list of gods. Baals and Ashtoreths (=Astarte) refer to the Canaanite deities, while all the other deities are referred to by nation rather than by name, though it is not necessary to think in terms of national gods with political associations. These were more likely fertility gods and other nature gods. This shows the syncretism within Israel and her continued polytheistic mindset. The polytheism of the ancient world was an open system. It was considered foolish to ignore or neglect any god who could potentially bring either harm or blessing.

Jephthah had been exiled by the Gileadites because he was born of a harlot. When the Gileadites were humiliated by the Ammonites, they asked for Jephthah’s help and vowed to make him their leader (11:1–11).

Jephthah sent a diplomatic delegation to the Ammonites to argue for Israel’s right to their land, but the Ammonites rejected their claims (11:12–28). Then the Spirit of the LORD empowered Jephthah, and he advanced against the Ammonites. To secure the favor of God, he vowed to sacrifice as a burnt offering the first one who came out of his house to greet him upon his return from battle (11:29–31). The LORD gave the victory to Jephthah (11:32–33), but his hasty vow sacrificed his family lineage. His only child, a virgin daughter, was the first to greet him (11:34–40).

10:6–16 This major summary prepares us for the final two major judges. The Ammonites oppress Israel from the east during Jephthah’s days (chapters 11–12) while the Philistines arise from the west during the time of Samson (chapters 13–16). The relationship of Israel with their Lord continues to deteriorate. Limited idolatry that goes unchecked eventually results in pervasive idolatry. Israel no longer serves only the Baals and the Ashtaroth; they have added to their pantheon the gods of surrounding peoples while forsaking their covenant-keeping God (10:6–7).

God is patient and longsuffering (Ex. 34:6–7), and yet his patience has reached its end as he uses godless foreign enemies to oppress his people (Judg. 10:7–8). Oppression, suffering, and difficulty are intended to drive God’s people (then and now) to him. For the first and only time in Judges we have the clear corporate confession: we have sinned (vv. 10, 15). Genuine repentance follows: confession of sin, without condition, to God; the cry for deliverance, without manipulation, from God; and the abandonment of idols that are attempts to live without God (vv. 15–16).

An important feature of Jephthah’s story is Israel’s fickleness toward Jephthah. They turned to him for deliverance after they had earlier disowned him. This parallels how Israel had treated the LORD. A second theme is Jephthah’s hasty judgments.

11:1–28 Jephthah is a complicated judge. His name means “he will open,” which describes a foolish action later clarified (vv. 35–36). His maternal lineage causes him to be rejected by his people (vv. 1–2). As an outcast, he attracts “worthless fellows” (v. 3; cf. 9:4). However, he is also a “mighty warrior” (11:1) with a God-centered understanding of Israel’s history and his role in it (vv. 12–28). Like God himself, Jephthah is rejected by his people who later, when in grave distress, appeal to him only for the benefits he provides (vv. 5–8; cf. 10:11–14). The treatment of God’s chosen deliverer by his people often reflects their treatment of God himself (John 8:18–19; 14:7–11).

The full extent of God’s faithfulness pulses through all phases of redemptive history. Features of Jephthah point ahead to the Savior Jesus, whose lineage made his wisdom and works suspect (Matt. 13:55–58), who was rejected by his people (Isa. 53:3; Acts 4:11), who was thrust outside the camp (Heb. 13:11–13), and yet who was welcomed by those despised by society (Mark 2:15–17). We come to Jesus not only for the benefits he provides; we trust him because he is the King approved and empowered by God (John 6:25–27).

mighty warrior. The text refers to Jephthah as a “mighty warrior” (NIV). The terminology used here is not just military in nature but can refer to a person of repute or one who has standing in the community—a responsible person. In this context, however, it is likely that his reputation is built on his military success. This is the same phrase used to describe Gideon in 6:12.

11:2. illegitimate sons driven from household. It should be noted that it was not any family shame or humiliation that resulted in Jephthah’s being driven out. With the existence of temple prostitutes and polygamy it would be fairly common for children of different mothers to be in the same household. Here the text makes it clear that it was the inheritance that motivated the expulsion. Whether Jephthah, as the firstborn, had rights to a double portion, or whether they were dividing equally (see comment on primogeniture at 9:2), elimination of one party would increase the shares of the others.

Jephthah’s claims. The Israelites had taken the land from the Amorites, not the Ammonites. Though the Ammonites might be able to claim that the Amorites had taken the land from them, Jephthah’s point would be that Yahweh had taken the land away from the Amorites and given it to Israel. Any prior claims the Ammonites may have had were nullified by the amount of time that Israel has been in possession of the land with no claim having been made. For details of the geographical issues presented by Jephthah, see the corresponding comments in Numbers 21.

Chemosh. Chemosh is best known as the national god of the Moabites, and in the ninth-century Moabite stone (Mesha Inscription) he is said to bring victory in battle, as Yahweh is depicted as doing for Israel. The Ammonite national deity is generally Milcom (1 Kings 11:5, 33; NIV, Molech). Although Chemosh was adopted as the national deity of the Moabites, the occurrence of the variant form, Kamish, in a deity list from Ebla, where he had a temple, suggests he was on the register of Semitic gods in third-millennium Syria, long before the Moabites. One Assyrian deity list associates Chemosh (Kammush) with Nergal, the god of the netherworld. There is not yet any firm identification of what natural phenomenon Chemosh was related to, nor is there any uncontested depiction of him on archaeological finds.

Some commentators believe that Jephthah offered her as a human sacrifice. Others believe the sacrifice of Jephthah was her service to the LORD as a perpetual virgin. The text does emphasize her virgin state (11:37, 39). The vow, however, refers to “a burnt offering” (11:31; compare 2 Kgs 3:27). Both Jephthah and his daughter believed that the LORD expected him to keep the vow (11:36). God, however, did not request this “burnt offering.” Indeed, the pagan practice of human sacrifice is contrary to God’s expressed will (Deut 12:31; 18:10).

11:29–40 The intention of Jephthah’s vow (vv. 30–31) is debated. Unquestionably, child sacrifice is among the “abominable practices” of the nations (Deut. 18:9–12) and is abhorrent to God (2 Kings 16:2–3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; Ps. 106:37–39; Jer. 19:5). Despite Jephthah’s claim that he must fulfill the vow to sacrifice his only child (Judg. 11:34–35), impulsive oaths require repentance, not fulfillment (Lev. 5:4–6; cf. Lev. 19:12).

Still, in light of God’s prohibitions against human sacrifice and in light of the daughter’s grieving over her virginity—i.e., a life without children, not the loss of her own life—it is likely that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to the Lord in temple service rather than in blood sacrifice.

Whatever actually occurred, the ironies of the narrative make it clear that Jephthah’s vow was foolish and was not something of which God or Israel approved (Judg. 11:40). In this era, prior to kings and with only sporadic prophets, much foolishness prevailed that is not consistent with the gospel priorities ultimately revealed—and, in fact, the foolishness speaks loudly of the need for gospel clarity and revelation.

Often appropriate sacrifices to request divine aid would be offered prior to battle (see 1 Sam 13:8–12). If there was no possibility or opportunity for this prior to battle, one might envision the type of vow made by Jephthah. An alternative for Jephthah could have been to devote the plunder to the Lord (compare Num 21:2), but perhaps that would be inappropriate for towns outside of Israelite territory.

While it is true that the Israelite house accommodated animals, animals do not go out to meet someone. Dogs were not kept in houses, were not kept as pets and were unsuitable for sacrifice. Furthermore, a simple animal sacrifice would not be suitable for the extent and significance of the victory Jephthah has achieved. It can therefore be concluded that Jephthah is anticipating a human sacrifice (on human sacrifice in the ancient Near East see comments on Gen 22:1–2; Deut 18:10).

In all of the over 250 occurrences of the term used here, it refers to an actual sacrifice literally burnt on an altar. It is never used figuratively or symbolically. For a discussion of the burnt offering see comment on Leviticus 1:3–4. It is the word used in Genesis 22:2 and in 2 Kings 3:27, where human sacrifice is in view.

victory celebration. The practice of maidens going out to greet returning victors with song and dance is attested in the celebration for Saul and David (1 Sam 18:6–7) and partly by Miriam’s song in Exodus 15:20–21. The “tambourine” his daughter played has been identified in archaeological reliefs as the tambour, a small drum (leather stretched over a hoop) that would not have the tinny rattle sound of modern tambourines.

11:34. only child. In the popular religious belief in the ancient Near East the veneration of ancestors by succeeding generations was important to the comfort one would enjoy in the afterlife. Such concepts were sometimes held by Israelites as well, though not endorsed. Within the context of the covenant, the end of a family line meant the forfeiture of the land that had been granted as a share of the covenant. In either worldview, the death of the only child was devastating on the philosophical as well as the personal emotional level.

11:35–36. breaking vows. Since a vow is a religious act, drawing the deity into compact with the worshiper, it may not be broken under penalty of God’s displeasure (see Ex 20:7 and the injunction not to “misuse” God’s name). Though a vow could not be broken, the law allowed for the mitigation of vows, especially those involving persons (see comment on Lev 27:2–8). This loophole was apparently unknown to Jephthah.

11:39. fulfillment of the vow: women serving at tabernacle? It has been suggested by some interpreters that instead of being slaughtered as a sacrifice Jephthah’s daughter was consecrated to serve in the tabernacle in a state of celibacy. There are examples of lifelong dedication to sanctuary service (Samuel in 1 Sam 1:28) and of women serving at the sanctuary (Ex 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22). But there are no examples of women serving the sanctuary in a vow of celibacy or in lifelong consecration. In the ancient Near East as a whole, dedication to the sanctuary generally involved prostitution rather than celibacy (see comment on Deut 23:17–18). This sort of dedication has been viewed as comparable to sacrificing a son. Perhaps most significant is the class of women referred to as naditu in the Old Babylonian period (1800–1600). They were connected with the temple as “bride of the god” and were therefore prohibited from marriage, though they were not necessarily celibate. Hammurabi’s laws mention situations where a man marries a naditu, but in such situations she did not bear children.

None of the territory taken from the Ammonites had been allotted to Ephraim, but their allotted territory was across the Jordan from the Ammonite lands. It should also be remembered that the tribes of Israel were set up as individual entities joined together by their common faith and heritage. The only formal leadership they recognized was the leadership of their national God, Yahweh, and the tribal leadership of elders and clan heads. Jephthah represented a departure from that because he was given a formal position of rule (see comment on 11:8–10). This may have been viewed as a threat to other tribes.

As in the days of Gideon (8:1), the Ephraimites were angry that they did not participate in the battle and receive its spoil. Jephthah did not exhibit the patience of Gideon and fought against them. Ephraim fled back across the Jordan, but Jephthah controlled the fords. His armies identified the Ephraimites by a difference in their pronunciation of the word Sibboleth instead of Shibboleth (Hebrew ear of corn). This intertribal war led to the death of 42,000 Ephraimites (12:1–6). Although the career of Jephthah spanned only six years (12:7), his judgeship epitomized the problems of Israel’s declining leadership.

Three minor judges—Ibzan of Bethlehem (located in

In verse 9 Jephthah negotiates to be in authority also over the elders, a step closer to the idea of kingship (compare how Abimelech was made king in the region of Shechem in chap. 9 and David’s kingship over just Judah in 2 Sam 2:1–4).

11:12–13. negotiating territorial dispute. Basic to the understanding of the negotiation is the recognition that the Ammonites and Jephthah share a concept of divinely granted eminent domain. The gods are the ones who give rights and possession to the land, and appeal is made to the gods to judge the case and, eventually (in war), to defend the territorial distribution. The question of rights to the land did not turn on who was there first, but on the evidence that deity had given the land and on his ability to preserve the possession of the land for his people.