Some passages of the Bible are especially difficult. For some passages, it is difficult to accept what they demand. For some, it is difficult to believe what they claim. For some, it is difficult to obey what they command. For others, it is difficult to understand what they say. Judges 11:29–40, the account of Jephthah’s vow and its consequences for his daughter, is a difficult passage. What makes this passage so difficult? First, there is the tension of Jephthah’s character. On the one hand, he is a faithful agent of God’s deliverance. On the other hand, he appears to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering. How can the spirit of the LORD come upon him one moment (v. 29), and then the next moment he is offering up his daughter (v. 39)? How can Hebrews 11:32 list him among the heroes of faith when it looks like Jephthah sacrificed his own daughter, a practice that is clearly condemned in the Bible (e.g., Lev. 20:2–5; Deut. 12:29–31). The tension between Jephthah’s positive portrayal and the shadow of child sacrifice makes this passage difficult because the reader does not know whether Jephthah is a hero or a villain.
Second, the language of the passage contains several ambiguities. These ambiguities add up, such that the text does not present a clear, obvious reading of what is taking place. For instance, the language of the vow Jephthah makes is ambiguous. An “offering” can refer to killing something or dedicating it to service. What Jephthah does is also ambiguous because the text only states that he fulfilled the vow he made. The daughter’s fate is ambiguous because the text only highlights that she was a virgin but no mention of death. These are only a few of the ambiguities to consider. The ambiguities of the text have led to two ways of understanding what happens to Jephthah’s daughter: 1) Jephthah sacrificed her by killing her as an offering to the Lord or 2) Jephthah dedicated her to live the rest of her life in sanctuary service whereby she would not be allowed to marry. Interpreters of the story are split on which interpretation is more likely. Furthermore, at least at first glance, the difference between the two is significant. Either Jephthah commits an abominable act by sacrificing his child or sends his daughter away for sanctuary service. How we evaluate Jephthah’s character varies greatly depending upon which view we take of the vow.
It is hard to imagine preaching a passage with clarity and conviction when one is not even sure what is happening in the story. So, how do we navigate this passage? What can we do to alleviate some of the difficulties? Let me start with an observation regarding the challenges of this passage: we are not sure what happened. In other words, the significant ambiguities of the story focus on what took place. If we shift our focus from what took place to the message that the text intends to convey, the task of preaching becomes a bit simpler. The meaning of the text is not found in the events the text describes but in the textual depiction. As a result, the focus of our inquiry should be on the textual features and how these features fit into the surrounding context.
Before thinking about this specific passage, it is helpful to think about the book of Judges in general. The question to ask is how this passage fits into the overall story of Judges. To answer the question, I will offer the following observations. First, the beginning of the book (Judges 2:11–22) depicts the time of the judges as a downward spiral in which several events recur, but each iteration becomes worse. The pattern follows these steps: Israel fails to obey the LORD; he punishes them through a foreign oppressor; they cry out to him; he sends a deliverer to defeat their oppressors; finally, he grants them peace which lasts until the people disobey again, even more egregiously (2:19), when the pattern repeats. The downward spiral moves toward Israel’s moral nadir, illustrated in the last five chapters of the book (Judges 17–21). The arrangement of Judges points to an important element regarding the message of Judges: Israel is spiraling in moral decline.
Second, the book characterizes this period of the judges as a time when everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25). In other words, it was a time of moral confusion and social chaos. The confusion and chaos not only characterize the nation, but it also characterizes the judges themselves. Gideon is a cowardly follower of the Lord who eventually delivers the people from their oppressors, but then he leads all Israel in creating an ephod that becomes a source of spiritual infidelity (Judges 6:11–8:27). Gideon is an ambiguous character. Samson delivers the people from the Philistines as the spirit rushes upon him, but he cares nothing for the Nazirite vow placed on him from birth. Samson is an ambiguous character. Even the structure of the narratives indicates this sense of confusion and chaos. The first judge, Othniel, follows the pattern set forth in the introduction perfectly. However, by the time you reach Samson the pattern is less clear. Importantly, Samson’s account does not end with a period of peace as other judges’ do. The gradual breakdown in the literary pattern reflects the gradual breakdown in Israel’s social and moral order even though God uses these judges to deliver his people from their oppressors and establish peace for a time.
Third, the downward spiral is associated with Israel’s being like the nations around them. The introduction to the book (Judges 1:1–2:5) points in this direction as the LORD allows the nations to remain as a snare because Israel has not obeyed him. Furthermore, the narrative preceding Jephthah’s account recounts how the LORD becomes sick of Israel’s worship of other gods: the gods of Aram, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and the Philistines. Israel looks like the other nations because they worshipped like the other nations by worshipping the gods of the other nations. Worshipping as these other nations do is a sign of moral decline and chaos.
These three observations help us to think about the literary structure of the book and the way that the Jephthah narrative fits into that structure. One would expect that the account of Jephthah somehow illustrates the same themes as the rest of the book. Admittedly, at times biblical narrative sets up expectations only to invert them, but there is no evidence of such inversion in this passage. Instead, three features point to Jephthah fulfilling the expectations. First, using the language of offering a burnt offering draws Jephthah’s story in line with another passage: 2 Kings 3:26–27. This text recounts how King Mesha of Moab “secured” the protection of his city by offering his firstborn son as a burnt offering. This language, along with the shared context of battle, draws the two accounts together, casting a long shadow on this narrative. Second, the text refers to Jephthah’s daughter as his “only child,” the same language used to describe Isaac in Genesis 22, the account of Isaac’s binding. Third, Jephthah’s account follows the same pattern as Gideon’s: victory over his enemies becomes the occasion for sin (Judges 8:1–27). Fourth, the passage following this one recounts inter-tribal strife and destruction, resulting in 42,000 Ephraimites slain (Judges 12:6). These textual features point to a negative portrayal of Jephthah’s actions. Jephthah is not a lonely light in the Israel’s dark decline but another illustration of Israel’s moral confusion and chaos during this period.
Even with the clarity that the larger context brings, the passage is still ambiguous, especially regarding the daughter’s fate. This ambiguity is likely an intended feature to shift the ethical focus of the narrative from what she experiences to the source of the trouble: Jephthah’s vow. The narrative points to Jephthah’s rash vow as foolish, another theme encountered in Judges (e.g., 17:2; 21:8) and elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 31:32; 1 Samuel 14:24). In this way, the narrative serves as a warning against making such rash vows.
Another effect of the narrative’s ambiguity is that it reinforces a point made clearly at the end of Judges: without a king everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Even evaluating Jephthah’s moral character is difficult because of the ambiguity regarding his actions. This ambiguity illustrates the unsettledness, the confusion and chaos, of the period because one cannot determine with certainty whether to condemn him or praise him. At the same time, Judges suggests a solution to the moral chaos: a king. However, Judges does not suggest that just any king will improve the situation. Abimelech became king (9:6), but the text presents his rule as a disaster. What is needed is the right kind of king. The books of Samuel pick up on this theme to show that David is the right kind of king, but even he fails, bringing chaos to his family and the nation. As a result, there is an expectation that in order for justice and righteousness to permeate the land, the right king must come along. Numerous Old Testament passages from Genesis to Malachi confirm this expectation of a coming king who will establish justice and righteousness, bringing light to darkness and order to chaos. The Jephthah narrative presents a counterexample to such a king and reinforces the need for one.
Judges 11:29–40 is a difficult passage filled with ambiguity; however, even with all the text’s ambiguity, two significant points emerge from the text: one practical and one theological. The practical point is to be slow to speak, avoiding rash words or rash vows. The theological point is that God was bringing a king to show the way of righteousness and establish it among his people. The New Testament affirms unambiguously that Jesus is that king. To follow his way is to live by justice and righteousness.
It is not the task of the preacher to answer every question or resolve every ambiguity of a text. It is also not the task of the preacher to reconstruct what happened in the past. It is the task of the preacher to discern the message of the Scriptures and proclaim it. I have tried to show how one can approach this narrative with confidence regarding at least the central aspects of its message. It is a difficult task but one that brings practical and theological rewards.
