candlesticks in Asia Minor amid which He once walked, is the same sovereign and righteous Dispenser now as of old, and therefore hope must be mixed with trembling. That is a startling word spoken to Simon Magus, "If peradventure God will give thee repentance to life."

DANIEL EDWARD.

THE

ART. V.-Jephthah's Vow.

THE name of Jephthah stands on the roll of the "great ones of the Bible." He is there presented to us as one of those deliverers whom God raised up to "save" His people out of the hand of their oppressors-whom He qualified by His Spirit for the work, and whose achievements render him. an example to all ages of the mighty power of faith.' It may be questioned, however, whether this is the estimation in which he is generally held. In history, literature, and the associations of Christians, one dark passage of his life occupies so prominent a place, as not only to tarnish the brilliancy of his deeds of fame, but entirely to overshadow them. Notwithstanding the commendation of the sacred writers, we believe that his vow, so distinguished for rashness and folly, as commonly understood, and both in the uttering and fulfilment of it betraying such gross ignorance of the law of God, has rendered his name a bye-word rather than a title of honour, and led the world and the Church alike to regard his life as a beacon rather than an example.

From the same cause, we believe that the services which he rendered to his generation have not been fully appreciated. He was God's chosen instrument to guide His people during a great reformation and penitent return to God, as well as to deliver them from the yoke of oppression to which they had been subjected, in consequence of their departure from Him. But the full significance and importance of his work in this respect are often overlooked, and even its nature is misunderstood.

The vow of Jephthah, therefore, both in relation to his

1 See Judg. ii. 16, Heb.; 1 Sam. xii. 11; Heb. xi. 32.

character and the history of which he is the central figure, presents a question of deep interest, and yet one of the most difficult in biblical history. Few, indeed, have read the narrative without being touched with its beauty and pathos; and, perhaps, just as few have read it without a feeling of perplexity. The halo which it seems to throw around a deed, from which nature shrinks, has evoked the taunts of the infidel, and been a stone of stumbling to the pious inquirer. Hence the subject has engaged the attention of the learned for centuries, and, upon the main issue involved, they are yet far from having reached unanimity.

History of the Interpretation.—That Jephthah slew his daughter, and offered her as a burnt-offering, is the opinion of Josephus and of the older Jewish authorities known to us, as Jonathan the paraphrast, and Rashi. In this they were followed by the Fathers of the Christian Church, who, however, were generally not good exegetes, especially of the Old Testament, most of them being but partially acquainted with the Hebrew language or Jewish customs.1 Yet none of these writers extenuate the conduct of Jephthah. Josephus calls it neither conformable to law nor acceptable to God. The Fathers speak in similar terms of disapproval, or, like Ambrose, represent him as acting under a "miserable necessity." In the twelfth century, the celebrated Jewish commentators, Joseph, Moses, and David Kimchi, father and sons, advocated the interpretation, that her father devoted her to the service of God in a life of perpetual virginity. To sustain this view, they proposed to take the Hebrew conjunction, which connects the two clauses of the vow, in a disjunctive sense, to render it "or," instead of "and," thus giving the vow an alternative form. "Whatsoever cometh . . . shall surely be the Lord's, or (if it be suitable) I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." The same view was adopted by other Rabbins, as Levi Ben Gerson, and Bechai, and it has since been prevalent among the Jews. At the time of the Reformation, when a new zeal was awakened in the study of the Scriptures, the subject under

1 See Chrysostom, Hom. ad pop. Antioch. xiv. 3; Augustine, Quæst. de Judic. xlix.; Origen, in Joannem, tom. vi. cap. 36; Theodoret, Quæst. is Jud. xx.; Jerome, Cont. Jovinian, lib. i., Epis. ad Jul. 118; Ambrose, De offic. minist. iii. 12.

Sundry Interpretations Suggested.

711

went more thorough discussion. Opinions were about equally divided between these two interpretations, so that it would be easy to adduce a long list of able and judicious scholars, in that and the following ages, on either side of the question. Most of those who adopted the milder view of the nature of his vow, also adopted the translation of the Kimchis, which is given in the margin of our English Bible. That we may not be interrupted afterward, we may here say all that we intend regarding it. It may be admitted that the Hebrew conjunction vav is sometimes used in a certain disjunctive sense, as in Gen. xxvi. 11; Exod. xii. 5, xxi. 15; 2 Sam. ii. 19; but it may be questioned, whether it ever disjoins so completely as this view of the present passage would require. It has been laid down as a rule that it never disjoins genus and species, which is really the form of Jephthah's vow. In the cases cited, and similar ones, it will be seen that the idea is not the properly disjunctive one which we express in English by the conjunctions," either, or," but what we express by "whether, or," that is, whichever of the two, and has no application to the present case. Besides, this would render the second part of the sentence unnecessary. It would present two alternatives, between which there is no opposition. Moreover, it is contrary to the analogy of other vows. For such reasons, we believe that this translation must be abandoned.

Ludovicus Cappellus propounded a third view in his Diatriba de voto Jephto, viz., that Jephthah devoted his daughter, by the law of the Ban or curse (Heb. cherem), as the Canaanites were devoted to destruction. This interpretation has been adopted by Dathe, and defended in later times. by Hävernick; but it has met with very little acceptance. The following considerations adduced by Hengstenberg shew its untenableness-1. The Ban was only for those who were not only wicked, but sunk in the deepest moral corruption, as the Canaanites; or for those who had incurred the special displeasure of the Most High, as the Amalekites. Jephthah's daughter was a pious young woman. 2. The idea of the Ban is a forced consecration in their destruction of those who refused to dedicate themselves to Him in their lives. Jephthah's daughter surrendered herself a voluntary offering. 3. Things Reprinted in his Nota Critica in Jud. xi., and the Critici Sacri. 2 Einleitung in A. Test. 1, 2.

devoted by the Ban could not be offered in sacrifice (1 Sam. IV. 21). 4. The Ban was a divine prerogative.

Another interpretation of the words was advocated by Dr Randolph in the last century. He proposed to render the words as follows: Whosoever, &c., shall be the Lord's; and I will offer to Him a burnt-offering." This appeared to Bishop Lowth so satisfactory, that he speaks of it "as having cleared up a difficulty which for two thousand years had puzzled all the translators and expositors, and given occasion to dissertations without number, and caused endless disputes among the learned." Notwithstanding the weight to be attached to the authority of Lowth, this interpretation has never met with much acceptance. That our decks may be entirely cleared, we shall dismiss it by saying that, apart from the question of Hebrew usage generally, in all cases where the suffix (hu) is used after verbs expressive of offering or sacrificing, it always expresses the object offered, and never the being to whom the offering is made. We have examples of the same words as here, and in the same construction, but always in this sense (2 Kings iii. 27; 1 Sam. vii. 9).

In modern times, the view that Jephthah literally sacrificed his daughter has been usually held by Roman Catholic writers, who follow the Fathers, and by Rationalists, who are frequently biassed in favour of a view which tends to lower the character of the Old Testament servants of Jehovah. Ewald contemptuously dismisses the opposite opinion as "unworthy of refutation." Many evangelical Protestants, however, agree with them in their conclusion. The poets, too, as Dante, Byron, and Tennyson, have lent the charms of their verse to illustrate the same view. On the other hand, the opposite theory has met with very able defenders. A few of these have adopted the interpretation of the Kimchis; but the majority expound the words of the vow somewhat differently. Retaining the translation of our version, they take the last clause, " I will offer it for a burnt-offering," as explanatory of the first, and understand the words in a metaphorical sense. They thus interpret the whole as meaning that he would devote the object to God in the manner symbolised by the burnt-offering. With some differences as to details, this is the view advocated by Hengstenberg;' by P. Cassel, a conGenuineness of the Pentateuch, ii. 105 (Clark's translation).

Jephthal's Purpose in his Vow.

713

verted Jew and learned Talmudist; by Keil;' by Professor Douglas; and others.

3

Preliminary Inquiry.—The first question to be considered is, What did Jephthah propose to offer when he uttered his Vow? Had he a human being in his view? or did he leave it to be determined by circumstances whether the sacrifice should be a man or an animal? Our translators, by rendering the original phrase by the term "whatsoever," have made the words expressive of either. This is the view given by Josephus and the Targum of Jonathan. But unquestionably the words naturally present the idea of a person, and properly should be translated, "Whosoever cometh," as is done by the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Apart from this, however, the terms of the vow clearly imply that he contemplated a human being as his offering. In the first place, the phrase, "cometh forth of the door of my house," is totally inapplicable to cattle.

Secondly. The expression, "cometh forth. . . to meet," can only fairly be applied to a human being. The words are often understood as if they read, Whatsoever I happen to meet; but instead of this the expression is, "Whosoever cometh forth to meet me." These words do not describe any accidental meeting. They imply coming forth for the purpose of meeting, and thus properly describe the action of an intelligent agent. The allusion plainly is to the custom among the Jews, as well as other nations, of receiving a returning conqueror with triumphant acclamations, and especially of companies of young women going out to welcome him with songs and other expressions of joy. Thus Miriam and all the women of Israel" went out with timbrels and dances" to celebrate the overthrow of the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Exod. xv. 20). In like manner, when David returned from the slaughter of Goliath, it is said "the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul" (1 Sam. xviii. 6). Here the phrase corresponds with the words of Jephthah, and is precisely the same as that in which the coming of his daughter to meet him is afterwards described (ver. 34). "His daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and dances." In making his vow, Jephthah looks forward to the

1 In Herzog's Real Encyclopädie, and Com. on Judges in Lange's Bibel-werk. 2 Com, on Judges. 3 In Fairbairn's Imperial Dictionary.