In the previous article in this series we considered the content of Jephthah’s vow. In this article, we will consider the character of that vow. Was it an expression of faith or of unbelief, an admirable example of piety, or a cynical attempt to force God’s hand? It is, as we have seen, typical of Judges that the narrator provides no commentary to answer these questions for us. Rather, the text forces us to look for clues to the answer: once again we see evidence that the narrator wants us to read the text with our moral senses fully alert and engaged. The textual clues within the book of Judges have primacy in guiding our conclusions but, before considering them, it is timely to remind ourselves of the references to Jephthah outside of the book of Judges. These are glancing but positive. Both 1 Samuel 12:11 (“the LORD sent Jerubbaal, and Bedan, and Jephthah, and Samuel”)1 and Hebrews 11:32 associate Jephthah with distinguished figures from the history of the nation, even if his juxtaposition with Samson in Hebrews 11 reminds us that even heroes of faith are men who fail. While these references are not sufficient to determine our evaluation of Jephthah’s character or his vow, they are relevant and suggest that we ought, at least, to give him the benefit of the doubt in coming to that evaluation. Our task is to decide just how much doubt there is.
The immediate context of Jephthah’s vow tends to confirm this positive picture: “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed … over unto the children of Ammon … And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD” (Jdg 11:29-30). The expression “the Spirit of the Lord came upon” is a characteristic one in Judges: it is used of Othniel (3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29) and Samson (14:6,19; 15:14). It is also used in relation to Saul (1Sa 10:6), David (1Sa 16:13), Jahaziel (2Ch 20:14), Zechariah (2Ch 24:20) and Ezekiel (Ezk 11:5). Such an infusion of divine power in the immediate context of Jephthah’s vow might seem to invite the conclusion that the vow, as much as the military movement, was made in response to the impulse of the Spirit of the Lord. If that is the case, all discussion of textual clues and moral ambiguity is moot. However, a closer examination of the way in which the expression is used in Judges suggests that this conclusion is not justified. With the exception of Judges 13:25, on every other occasion the Spirit of the Lord enables a specific act, military in the case of the earlier Judges and rather more assorted in the case of Samson. Judges 13:25, which says of Samson that “the Spirit of the LORD began to move him at times in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol,” tends to confirm the idea that the Spirit empowered one with discrete acts of supernatural courage or strength. This is further confirmed in the case of Gideon, for it is just after the Spirit comes upon him that he begins to doubt God’s promise and asks, “If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said” (6:36). In addition, Samson’s life provides fairly clear evidence that even decisions or attitudes that are directly juxtaposed with the coming upon of the Spirit of the Lord are not necessarily praiseworthy. His failure to tell his parents about his encounter with the lion is, at best, morally neutral (14:6), and his anger at the solving of his riddle, while understandable, hardly seems spiritual. All this being so, one cannot assume that the vow of 11:30 is a consequence of, or is sanctified by, the arrival of the Spirit of the LORD in 11:29, and Gideon’s example is a reminder (useful for us all) that moments of spiritual strength can be followed closely by moments of spiritual weakness.
As with Gideon, Jephthah’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the Spirit of the LORD coming upon him seem to belie an earlier confidence in God. Jephthah’s speech to the king of Ammon contained a trenchant articulation of Israel’s right to the land and a declaration of confidence in God’s power: “Whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess” (11:24). Jephthah’s peroration brought his speech to an end with a ringing declaration of faith in God (and considerable rhetorical polish): “The LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon” (v27). If Jephthah had really believed his own rhetoric, had really been confident that the Lord would be judge, and would, by His power, defend his people’s possession of the land, a vow would have been unnecessary. That Jephthah feels the need to make the vow suggests that he was far less confident than his words suggest. Few, if any, of us are much different to him. We all know what it is for our faith to falter when push comes to shove, but the point remains: it is difficult to see Jephthah’s vow as an expression of confidence in God.
The character of Jephthah’s vow is further called into question when it is compared with the four other vows that occur in Old Testament narrative. In each of the other vows recorded, there is a close relationship between what is requested and what is promised. Jacob must be preserved if he is to serve God (Gen 28:20-22). It is only if God delivers the Canaanites into the hand of Israel that they can be utterly destroyed (Num 21:1-2). Hannah can only give her son to God if He first gives a son to her (1Sa 1:11). And, whatever the sincerity of Absalom’s claim, he could only serve the Lord in Hebron if God brought him safely back from Geshur (2Sa 15:8). In each instance, the vower asked for something from God that could be used to express greater devotion to God. Jephthah’s vow is different. He is proposing a commercial transaction, a quid pro quo. This is emphasised when we compare his vow to that of the Israelites in Numbers 21, its closest analogue. The text emphasises its similarity, for “the protases [if-clause] are practically identical.”2 The similarity of context, structure and language means that we are led to expect a similar promise. But rather than promising to destroy the enemy utterly, or even to devote part of the spoil to God, Jephthah makes a completely unrelated and ambiguous promise. It may be that the former brigand chief found the lure of the spoil too difficult to resist. It may be that he thought he could buy divine help more cheaply. In any case, it is difficult to conclude that we are expected to admire or to emulate Jephthah’s vow.
Jephthah’s vow is often described as “rash,” and his story is read as a warning against the perils of unpremeditated speech. Those perils are real enough, but Jephthah is not the man to warn us of them. His problem was not that his words showed too little consideration but that they betray too much calculation. Jephthah’s great mistake was that he thought that God was “altogether such a one as [himself]” (Psa 50:21). If, rather than straining our wits to exonerate Jephthah, we learn from his story the folly of bargaining with God, we will, I think, have more closely approached its main and most important point.
1 Bible quotations in this article are from the KJV.
2 David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press,1986), 19.
