehearsed her part, goes forth eagerly to welcome him. She is clad in her gayest dress. Her eyes are bright with the keenest excitement. The timbrel her father once gave her, on which she has often played to delight him, is tuned to a chant of triumph. She dances as she passes from the gate. Her father, her father, chief, and victor!
And he? A sudden horror checks his heart. He stands arrested, cold as stone, with eyes of strange dark trouble fixed upon the gay young figure that welcomes him to home and rest and fame. She flies to his arms, but they do not open to her. She looks at him, for he has never repulsed her-and why now? He puts forth his hands as if to thrust away a dreadful sight, and what does she hear? Amid the sobs of a strong mans agony, “Alas, my daughter, thou hast brought me very low and thou art one of them that trouble me.” To startled ears the truth is slowly told. She is vowed to the Lord in sacrifice. He cannot go back. Jehovah who gave the victory now claims the fulfilment of the oath.
We are dealing with the facts of life. For a time let us put aside the reflections that are so easy to make about rash vows and the iniquity of keeping them. Before this anguish of the loving heart, this awful issue of a sincere but superstitious devotion we stand in reverence. It is one of the supreme hours of humanity. Will the father not seek relief from his obligation? Will the daughter not rebel? Surely a sacrifice so awful will not be completed. Yet we remember Abraham and Isaac journeying together to Moriah, and how with the fathers resignation of his great hope there must have gone the willingness of the son to face death if that last proof of piety and faith is required. We look at the father and daughter of a later date and find the same spirit of submission to what is regarded as the will of God. Is the thing horrible-too horrible to be dwelt upon? Are we inclined to say,
“Heaven heads the count of crimes
With that wild oath? She renders answer high,
Not so; nor once alone, a thousand times
I would be born and die.”
It has been affirmed that “Jephthahs rash act, springing from a culpable ignorance of the character of God, directed by heathen superstition and cruelty poured an ingredient of extreme bitterness into his cup of joy and poisoned his whole life.” Suffering indeed there must have been for both the actors in that pitiful tragedy of devotion and ignorance, who knew not the God to Whom they offered the sacrifice. But it is one of the marks of rude erring man that he does take upon himself such burdens of pain in the service of the invisible Lord. A shallow scepticism entirely misreads the strange dark deeds often done for religion; yet one who has uttered many a foolish thing in the way of “explaining” piety can at last confess that the renouncing mortifying spirit is, with all its errors, one of mans noble and distinguishing qualities. To Jephthah, as to his heroic daughter, religion was another thing than it is to many, just because of their extraordinary renunciation. Very ignorant they were surely, but they were not so ignorant as those who make no great offering to God, who would not resign a single pleasure, nor deprive a son or daughter of a single comfort or delight, for the sake of religion and the higher life. To what purpose is this waste? said the disciples, when the pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, was poured on the head of Jesus and the house was filled with the odour. To many now it seems waste to expend thought, time, or money upon a sacred cause, much more to hazard or to give life itself. We see the evils of enthusiastic self-devotion to the work of God very clearly; its power we do not feel. We are saving life so diligently, many of us, that we may well fear to lose it irremediably. There is no strain and therefore no strength, no joy. A weary pessimism dogs our unfaith.
To Jephthah and his daughter the vow was sacred, irrevocable. The deliverance of Israel by so signal and complete a victory left no alternative. It would have been well if they had known God differently; yet better this darkly impressive issue which went to the making of Hebrew faith and strength than easy unfruitful evasion of duty. We are shocked by the expenditure of fine feeling and heroism in upholding a false idea of God and obligation to Him; but are we outraged and distressed by the constant effort to escape from God which characterises our age? And have we for our own part come yet to the right idea of self and its relations? Our century, beclouded on many points, is nowhere less informed than in matters of self-sacrifice; Christs doctrine is still uncomprehended. Jephthah was wrong, for God did not need to be bribed to support a man who was bent on doing his duty. And many fail now to perceive that personal development and service of God are in the same line. Life is made for generosity, not mortification; for giving in glad ministry, not for giving up in hideous sacrifice. It is to be devoted to God by the free and holy use of body, mind, and soul in the daily tasks which Providence appoints.
The wailing of Jephthahs daughter rings in our ears, bearing with it the anguish of many a soul tormented in the name of that which is most sacred, tormented by mistakes concerning God, the awful theory that He is pleased with human suffering. The relics of that hideous Moloch worship which polluted Jephthahs faith, not even yet purged away by the Spirit of Christ, continue and make religion an anxiety and life a kind of torture. I do not speak of that devotion of thought and time, eloquence and talent to some worthless cause which here and there amazes the student of history and human life, the passionate ardour, for example, with which Flora Macdonald gave herself up to the service of a Stuart. But religion is made to demand sacrifices compared to which the offering of Jephthahs daughter was easy. The imagination of women especially, fired by false representations of the death of Christ in which there was a clear divine assertion of self, while it is made to appear as complete suppression of self, bears many on in a hopeless and essentially immoral endeavour. Has God given us minds, feelings, right ambitions that we may crush them? Does He purify our desires and aspirations by the fire of his own Spirit and still require us to crush them? Are we to find our end in being nothing, absolutely nothing, devoid of will, of purpose, of personality? Is this what Christianity demands? Then our religion is but refined suicide, and the God who desires us to annihilate ourselves is but the Supreme Being of the Buddhists, if those may be said to have a god who regard the suppression of individuality as salvation.
Christ was made a sacrifice for us. Yes: He sacrificed everything except His own eternal life and power; He sacrificed ease and favour and immediate success for the manifestation of God. So He achieved the fulness of personal might and royalty. And every sacrifice His religion calls us to make is designed to secure that enlargement and fulness of spiritual individuality in the exercise of which we shall truly serve God and our fellows. Does God require sacrifice? Yes, unquestionably-the sacrifice which every reasonable being must make in order that the mind, the soul may be strong and free, sacrifice of the lower for the higher, sacrifice of pleasure for truth, of comfort for duty, of the life that is earthly and temporal for the life that is heavenly and eternal. And the distinction of Christianity is that it makes this sacrifice supremely reasonable because it reveals the higher life, the heavenly hope, the eternal rewards for which the sacrifice is to be made; that it enables us in making it to feel ourselves united to Christ in a divine work which is to issue in the redemption of mankind.
There are not a few popularly accepted guides in religion who fatally misconceive the doctrine of sacrifice. They take man-made conditions for Divine opportunities and calls. Their arguments come home not to the selfish and overbearing, but to the unselfish and long-suffering members of society, and too often they are more anxious to praise renunciation-any kind of it, for any purpose, so it involve acute feeling-than to magnify truth and insist on righteousness. It is women chiefly these arguments affect, and the neglect of pure truth and justice with which women are charged is in no small degree the result of false moral and religious teaching. They are told that it is good to renounce and suffer even when at every step advantage is taken of their submission and untruth triumphs over generosity. They are urged to school themselves to humiliation and loss not because God appoints these but because human selfishness imposes them. The one clear and damning objection to the false doctrine of self-suppression is here: it makes sin. Those who yield where they should protest, who submit where they should argue and reprove, make a path for selfishness and injustice and increase evil instead of lessening it. They persuade themselves that they are bearing the cross after Christ; but what in effect are they doing? The missionary amongst ignorant heathen has to bear to the uttermost as Christ bore. But to give so-called Christians a power of oppression and exaction is to turn the principles of religion upside down and hasten the doom of those for whom the sacrifice is made. When we meddle with truth and righteousness even in the name of piety we simply commit sacrilege, we range ourselves with the wrong and unreal; there is no foundation under our faith and no moral result of our endurance and self-denial. We are selling Christ, not following Him.