Jephthah’s Daughter in English Post-Reformation Exegesis

By Henry M. Knapp

[Henry M. Knapp is a pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Beaver, PA, and adjunct faculty at Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge, PA.]

Some contemporary commentators have expressed shock and frustration over various biblical texts that appear to demean or abuse women, texts such as the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter recounted in Judg 11. The apparent lack of biblical condemnation in the Scriptures and the questionable inclusion of Jephthah in the Epistle to the Hebrews’ “Hall of Fame” only exacerbates the problem. Furthermore, it is claimed that biblical interpreters throughout the church age have also ignored the plight of Jephthah’s daughter while exalting him despite the brutality of his action. However, an examination of the biblical commentaries produced in the immediate post-Reformation era in England challenges this generalization. Far from being ignored, the difficulties of this text and Jephthah’s treatment of his daughter factor significantly in most examinations of this passage. Jephthah’s vow and its execution are almost universally condemned, and a vivid concern for the daughter’s sufferings is expressed, not in modern sympathetic terms, but in the struggle to make sense of the text as a whole. English expositors and theologians sought alternative ways to interpret the passage so as to minimize Jephthah’s culpability, as in the minority view that the daughter was dedicated rather than sacrificed. Interpreters explained Jephthah’s inclusion in the book of Hebrews based on his typological function as a judge and savior of his people, not on his morality or treatment of his daughter, many also arguing that the sinfulness of his action did not preclude a salvific faith. Finally, while hardly excusing the treatment of her, the overwhelming perception of Jephthah’s daughter expressed during this period was as an obedient and highly praiseworthy woman in her own right.

----------------

Thirty years ago, Phyllis Trible published a series of lectures on Texts of Terror, scriptural passages which appear to abuse, demean, or debase women.[1] She centered her criticism on four texts: Abraham’s treatment of Hagar; the Levite’s wife in Judg 19; Absalom’s sister, Tamar; and Jephthah’s daughter. In each case, Trible noted the devastating manner in which the women were treated, the despair and destruction to which they were subjected. Echoing other feminist critics,[2] however, Trible’s main accusation was leveled at the biblical narrators themselves; as terrorizing as the experiences were that these women endured, more damning is the apparent lack of rebuke or condemnation recorded in the biblical text. Nowhere in Scripture are these women defended or justified, nowhere are the perpetrators denounced. Consequently, culpability not only falls on the original narrator who ignored the injustice of these abuses, but also on later biblical authors who failed to come to the defense of these victims. Indeed, the author of Hebrews even includes Jephthah, who sacrificed his own daughter, in the “Hall of Fame” of the faithful.

Feminist criticisms of these biblical stories extend beyond the scriptural authors to include much of the history of biblical exegesis throughout the church era. The accusation from such scholars is that the church has been complicit in the conspiracy of silence regarding these texts of terror, failing to address adequately the injustices portrayed there. This indictment claims a general neglect of these passages by biblical interpreters, or worse, a patriarchal reading intended to capitalize on the absence of biblical condemnation as a blanket affirmation of the practices described. The misery and misfortune of many women in the biblical narrative is intensified by the lack of explicit condemnation by both the biblical authors and the commentators who followed.

While sympathetic to the plight of the women described in the text, John L. Thompson notes that little evidence is put forward to support the claim that biblical exegetes have largely neglected these terrible stories. In Writing the Wrongs,[3] Thompson examines the way in which commentators and theologians dealt with these texts in the first fifteen centuries of the church age. Beginning with the patristic writers, through the medieval times, and noting briefly some Reformation exegetes, Thompson looked for evidence that these texts were ignored by traditional interpreters, and if modern feminist concerns really were unexamined by previous generations. His results, while somewhat mixed, clearly challenged Trible’s accusations. While there was some evidence of authors reading these stories with little regard for the women, by and large, he found that commentators through the early centuries of the church were indeed concerned with the morality of the events, expressed compassion toward the female characters, and struggled with questions of justice, faithfulness, and contemporary application. Thompson concludes that, while the feminist critique might be appropriately directed at certain nineteenth- and twentieth-century commentators,[4] their generalizations do not do justice to the sweep of biblical exegesis through history.

However, between Thompson’s research timeframe and the modern era, a significant period of biblical exegesis has not been explored. While some modern scholars dismiss the exegetical work of the seventeenth-century, post-Reformation biblical interpreters made significant contributions to exegetical history, representing the pinnacle of pre-critical exegesis and spanning the transition to critical hermeneutics.[5] Picking up where Thompson left off, this article will examine the interpretations made in England during the seventeenth century of one of the “texts of terror” cited by Trible—the account of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter in Judg 11. The intent is to evaluate the criticism that this text has largely been ignored by biblical expositors, and that due consideration has not been given to the daughter and her sufferings.

I. Jephthah’s Lineage and the Question of Monastic Vows

Commentary and reflection upon Jephthah’s life and deeds were not unknown in the seventeenth century. With the blossoming of exegetical resources and the advancements of humanism, the production of biblical commentaries and annotations flourished.[6] In addition to exegetical works on Judges and Heb 11, various sermons, manuscripts and other materials on Jephthah and his daughter were printed both in England and on the continent. Of course, not all this material directly concerns the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter—the biblical account of Jephthah describes his delivering Israel from Ammonite oppression and his role in the tribal war with Ephraim. Jephthah’s vow and the fulfillment of that vow leading to the sacrifice of his daughter occurs between these two major events in the biblical history of Jephthah’s life.

In almost all English seventeenth-century writings about Jephthah, whether in sermon form or commentary on either Judges or Heb 11, two initial issues are addressed. The first is the question of the salvific impact (or lack thereof) of Jephthah’s bastard lineage. William Gouge, the London preacher and author of one of the most extensive Hebrews commentaries of his time, asserts that Jephthah’s heritage in no way excludes him from the grace of salvation; indeed, Gouge uses this as an opportunity to proclaim the unmerited nature of God’s grace: “By this it appeareth: that no outward condition, be it never so base, is an hindrance to Gods grace.… God hereby sheweth the freeness of his grace, extended to unworthy ones, and the riches of his mercy conferred upon the worst kind of sinners, and the power of his Spirit.”[7] While noting the disgrace and inappropriateness of having children out of wedlock, William Perkins nevertheless argues that “in Iephte wee may see, that howsoever it bee a reproachfull thing, to bee borne of Fornication, yet that doeth not hinder, but the party so borne, may come to true Faith, and so to the savour of God, and to life everlasting.”[8] Similar comments are made by various Puritan authors as well as the Westminster Annotations.[9] The number of commentators and preachers who state this position clearly indicates that it was a contemporary concern for the English church.

The second general issue which arises in conjunction with Jephthah is the nature of his vow—in particular, if and how Jephthah’s vow addresses the contemporary conflict with the Roman church concerning virginal and clerical vows. Prior to fulfilling his vow, the daughter asks Jephthah for time to bewail the fact that she would never marry. Roman interpreters had used this text as an example of the early scriptural practice of monastic and virginal vows. Protestant interpreters, however, universally rejected this interpretation, maintaining that this text did not give biblical warrant for these extra-biblical practices. In a sermon preached on Judg 11:39, John Lightfoot challenges the association of the Roman practice with this text, and indeed rejects the entire notion of a Jewish vow of virginity.

Nunship and Vow of Virginity by the Papists indeed is pretended to be a great piece of devoting and consecrating the party to God. But that it is so, never was, nor ever will be proved, but only pretended, and with a loud noise cried up.… Certainly among the Jewish Nation, they were so far from accounting the Vow of Virginity a piece of Devotion and Religion, that they accounted it a reproach for a woman to be childless; nay a reproach for a woman not to be married.[10]

And,

So that whereas the Papists account vowed Virginity so great a piece of Religion and Devotion, and thereupon their Nuns, and their Priests must not marry, they will hardly find the least warrant for it either in the Old Testament, or the New. It is meerly an invention of their own, as indeed is most of their Religion, and without any warrant or allowance of God.[11]

While echoing this traditional Protestant view of monastic vows,[12] Perkins takes a slightly different tack in his Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience. Perkins allows that virginal vows began to be practiced at this time, but nevertheless rejects that they are lawful:

Indeed the custome of vowing virginitie began in those dayes: but they thought it not a state of perfection but rather an estate of miserie, as may appeare in that he [Jephthah] rent his clothes, when she mette him; and the daughters of Israel went to comfort her, as being now in a wofull and miserable estate.[13]

II. Jephthah in Post-Reformation Typology

The exegetical practice of typology was an important and highly regarded interpretive technique in the post-Reformation era. The English Reformers operated within the general Protestant sola Scriptura principle, and, with the continental brethren, put increasing stress upon the linguistic aspects of a text. The literal sense of a passage was to dominate interpretation, and grammatical tools were indispensable in this pursuit. However, these same exegetes claimed that certain biblical texts demanded a typological reading in order to elucidate their full literal sense: the true, complete meaning of any passage was understood as being rooted, not simply in the grammatical or historical circumstances, but in the fullness of the biblical context itself.[14] Thus, the use of typology as an interpretive tool was a reflection of the seventeenth-century exegete’s commitment to the analogia fidei.

Critics have argued that post-Reformation exegesis was overwhelmed by the widespread and dominant application of typology for dogmatic purposes, thus rendering the entire interpretive output suspect. It is surprising, therefore, to note how infrequently typology is applied to Jephthah by English theologians of the time. The most prominent typologists of this era, Thomas Taylor, Salomon Glassius, and Benjamin Keach, do not reference Jephthah at all in their seminal works,[15] and the vast bulk of Reformed commentators on the book of Judges, and many who address the reference to Jephthah in Heb 11, do not use the type-antitype construction in interpreting the text. Whereas it might be expected for some to look to this technique as a way to minimize and/or alleviate the difficulties presented in the story, it does not appear that many seventeenth-century English interpreters chose this route.

While not nearly as prevalent as one would expect, there were, however, some commentators who understood the story of Jephthah in biblical history from a typological standpoint. William Guild, author of Moses Unveiled, an early and influential collection of biblical types and figures, identifies four specific correlations between Jephthah and Christ: (1) Jephthah’s name means “opening,” and in the same way, Christ is the “opening,” manifestation, and revelation of God for us; (2) like Christ, Jephthah was rejected by his brethren, even though the Lord had appointed him to be their savior and deliverer; (3) the salvation both bring is a salvation from great bondage—Jephthah from Ammonite oppression, Christ from sin and Satan; and (4) as the rebellious Ephraimites were subdued by Jephthah, so at the consummation will Christ fully subdue all his rebellious enemies.[16] In addition to these similarities, Guild draws two specific contrasts: first, that Jephthah “was begotten in sinne and whoredome,” whereas Jesus was begotten “without sinne in Virginitie”; second, Jephthah offered his daughter as an unlawful and unacceptable sacrifice, in contrast with Christ who “offered himselfe as a holy and acceptable sacrifice unto his Father.”[17]

In Guild’s construction, Jephthah functions as a type for Jesus; his interpretation is that the biblical account of Jephthah was to prepare God’s people for the coming of a rejected deliverer-judge, one who would reveal God to his people. In his exposition, no other antitype for Jephthah was considered, nor is the daughter given any typical role. Indeed, the account of Jephthah’s daughter only serves to highlight the inadequacy of the type; Jephthah, while illustrating some characteristics of the coming Messiah, nevertheless did not in all ways foreshadow Christ. Seventeenth-century typologists argued that a type only reveals a portion of the fullness of its antitype, and good typological exegesis was to identify the parallels and the disparities. Jephthah, then, is accorded the highest possible praise—a Christ-figure—whereas the daughter is almost completely ignored, mentioned only to illustrate one of the differences between Jephthah and Jesus. Moral and religious evaluation of the daughter’s sacrifice by her father is reduced to two adjectives, “unlawful” and “unacceptable,” and even these are used only to draw a contrast with Jesus’ sacrifice. Given the nature of Guild’s work, a composite of all the OT figures and types of Christ, a more explicit condemnation of the daughter’s sacrifice is perhaps more than should be expected—this was not, after all, a formal exegetical examination of Judg 11—but Guild’s presentation does little to address the concerns of modern feminist critics like Trible.

What is distinctive about Guild’s interpretation is that the typology he sees is between Jephthah and Christ, while most of the other exegetes who perceive a typical relationship here identify Jephthah’s actions as foreshadowing those of God the Father. This association of God the Father as the antitype of the OT Jephthah is largely in continuity with previous commentators; for instance, the previous generation’s Peter Martyr Vermigli argued,

So also maye it be, that by this acte of Iiphtah be signified, that God so loved mankinde that he would give his onely begotten sonne unto the death for it: for he did not in vaine, and without any cause suffer such a thing to be don by the fathers. Although they grevously sinned, yet God could use their actions to the instruction of his people.… Wherefore God would by this meanes stirre up the sluggish, that they should be enduced by the humayne sacrifice of Iiphtahs daughter to thinke upon Christ.[18]

This typological exegesis, then, sees the biblical account of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter as anticipating the Father’s own willingness to sacrifice his only Son. A century later, John Trapp draws the same parallels in his interpretation of Judg 11:34, “No more had God any son of himself, begotten of his own substance, but only Jesus Christ: whom yet he freely parted with to be offered up as a slain sacrifice for our redemption.”[19] What is implicit in this line of exegesis—a typological role for the daughter—is expressly noted by Matthew Henry. While personally leaning toward a Jephthah-God the Father typology, Henry nevertheless notes that “some learned men” have asserted the daughter-Christ parallel: “Some learned men have made this sacrifice a figure of Christ the great sacrifice: he was of unspotted purity and innocency as she a chaste virgin; he was devoted to death by his Father, and so made a curse, or an anathema for us; he submitted himself, as she did, to his Father’s will: Not as I will, but as thou wilt.”[20]

Again, little explicit relief is found in these comments concerning the immorality of the daughter’s sacrifice—except, perhaps, the honor of foreshadowing and paralleling Christ’s own innocence in death, an “honor” some might well question. However one might lament the experience of the daughter, those exegetes who have linked her with Christ’s own redemptive mission have accorded her a tremendous place in biblical history. On the other hand, these typological interpretations are surprisingly infrequent in post-Reformation English commentaries, and they focus either on Jephthah’s role as Israel’s military leader with no regard to his vow, or, when the vow is addressed, on the innocence of the sacrifice.

III. Sacrifice vs. Dedication

The primary difficulty faced by almost all commentators of this time—which demonstrates the continuity of their exegesis with that of previous centuries

—was the question of whether Jephthah’s daughter was indeed offered as a human sacrifice. It was universally accepted in the seventeenth century that Jephthah’s vow was satisfied, but exegetes strongly differed over if the fulfillment of that vow demanded the daughter’s sacrifice or allowed for her dedication to perpetual virginity.

The exegetical basis for the disagreement was first articulated by Rabbi David Kimchi (1160–1235) who attributed the interpretation to his father.[21] In the wording of Jephthah’s vow, Kimchi reinterpreted the waw in Judg 11:31 making it disjunctive, “or I will sacrifice it,” rather than the conjunctive, “and I will sacrifice it.” In this light, Jephthah vows either to dedicate to the Lord “whatever comes out of the door,” or to sacrifice it. The implication of this either/or construction is that Jephthah recognized in making the vow that what would greet him at the door may not have been worthy of sacrifice—in which case, Jephthah determined to dedicate it to the Lord.

Upon this exegetical basis, various English expositors developed a fuller argument supporting the view that the daughter was dedicated rather than sacrificed. William Gouge’s list of nine reasons well summarizes this argument:[22] (1) A human sacrifice would have been against the light of nature, Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac excepted because he was following divine instruction. William Jones elaborates: “It is not like that a man enlightened with the knowledge of God, and endued with a lively faith should commit so grosse, so unnaturall an act, as nature it selfe abhorreth.”[23] (2) Such a sacrifice is explicitly forbidden in Scripture, which Gouge and many others assume Jephthah would have known. Aware that a vow to sacrifice a human would have been unlawful, he must have meant either a sacrifice or dedication, whichever was appropriate.[24] (3) His inclusion in Heb 11 ranks Jephthah as part of the faithful, and “such an act [the sacrifice of his daughter] is against the evidence of that Faith, which is here hinted of Jephthah.”[25] (4) The priests and the Israelite people would have prevented Jephthah from carrying out his vow if it meant the sacrifice of his daughter. This is particularly definitive given the time lapse between the vow and its fulfillment. (5) The daughter bewails her virginity, not her impending death. (6) The force of the Hebrew indicates that the daughter “knew no man” following the vow’s fulfillment, that is, the daughter laments, not simply on not knowing a man prior to the vow, but also not knowing a man following its execution. (7) The yearly remembrance of this act as recorded in Scripture speaks against the view that she was put to death: “had she been sacrificed, they would rather have buried such an act in perpetual oblivion, than have revived it by an annual memorial.” (8) The community women come, not to lament her death, but to comfort her in the absence of a husband and offspring. (9) Gouge argues that Jephthah’s vow can be understood in no other sense than to include the possibility of a dedication to virginity: “Such a one as Jephthah could not be so far besotted as to vow that any thing, whatsoever it was, that come forth of the doors of his house to meet him, shall be offered up as a burnt-offering. What if one of the Princes had come out? Or another man? What if a Dog, or a Swine, which were unclean, had first come out, would he have offered up any of these?”[26] Gouge’s exposition is by no means a marginal view in the seventeenth century. Numerous highly respected biblical scholars in England and on the continent—William Perkins, John Diodati, Hugo Grotius, and others—handled this passage in parallel ways.[27]

Of course, an equally impressive list of commentators rejected these arguments and defended the traditional view that the daughter was indeed killed as a sacrifice.28 Among the stated objections to the dedicated position: (1) Even if the waw in Judg 11:31 is viewed disjunctively, it does not stand to reason that the first phrase, “will be the Lord’s,” would be understood generally, while the second, “I will sacrifice it,” would be so specific.[29] (2) There is an almost unanimous consent among the ancient church that the daughter was sacrificed. Lightfoot cites many church fathers including Tertullian, Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, and others, as well as various ancient biblical versions.[30] (3) The depth of Jephthah’s lament is difficult to justify unless her pending death was in view. (4) If dedication was intended, why did Jephthah not redeem his daughter as allowed in the Levitical law? (5) There is no scriptural support for the kind of dedication to perpetual virginity which is asserted here. (6) And, finally, perhaps the strongest argument against believing Jephthah dedicated his daughter instead of sacrificing her comes in asking, how might Jephthah have intended the vow? Is it possible that he thought an object suitable for sacrifice, such as a sheep or a bull, could be said to come out of his house and meet him (Judg 11:31)? What if he had been met first by a dog or a swine? If, on the other hand, Jephthah had a human in mind, could he have dedicated his wife? Or a male? After all, the Nazirite vow (the nearest scriptural parallel) is taken by the person himself, not by someone else (Num 6). The only way to understand what Jephthah must have intended is to recognize that his vow entailed a human sacrifice.[31]

It is not necessary for our purposes either to evaluate these arguments or to trace further their development. It is sufficient to note their existence, the degree to which these issues concerned the post-Reformation English exegete, and finally to explore the motive for explaining Jephthah’s vow as fulfilled in the daughter’s dedication instead of her sacrifice. Certainly, one of the reasons for handling the passage in this manner was the desire to be faithful to the biblical text; the commentators who argued for the daughter’s dedication to the Lord undoubtedly did so because they truly understood the passage in that manner—it is unlikely that they were promoting this view disingenuously. However, this particular understanding of Jephthah’s vow and its fulfillment also goes far toward alleviating some of the concerns articulated by Trible and other modern commentators. How could the biblical authors appear to treat the daughter’s murder so callously? Why is Jephthah not condemned, rather than praised as he is in the Epistle to the Hebrews? Matthew Poole admits that those who want to argue for the daughter’s dedication do so to excuse the act, to read the text in such a way as to avoid the daughter’s death at her father’s hand:

The great objection against this opinion [that she was sacrificed] is this, that it seems a most horrid act, directly contrary to the law of nature, and to plain Scripture, thus to sacrifice his own daughter; and that it seems altogether incredible, either that such a man as Jephthah, so eminent for piety, and wisdom, and zeal, and faith, should either make so barbarous a vow, or pursue it for above two months space; and that none of the priests of that time should inform him of the unlawfulness of executing so wicked a vow.[32]

Far from ignoring the plight of Jephthah’s daughter, Puritan commentators vigorously pursued a line of exegetical inquiry which sought to minimize the effects of Jephthah’s vow on his daughter. It has already been noted that this interpretation appeared to give credence to Roman views on clerical vows—something that most Protestant theologians rejected—yet many commentators pursued it, in part out of concern about the daughter’s predicament.[33] Thompson’s similar assessment of the earlier exegetical tradition that, “if what he risked in his hasty vow was never his daughter’s life but only her marriageability and his own lineage, he is more to be pitied than vilified,”[34] may be overly sympathetic to Jephthah and too dismissive of the consequences of enforced virginity on the daughter; nonetheless it does appear to capture the desire of many English interpreters. While by no means answering every criticism regarding the exegetical history of Judg 11, the intensity with which seventeenth-century scholars explored the “dedication option” demonstrates a real, vibrant concern for the morality of this text and the injustice perpetrated upon the daughter.

IV. Jephthah’s Inclusion in the Epistle to the Hebrews

Regardless of how Jephthah’s vow is construed or was executed, the overwhelming assessment of post-Reformation commentators in England was that the oath was poorly taken. Commentators were divided, however, over the appropriateness of Jephthah taking any kind of a vow when he did. Most agreed that the taking of an oath in general is acceptable when doing exceptional things for God, as long as one is not attempting to procure divine favor.[35] Gouge argues that in this instance Jephthah’s desire to make a vow to God is praiseworthy: “Though he failed in the manner, by reason of his rash vow, yet his course was commendable. It becomes Gods people to begin all their weighty affairs with God.”[36] But others, predating Trible’s own assessment, believe that the vow itself is a demonstration of Jephthah’s unbelief and spiritual weakness. Henry writes,

Jephthah’s vow is dark, and much in the clouds.… There may be remainders of distrust and doubting even in the hearts of true and great believers. Jephthah had reason enough to be confident of success, especially when he found the Spirit of the Lord come upon him, and yet, now that it comes to the settling, he seems to hesitate.… Perhaps the snare into which his vow brought him was designed to correct the weakness of his faith, and a fond conceit he had that he could not promise himself a victory unless he proffered something considerable to be given to God in lieu of it.[37]

Richard Rogers believed that Jephthah sinned greatly in making the vow, and John Trapp wrote that Jephthah’s vow was “perplexed and confused, yea rash and inconsiderate (to say no worse of it), out of a preposterous zeal.”[38]

If the vow itself was generally viewed as rash and foolhardy, its execution was understood to be so even more—“he was a fool for vowing and yet a worse fool for so performing.”[39] In their discussions on oaths Ames, Perkins, Leigh, and many others emphasize that Scripture forbids fulfilling a vow if that vow itself is unlawful. Henry notes that Jephthah “could not be bound by his vow to that which God had forbidden by the letter of the sixth commandment.”[40] From William Gouge: “Jephthah’s vow, take it in the best sense that you can, was exceeding rash, and no good pattern.… Failing in the matter of a vow, the performing of it proved a double iniquity: one in making it, another in performing it.”[41] Rogers offers minor dissent, asserting that Jephthah was commendable for following his conscience even if it was gravely misplaced. “His care was great in keeping a good conscience: a good conscience I say, according to the knowledge he had.… It appears Iphtah fought to keepe a good conscience, in asmuch as he spareth not his onely child, to the end that hee might please God, as he thought, by performing his vow.”[42]

In contrast with this majority opinion, Matthew Henry does say that there are some authors (unnamed by Henry) who believed that the daughter’s sacrifice showed Jephthah to have “preferred the honour of God before that which was dearest to him in this world,” and thus to “justify him in it, and think he did well.” These unidentified sources based their thought on the exact criteria which is the basis of the critique by Trible—that Jephthah is listed by the author of Hebrews as “among the eminent believers who by faith did great things … and this was one of the great things he did,” and that “he is never blamed for it by any inspired writer.”[43] However, these are extreme and minority views, cited anonymously by Henry, and ultimately dismissed by him. Overwhelmingly, condemnation of Jephthah for fulfilling such a vow is the dominant opinion of seventeen-century expositors and theologians.

Given this fairly uniform condemnation of Jephthah’s vow and/or its execution, how do these commentators explain Jephthah’s inclusion as one of the faithful heroes listed in Heb 11? This question coincides with one of the more penetrating concerns expressed by modern feminist critics. In the biblical account in Judges, there is not even a hint of condemnation or censure given to Jephthah following his treatment of his daughter, and, again without qualification, Jephthah is listed by the author of Hebrews as one of the faithful saints from ancient times. Did the biblical authors ignore Jephthah’s gross moral failure, or worse, is there an implied approval of his actions toward his daughter? Again, the consensus of English biblical scholars in the seventeenth century was to denounce Jephthah’s action. But, unlike modern critics, the post-Reformation interpreters did not turn and lay blame at the feet of the biblical authors.

For many, Jephthah’s presence in the book of Hebrews—his identification as an exemplary role model and the approval implied—is the crowning evidence against believing Jephthah’s vow led to his daughter’s sacrifice. “What such a man [as listed in Heb 11] as Jephtha murther his own Daughter, and offer her in sacrifice? Would the Apostle ever have reckoned him among the noble army of Faithful ones, had he done such a thing as this?”[44] Perkins’ answer is clearly in the negative:

Whereas Iephta is here commended for his Faith wee may probably gather, that their opinion is not tru, who hold that Iephte sacrificed and killed his owne Daughter. For, being commended here for his Faith, certaine it is, hee had knowledge in Gods Will and Word; and therefore, wee must not thinke, but that hee knew, God would never accept of such a Vow; but the performance whereof he should commit wilfull and most unnaturall Murder.[45]

He further asserts that “the commendation of his faith, and the unnaturall murder of his daughter cannot stand together.”[46] This is also the reason stated in the Westminster Annotations for rejecting the sacrifice interpretation: “Neither can we probably think, that Jephthah commended for his faith, Heb 11.32, should offer his daughter for a burnt-offering, seeing it is odious to God and forbidden as abominable.”[47] While not commenting directly on Jephthah, Francis Turretin argues that Samson’s suicide was not self-murder or sin, since he is included here by the author of Hebrews, “which surely he [the apostle] would have not done if in this act he had sinned and violated the law.”[48] The same logic applies in Jephthah’s case as well: A man identified in the Scripture as an honored saint would not sacrifice his own daughter; Jephthah is so identified in Heb 11; therefore, Jephthah must not have sacrificed his daughter.

Other commentators explicitly rejected this syllogism. Trapp cites the option that Jephthah might have been acting on God’s direct orders: “No man ever durst determine whether Jephthah did well or ill herein, because it is uncertain whether he did by the motion of Gods Spirit, or of his own mind, seeing this is not revealed”—a possibility which is generally rejected by most post-Reformation thinkers.[49] Lightfoot proposes another possibility: like Solomon, Gideon, Manasseh, and others, Jephthah “had repentance proportionable to his miscarriage,” and “such repentance of Jephta, I doubt not but the Apostle had an eye to, when he reckons him among the faithful, and those that died in the Faith.”[50]

Most exegetes, however, embraced both the wretchedness of Jephthah’s actions and the understanding that one may nevertheless be a man of faith—simul iustus et peccator. These thinkers clearly follow the trajectory of Protestant interpretation of the previous generations. For instance, of those listed in Heb 11 John Calvin notes that

there was not one of them whose faith did not halt.… Jephthah, hasty in making a foolish vow, and too obstinate in performing it, marred the finest victory by the cruel death of his own daughter. Thus in all the saints, something reprehensible is ever to be found; yet faith, though halting and imperfect, is still approved by God. There is, therefore, no reason why the faults we labour under should break us down, or dishearten us, provided we by faith go on in the race of our calling.[51]

Vermigli similarly: “But those holy men which are reckoned unto the Hebrews, did they never sinne? Undoubtedly their sinnes also are set forth in the holy Scriptures.… Wherefore wee will graunte that Iiphtah was numbered amonge the Sayntes, and yet he mighte sinne, and althoughe he synned, he obteyned the victorye.”[52] The annotations in the Geneva Bible at Judg 11 embrace both his faithful leadership of the Israelites and his moral failings: “by his rash vow and wicked performance of the same, his victory was defaced: and heere we see that the sinnes of the godly doe not utterly extinguish their faith.”[53] In the post-Reformation era, the English theologian and Puritan John Owen well summarized this argument:

Most of the persons mentioned did themselves fall into such sins and miscarriages, as to manifest that they stood in need of pardoning grace and mercy as well as we; and that therefore our faith may be effectual, on the account thereof, as well as theirs.… Jephthah’s rash vow, and, as is supposed, more rash accomplishment of it enrolls him among sinners, chap. xi.[54]

In light of this understanding, Owen makes the following observations, highlighting the sovereignty of God’s gift of grace: (1) “That it is not the dignity of the person that gives efficacy unto faith, but it is faith that makes the person accepted.” (2) “That neither the guilt of sin nor the sense of it should hinder us from acting faith on God in Christ, when we are called thereunto.” And, (3) “that true faith will save great sinners.”[55]

By understanding Jephthah’s inclusion in the Hebrews list in this manner, these theologians were consciously rejecting the idea that any man who could sin so greatly by sacrificing his daughter was inherently unworthy to be included in the list of the faithful. Instead, they asserted that it is possible for a person to have both great faith and great sin. Jephthah’s presence in Hebrews does not speak for or against his handling of his vow; all it does is identify him as a great OT saint, which by no means excludes the possibility that he was also a great OT sinner.

The overriding reason given for the presence of Jephthah in the Hebrews list, however, is based, not on his morality, but on his position as a judge for Israel. Judges “were extraordinary men in their time, raised up by God, for the speciall good of his Church, and the Commonwealth of the Jewes, that they might helpe and defend them in distresse.”[56] Jephthah had an “especial call from God” which was “the deliverance of the church from trouble and oppression.”[57] It is not because, nor in spite of, Jephthah’s treatment of his daughter that he is listed in the NT—it is purely because Jephthah functioned as a leader of God’s people. This does not excuse his vow or his action toward his daughter; it simply explains the honor accorded him in the NT as resting, not with his actions, but with his position and role in redemptive history.

V. The Daughter

Post-Reformation commentators in England specifically addressed various concerns regarding the daughter. As noted above, there was almost universal denunciation of Jephthah’s including her in any kind of vow, and blanket condemnation when that vow was understood to involve her sacrifice. Another concern is the apparent shift of blame from Jephthah to his daughter. Trible writes that “blame overwhelms the victim. At the moment of recognition and disclosure, Jephthah thinks of himself and indicts his daughter for the predicament.”[58] But far from drawing out a new insight, this same criticism of Jephthah was brought forward by earlier commentators, for instance, by Lightfoot:

Do you not think, that Jephtha would have born witness to this [that his vow lacked care, prudence, and piety], when he found himself caught in the trap of his vow and his daughter fallen into it…? When he rends his garment upon his daughters meeting him, and cries out that she was one that troubled him; it might have been answered him, as Elias did Ahab, No, I am not he that troubled Israel, but thou and thy fathers house. No, Jephtha, it is not thy daughter that troubles thee, but it is thy Vow that troubles thee, that was made with no more consideration. If more care, prudence, and piety had been there, thy present grief and perplexity had not been here.[59]

The self-centeredness of Jephthah’s lament, which evokes such frustration from Trible—“Jephthah mourns for himself, not for his daughter”[60]—was also recognized and denounced by earlier interpreters. Many Puritan commentators pointed out that Jephthah was distressed because of the loss of further offspring, not because of the harm about to fall on his daughter.[61] From the continent, Giovanni Diodati tried to lessen the impact of this selfishness by imagining the daughter sharing in it—she equally laments the loss of his future descendants, not necessarily the loss of her own. She asks her father to “defer the execution of thy vow, giving me this small respite, to prepare my self thereunto … to satisfy my naturall grief, for seeing thy posterity fail in me.”[62]

The overwhelming perception of Jephthah’s daughter in English exegesis during this time, however, is as an obedient and highly praiseworthy woman. Most drew attention to the daughter’s submission to her father’s will (even though it was horribly misguided) and especially to her willingness to alleviate Jephthah’s self-stricken conscience. Trapp refers to her as a wonderful woman and most noble, and Henry acclaims her as a model child, obeying her father, “who for the satisfying of her father’s conscience, and for the honour of God and her country, yielded herself as one devoted.”[63] Rogers writes, “But she to please God, as shee supposed, and that her father might not offend him neither, by breaking his vow, did submit her selfe, and makes no exclamination at the heare-say of it.”[64] Rogers goes on to accord her the highest praise: “Where grace is, there nature and sexe is not to bee respected: that which the Author to the Hebrewes saith, that by faith many waxed strong, is truly verified in this worthy damsell, among the rest.”[65]

Matthew Poole goes beyond applauding her obedience and self-sacrificial attitude, and accords great honor and praise to the daughter as a willing martyr for her faith and people. It was not her death which was to be lamented, but the manner in which she died.[66] Henry also holds her up as a joyous martyr: “She thinks it an honour to die, not as a sacrifice of atonement for the people’s sins (that honour was reserved for Christ only), but as a sacrifice of acknowledgement for the people’s mercies.”[67] While it is true that not every commentator elaborates with such high praise upon the daughter’s role in the drama, most make at least a passing reference to her purity, innocence, godliness, and/or exemplary behavior. Once again, it might be questioned whether these praises offset the real plight and terror faced by the daughter, but in any case, the sufferings of the daughter certainly have not gone unrecognized.

VI. Conclusion

In a sweeping indictment against biblical commentators throughout the church age, Phyllis Trible claimed that “throughout centuries patriarchal hermeneutics has forgotten the daughter of Jephthah but remembered her father, indeed exalted him.”[68] But, far from being ignored, the plight of Jephthah’s daughter factored significantly into most English post-Reformation era examinations of these passages. The difficulty of this text was widely recognized: “If any passage ever puzzled both Jewish and Christian interpreters, ancient and modern, as well as all your disputants upon and patchers up of common-place difficulties, this one has.”[69] There was a profound interest in grappling with the story of Jephthah and his daughter; it was not neglected or avoided by biblical commentators. No matter the literary genre or the depth of the examination, nearly every author who dealt with either Judges or Heb 11 made pertinent comments.[70]

Many of the same concerns expressed by Trible and other feminist interpreters were picked up and addressed by these earlier authors—John Thompson demonstrated this for pre-Reformation and Reformation era exegetes, and it is also apparent in the writings of post-Reformation biblical scholars. That is not to say that modern feminist critics would be satisfied with the interpretations expressed by these premodern thinkers; they reflected a different worldview and priorities. In their time, referencing the daughter as the model of obedience, exhibiting the qualities of a godly and faithful child, was perhaps the highest praise they could have offered on behalf of Jephthah’s daughter.[71] These authors also approached the questions surrounding Jephthah’s actions and their impact on the daughter with the premodern presumption in favor of the biblical revelation and its authors, rather than the hermeneutic of suspicion employed by Trible and her contemporaries.[72] When considering Jephthah’s daughter, the Puritan Hugh Broughton writes, “Let the text be rightly examined, and the truth will be manifest.… We may not wrest it into the worst sense, but consider wel what fair interpretation the words will beare.”[73]

The accusation of a consistent androcentric interpretation, one that excuses or even praises Jephthah to the detriment or neglect of the daughter and her situation, is simply not borne out by English post-Reformation writings. It is true that interpreters tried to explain how Jephthah was included in the Hebrews list of the faithful, but with very few exceptions, they never excused his treatment of the daughter. The overwhelming reasons given for his inclusion are that his evident sinfulness did not preclude an honorable faith and that his place was a reflection of his divine appointment as judge and savior of his people, not of his morality. When the issue of Jephthah’s vow and its execution upon his daughter is addressed, the father is almost universally condemned—for the foolishness of making the vow in the first place, and more so for fulfilling it. These interpreters defend the daughter against the blame Jephthah places upon her and criticize the selfishness of his mourning. Post-Reformation awareness and sensitivity to the daughter and the confused morality of this text are most evident in the exegetical arguments which sought to minimize the damage to the daughter by suggesting she was dedicated to perpetual virginity rather than offered as a human sacrifice.

Rather than finding little sympathy for Jephthah’s daughter in premodern exegetical history, an examination of the material demonstrates a vivid concern for her sufferings, doubts surrounding the morality of the entire episode, and questions regarding the manner in which the contemporary church should respond to this aspect of biblical revelation. Instead of a foil, Trible and similar authors would find much commonality with premodern interpreters even granting their differing presumptions regarding their approach to the text of Scripture.

Notes

1. Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
2. Athalya Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Judges (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Mieke Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Esther Fuchs, “Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing: The Story of Jephthah’s Daughter,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (1989): 35–45.
3. John L. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs: Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). See also John L. Thompson, “Preaching Texts of Terror in the Book of Judges: How Does the History of Interpretation Help?,” CTJ 37 (2002): 49–61.
4. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs, 6.
5. See Richard A. Muller, Holy Scripture, vol. 2 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), and the citations contained therein. Jens Zimmermann, Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), traces the shift from pre-critical to critical to postmodern hermeneutical strategies.
6. See the summary of the work in Donald McKim, ed., Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998).
7. William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (London, 1655), 179–80.
8. William Perkins, A Cloud of Faithfull Witnesses, Leading to the Heavenly Canaan (London, 1622), 465.
9. Samuel Bird, The Lectures of Samuel Bird of Ipswidge on the 11 Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes (Cambridge, 1598), 104–5; William Jones, A Commentary upon the Epistles of Saint Paul to Philemon, and to the Hebrewes (London, 1635), 525; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6 vols. (1706–1710; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 2:148; 6:766; Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament … By the joynt-Labour of certain Learned Divines, ed. Thomas Gataker et al. (London, 1645), on Heb 11:32 (hereafter cited as Westminster Annotations).
10. John Lightfoot, The Works of the Reverend and Learned John Lightfoot, 2 vols. (London, 1684), 2:1216.
11. Ibid., 2:1217.
12. For example, Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 181; Arthur Jackson, Annotations Upon the Remaining Historicall Part of the Old Testament (Cambridge, 1646), 157; Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 3 vols. (1685; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1962), 1:485; John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon the Five Books of Moses, Together with the following Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth (London, 1662), 78. See also, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Most Fruitfull Learned Comentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil (London, 1564), 191r.
13. William Perkins, The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience (London, 1655), 240.
14. See, e.g., Samuel Mather, The Figures or Types of the Old Testament, by which Christ and the Heavenly Things of the Gospel were Preached and Shadowed to the People of God of Old (Dublin, 1683; repr., New York: Johnson Reprint, 1969), 52.
15. Thomas Taylor, Christ Revealed: or The Old Testament Explained (London, 1635; repr., Delmar: Scholars’ Facsimilies & Reprints, 1979); Salomon Glass, Philologia Sacra, qua totius sacrosanctae Veteris et Novi Testamenti scripturae (Jena, 1623); Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (1682; repr., London: William Hill Collingridge, 1856).
16. William Guild, Moses Unveiled (London, 1620), 154–55.
17. Ibid., 155.
18. Vermigli, Most Fruitfull Learned Comentaries, 195v.
19. Trapp, Commentary or Exposition, 79. See also, Henry, Commentary, 2:154–55; John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice, in The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1991), 10:536.
20. Henry, Commentary, 2:154. One might also note here the “headstone illustrations” in Trible’s work; that of Jephthah’s daughter is inscribed, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken her?” (Trible, Texts of Terror, 92), though Trible does not appear to imply any typological significance to the parallel.
21. See, Thompson, Writing the Wrongs, 150–51, for the early history of this interpretation.
22. Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 180–81.
23. Jones, Commentary upon Hebrewes, 524.
24. See also, Hugh Broughton, The General View of the Holy Scriptures (London, 1640), 213.
25. Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 181.
26. Ibid., 180–81.
27. Perkins, Cloud of Faithfull Witnesses; John Diodati, Pious and Learned Annotations upon the Holy Bible Plainly Expounding the Most Difficult Places Thereof (London, 1648); Hugo Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, 7 vols. (Groningen: Zuidema, 1641; repr., 1829); Francis Roberts, Clavis Bibliorum: The Key of the Bible, Unlocking the Richest Treasury of the Holy Scriptures (London, 1675); John Richardson, Choice observations and explanations upon the Old Testament containing in them many remarkable matters (London, 1655); Robert Hill, The Contents of Scripture containing the Sum of Every Book and Chapter of the Old and New Testament (London, 1596), 93; Sir Thomas Brown, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, ed. Robin Robbins (1646; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981); Westminster Annotations. For a modern defense of this position, see David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Lubbock: Texas Tech Press, 1986).
28. Jackson, Annotations; Lightfoot, Works, 2:1215–22; Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible; Samuel Clark, The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament and the New: With Annotations and Parallel Scriptures (London, 1690); Henry, Commentary; The Geneva Bible: The Annotated New Testament 1602 Edition, ed. Gerald T. Sheppard, Pilgrim Classic Commentaries 1 (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989); Richard Rogers, A Commentary Upon the Whole Booke of Judges (London, 1615); Owen, Dissertation on Divine Justice.
29. Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1:485, who describes this as according to the “laws of good interpretation.”
30. Lightfoot, Works, 2:1217.
31. The best summaries of these arguments by English authors are articulated by Jackson, Annotations; Rogers, Commentary, 570; and Lightfoot, Works, 2:1215–22. For continuity with the previous exegetical tradition, see Vermigli, Most Fruitfull Learned Comentaries, 196r.
32. Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1:485.
33. For example, Trapp, Commentary or Exposition, 78; and Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 181, who deal directly with the concern that this interpretation may be used by “the Papists” to justify their clerical vows.
34. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs, 158.
35. See Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity (London, 1662); 1011–13; Rogers, Commentary, 569; William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (London, 1643), 48; Perkins, Whole Treatise, 234–37.
36. Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 182. See also Bird, Lectures of Samuel Bird, 104.
37. Henry, Commentary, 2:153. Cf. Trible, Texts of Terror, 97.
38. Rogers, Commentary, 570; Trapp, Commentary or Exposition, 78.
39. Trapp, Commentary or Exposition, 78.
40. Henry, Commentary, 2:154. See also Ames, Conscience, 55; Perkins, Whole Treatise, 238; Leigh, Body of Divinity, 1013; Lightfoot, Works, 2:1219.
41. Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 181.
42. Rogers, Commentary, 580.
43. Henry, Commentary, 2:154.
44. Lightfoot, Works, 2:1217.
45. Perkins, Cloud of Faithfull Witnesses, 465.
46. Perkins, Whole Treatise, 240.
47. Westminster Annotations, on Judg 11:36. See also Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 181.
48. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992), 2:14.
49. Trapp, Commentary or Exposition, 78; Vermigli, Most Fruitfull Learned Comentaries, 195v.
50. Lightfoot, Works, 2:1218.
51. Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 22:303.
52. Vermigli, Most Fruitfull Learned Comentaries, 195r.
53. Geneva Bible, comments on Judg 11.
54. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in Works, 23:186.
55. Ibid., 23:187. See also, Jones, Commentary upon Hebrewes, 524; Perkins, Cloud of Faithfull Witnesses, 465; Lightfoot, Works, 2:1218.
56. Perkins, Cloud of Faithfull Witnesses, 461.
57. Owen, Exposition of Hebrews, in Works, 23:185. See also Richard Baxter, A Paraphrase on the New Testament with Notes, Doctrinal and Practical (London, 1685), on Heb 11:32–33; David Dickson, A Short Explanation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrewes (Cambridge, 1649), 207; Geneva Bible, comments on Heb 11:32; Henry Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament (London, 1681), 756.
58. Trible, Texts of Terror, 102. Cf. Jackson, Annotations, 156–57, who expounds here in ways which appear to justify Jephthah and blame the daughter.
59. Lightfoot, Works, 2:1218.
60. Trible, Texts of Terror, 101.
61. Perkins, Whole Treatise; Westminster Annotations; Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, 181; Clark, Holy Bible, who identifies Jephthah’s mourning with his loss of the daughter.
62. Diodati, Pious and Learned Annotations, 152–53. See also Vermigli, Most Fruitfull Learned Comentaries, 191v–192r.
63. Trapp, Commentary or Exposition, 79; Henry, Commentary, 2:153.
64. Rogers, Commentary, 581.
65. Ibid., 584. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs, 171, notes that for Rogers, “she too is a hero of faith.”
66. Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1:484.
67. Henry, Commentary, 2:154.
68. Trible, Texts of Terror, 107. See also Bal, Death and Dissymmetry, 7; Fuchs, “Marginalization, Ambiguity, Silencing,” 40.
69. Owen, Dissertation on Divine Justice, in Works, 10:533.
70. It was quite surprising to find anyone who did not at least tangentially mention the relevant issues, as a few obscure authors did not, e.g., George Lawson, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrewes wherein the Text is Cleared, Theopolitica Improved, the Socinian Comment Examined (London, 1662); Obadiah Walker, A Paraphrase and Annotations upon the Epistles of St. Paul Written to the Romans, Corinthians, and Hebrews (Oxford, 1675); and Johann Crell, The Expiation of a Sinner in a Commentary Upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes (London, 1646), though, as one of the foremost Socinian exegetes, Crell cannot be considered obscure.
71. Of course, this praise of obedience itself may be denounced as simply buttressing the androcentric nature of the text, holding up the daughter as a paradigm of submission to abusive men; see Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative, 66–69.
72. See Thompson, Writing the Wrongs, 5–6, 101–6.
73. Broughton, General View, 213.