Judges 11

Judges 11:24

Augustine of Hippo: Among other things that Jephthah sends to the king of the children of Ammon by the messengers, is this also: You will not inherit everything that your God Kamós inherited for you, and we will not inherit everything that has been inherited from you our Lord God? Some Latin translators have thought that it should be translated like this: Will you not possess everything that your god Kamós has given you as an inheritance? It can be seen here that Jephthah confirmed that this god, named Kamós, had been able to give something to his worshipers as an inheritance. But some translators say: You will not possess what your God Kamós possessed? And this sounds like that god may have possessed something. Does it perhaps mean that the nations are under the protection of the angels, according to the song of Moses, a servant of God? (Cf Deuteronomy 32,8) Was Kamos perhaps called that angel under whose protection the children of Ammon were? Who would dare to affirm it, when it could be understood that this was said according to the opinion of the former, because he believed that his god possessed this or that he had given it to him in possession? In the Greek text this sense appears clearer: Will not you inherit everything that your god Kamós has inherited for you? That is to say, that in the expression for you (tibi) it is understood how if it had been said: as it seems to you. For you, then, that you think this, the god Kamós inherited, not because he could inherit something. Finally, in the following words: And everything that the Lord our God inherited does not say: he inherited for us. As if he wanted to say: as it seems to us, but he really inherited from you, because he took it from them to give it to them. We will inherit this, he ends up saying. — QUESTIONS ON JUDGES, Q. 48 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Judges 11:29

Augustine of Hippo: About the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah, offered by his father in holocaust to God, usually presents a great problem, very difficult to solve. Jephthah had made a vow in the war, saying that if he won, he would offer a burnt offering to anyone who came to him from his home (Cf Jc 11,30.31). After the vote was made, he won, and, when his daughter presented himself, he fulfilled what he had promised. For some, the problem is that they want to know what this fact means and piously seek a solution. For others, who oppose with absurd impiety these holy Scriptures, the problem is that they claim as the main accusation against them the fact that the God of the law and the prophets has been pleased even in human sacrifices. To the calumnies of these we respond, first of all, by saying that to the God of the law and the prophets, and, to put it more expressly, to the God of Abraham and to the God of Isaac and to the God of Jacob (Cf Exodus 3,16) he did not even like those sacrifices. in which holocausts of animals were offered. But since they had a meaning and were like shadows of future things, God wanted to recommend the things themselves meant by these sacrifices. And this was also a convenient reason for those sacrifices to be changed and not imposed now, even more, forbidden to offer them, so that we would not think that God really delighted in such sacrifices with a carnal affection. But we rightly wondered whether it was also convenient to indicate future things with human sacrifices, not so that with them we should be horrified and fear in this case the deaths of men, who anyway have to die anyway, if the that they would welcome with them that they would be put in the hands of God for an eternal reward. If this were true, this kind of sacrifice would not displease God. But the Scripture itself testifies with sufficient clarity that these sacrifices displease God. Because if, on the one hand, God wanted and commanded that all the firstborn sons be consecrated to him and that they be his; on the other hand, the firstborn of men were rescued (Cf Exodus 13, 2.12.13), so that the people would not believe that they had to sacrifice their children born in the first place to God. In addition, this is even more clearly demonstrated by the fact that God reproves human sacrifices in such a way that he forbids these same sacrifices by detesting them in other nations and ordering his people not to imitate them. For the text says: But when the Lord your God has exterminated from your presence the nations in whose territory you are going to enter to occupy it before you and have inherited them and lived in your territory, be careful not to try to follow them, after have been exterminated from your presence; Do not look for their gods, saying, “As these nations do with their gods, so will I do.” You shall not do so with the Lord your God, for they have done with their gods the abominations that the Lord hates, because they even burn their sons and daughters for their gods. What can be demonstrated with more evidence by these testimonies of Sacred Scripture and by others that we omit that God, who has given the human race this Scripture, not only does not love, but hates such sacrifices in which men sacrifice themselves? He certainly loves those sacrifices and gives them a reward, when a righteous man, who suffers iniquity, fights to the death for the truth or is killed by the enemies whom he offends for defending justice, giving them back property for evil, that is, love for hate. The Lord calls this the righteous blood, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah (Cf Matthew 23,35). And above all, because he shed his blood for us and offered himself as a sacrifice to God. He certainly offered himself so that his enemies would kill him for defending justice. Thousands of martyrs, imitating Christ, fought to the death for the truth, and were immolated by bitter enemies. Of these the Scripture says: As gold in the crucible he tasted them and as a burnt offering, as a host received them; That’s why the Apostle says: Well, I’m already being immolated (2Tm 4,6). But Jephthah did not make his daughter a holocaust, like these, to the Lord, but he did it as he had commanded that animal sacrifices be made and forbidden that men be slain. More similar to this one seems to be what Abraham did, a sacrifice that the Lord commanded in a singular way that was offered to him, (Cf Genesis 22,2-13) but without ordering with some general law that such sacrifices were sometimes made to him, on the contrary, totally forbidding him to be do. There is, then, a difference between what Jephthah did and what Abraham did, because Abraham offered his son by virtue of a mandate, while Jephthah did what the law prohibited and was not imposed by any special mandate. Furthermore, not only later in his law, but also then, God manifested in Abraham’s own son that he did not delight in such sacrifices, since he forbade the father, whose faith he had tried with the command, to kill his son and put at his disposal a ram to make the sacrifice lawfully, according to the custom of the ancients, suitable at that time. But if this raises to some the problem of knowing how Abraham could well believe that God delighted in such sacrifices, if these things are offered to God unlawfully, and for that reason he thinks that Jephthah could also well believe that such sacrifice pleased God, consider First, it is one thing to make a vow voluntarily, and another thing to obey a mandate. Because if something is sent to a servant out of the usual in the house, established by the master, and he does it with obedience worthy of praise, he does not have to be punished if he pretends to do it spontaneously. On the other hand, Abraham had reason to believe that he should not forgive his son’s life because God had commanded him, not believing that God took pleasure in such victims, but had sent him that precisely to resurrect a sacrificed person and for half of it prove something like God wise. Because even in the epistle called to the Hebrews this is read about him and his faith is praised for having believed that God could raise his son (Cf Hb 11,17-19). Jephthah, on the other hand, without God sending him or asking him, and against a legitimate mandate from him, spontaneously made the vow to offer a human sacrifice. For the text says thus: And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said: “If you deliver me with certainty to the children of Ammon in my power, whoever goes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it will be for the Lord, and I will offer it as a burnt offering” (Jc 11,30-31). With these words he made no vow to offer an animal that could be sacrificed as a holocaust according to the law. Because it is not usual, nor was it, that the leaders who returned victorious from the war were presented with victories along the way. But, as far as mute animals are concerned, dogs usually go out to meet their masters, playing with soft servitude. But Jephthah would not think of the dogs when he took his vow, so as not to give the impression that he had promised something injurious to God, but even contemptible and unclean, according to the law. For he did not say, whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, I will offer it as a burnt offering, but said: Whoever comes out, I will offer it. Undoubtedly, with these words, he thought of nothing more than a human being. However, maybe he did not think about his only daughter. Now, at such a glorious time for his father, who could go to meet him before his daughter but perhaps his wife? In relation to the fact that I did not say whoever (in feminine), but whoever (in masculine) comes out of the doors of my house, it is necessary to say that the Scripture usually puts the masculine by both genders; as, for example, referring to Abraham, the Scripture says: rising from beside the dead, (Genesis 23,3) when the dead woman was his. Well, it seems that the Scripture has not issued any judgment on this vow and on this fact, as it very clearly stated when Abraham offered his son by God’s command, but only left it written for the readers to judge. Something similar happened with what Judah, son of Jacob, did when he unknowingly slept with his daughter-in-law; but as soon as he depended on it, he fornicated with her, believing that she was a prostitute, (Cf Genesis 38,15) and that the Scripture neither approved nor reproved him, but left him to be esteemed and valued in light of the justice and law of God. Well, as about the act of Jephthah the Scripture of God has not issued a ruling either for or against, so that our reason is exercised in the trial, we could say since that vote displeased God and led him to take revenge of that act, allowing the father to be presented to him just his only daughter - because if the father had expected this and wanted it, upon seeing it, he would not have immediately broken his clothes or said: Woe is me, my daughter, you are an impediment to me; you have become a stumbling block before my eyes (Jc 11,35). Furthermore, despite the 60-day period given to the daughter, the Lord did not prevent her, as she prevented Abraham, from sacrificing her only daughter, allowing Jephthah to carry out what he had promised and thus punish him. itself with a very serious loss (Cf Jc 11,36-39), and, on the other hand, it would not placate God in any way with the immolation of a human person. And therefore, it must be said that this father was given the punishment so that the example of such a vote would not go unpunished, and men would think or offer something great to God when they offered him human victims, and what is even more horrible, they offered to their own children, or that these vows were not true, but rather simulated, as if, following the example of Abraham, those who had made the vow expected that God would prevent the fulfillment of similar vows. I would affirm that we could say these things if they did not force us to abandon this sentence, especially two testimonies of the divine Scriptures. And so, as far as God allows, I will investigate not only with more diligence this matter, remembered in the book of so much authority, but I will do it with more caution, so as not to make a reckless judgment in any case. One of the testimonies is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, where Jephthah is mentioned among characters of such a nature that I would fear to blame him for something. The text goes like this: And what else could I add? Well, I do not have time to talk about Gideon, Baraq, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who by faith overcame kingdoms by acting in justice, got the promises (Hb 11,32.33). The second testimony is found in the passage where these things are related to the vow he made and its fulfillment. Well, before this fact, the Scripture says: And the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went through Gilead and Manasseh and passed through the watchtower of Gilead, and from the watchtower of Gilead he passed over to the sons of Ammon. And Jephta made a vow to God (Jc 11,29.30). And then come the other things related to the vote. Well, everything that happens next, seems to be interpreted as actions of the spirit of the Lord, which had come on Jephthah. These testimonies prompt us to look for the reason why what happened, rather than to easily fail what happened. In the first place, the text that I mentioned of the epistle to the Hebrews, not only puts among those men worthy of praise that are mentioned there, to Jephthah, but also to Gideon, of whom the Scripture also says: And the spirit of the Lord comforted to Gideon (Jc 6,34). And yet the action of making an ephod with the gold of booty and fornicating all Israel behind it, and becoming a scandal to the house of Gideon, (Cf Jc 8,27) not only can we not praise it, but we do not even doubt the most the minimum is to condemn it, since the Scripture clearly issues a judgment against it there. But this does not cause any offense to the spirit of the Lord, who comforted him to overcome so easily the enemies of his people. Why, then, is it mentioned among them those who by faith overcame kingdoms, working justice, if it is not because the Sacred Scripture, whose faith and justice praises truth, is not for this reason prevented from also revealing truth? his sins, if he knows any and he judges that it is convenient to betray him? Because even in the very thing that Gideon himself tried with the fleece, asking for a sign (Cf Jc 6,39), as he himself says, I do not know if he would not have transgressed the precept that says: Do not tempt the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 6,16). But the Scripture, even with its temptation to the Lord, reveals what it wanted to predict, namely, that in the drenched fleece and in the dry era all around it was prefigured, first, to the people of Israel, where the saints were with heavenly grace, which was like spiritual rain. And then, in the era drenched with the dry fleece, the Church was foreshadowed throughout the world, which has, not in the fleece, as in a veil, but in the open, the celestial grace, being that people first as alienated and dry from the dew of one’s own grace. But Gideon rightly deserved in the Epistle to the Hebrews such a testimony among faithful men and that they do justice for his honest and faithful life, in which we can believe that he died. I would not dare to say that after those words of Scripture: The spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, (Jc 11,29) everything that comes next, like the vow he made, the winning over of enemies, the fulfillment of the promise, all of it, I say, it would have to be attributed to the spirit of the Lord, as if this sacrifice also had to be considered as commanded by the Lord in a similar way to how he sent it to Abraham. In relation to Gideon, this difference could naturally be adduced, that, after the sin he committed, when he made the ephod behind which all the people prostituted themselves, no prosperity of Gideon is mentioned, and, instead, after making Jephthah the He obtained that distinguished victory of his, for which he had made the vow, and, once achieved, fulfilled what he had promised (Cf Jc 11,33.34). But we must pay attention again to the fact that Gideon got salvation for the people, defeating and defeating the enemies with a great massacre, although not after making the ephod, and after having tempted the Lord, which, Certainly, it is a sin. The text reads as follows: And Gideon said unto the Lord, Let not thy anger be enraged against me; I will talk again and try again with the fleece (Jc 6,39). Gideon feared, indeed, the wrath of God, because he knew that he sinned by tempting God, something that God expressly forbids in his law. And yet, to this sin of his followed the evidence of an admirable miracle and the great prosperity of the victory and of the liberation of the people. Because God had already determined to come to the aid of his afflicted people and he used the spirit, not only faithful and pious, but also defective and delinquent of this chief, whom he had taken to carry out this work and to predict what he wanted and fulfill what he had said. God granted many things to his people, not only through those who, although they sinned, are counted among the righteous, also through Saul, absolutely reprobate, because on him also came the spirit of God and prophesied, and not when he worked rightly, but when he railed against David, good and innocent man (Cf 1R 19,20-23). Because the spirit of the Lord acts through the good and the bad, through those who know it and through those who do not know it, what he knows and decides to do. For even through Caiaphas, a stalwart persecutor of the Lord, he made a famous prophecy, without knowing what he was doing, because he said that it was necessary for Christ to die for the people. Because who acted but the spirit of the Lord, who tried to foretell the future, so that Judge Gideon would come to mind precisely this of the fleece, first soaked and then dry, and of the era, first dry and then soaked, to him who wanted to tempt the Lord and who did not believe what he had already been told by his means about the salvation of the people? The lack of faith must be attributed to his weakness and his crime. But God also used his encouragement for what was appropriate to indicate the human race, and we must understand that it refers to the mercy of God and his admirable providence. But if one says that Gideon did everything knowingly and said it by divine revelation, so that through him those miracles would manifest, and that he did not fail in his faith and that he believed what the Lord had already promised him, but that a prophetic action he tried to prove in the fleece, and that his temptation was not therefore guilty, nor was Jacob’s deception (Cf Genesis 27,15.16), and that what he says to the Lord: Do not anger your anger against me (Jc 6,39), do not say it precisely because I feared the wrath of God, but because he trusted that God would not be angry in doing what he felt, dictating his spirit, felt that as a prophet he had to do it, that individual - I repeat - to tell him what he feels, provided that what When the Scripture reproaches, like the ephod, whatever its meaning, do not dare to excuse it, saying that it is not a sin. In relation to that other fact that three hundred men, at a sign of the cross, received in equal numbers the corresponding clay pitchers and put torches in them and, breaking the pitchers, the numerous lights that began to shine suddenly terrified a Such a large crowd of enemies (Cf Jc 7,16-22), it must be said that it seems as if Gideon did it on his own initiative. The Scripture, in effect, does not say that the Lord advised him to do it. And yet, such a great prodigy, who inspired him in his mind and in his decision to do it but the Lord? This Lord, who foresaw that his saints would carry the treasure of evangelical light in clay vessels, as the Apostle says: For we carry this treasure in clay vessels (2 Corinthians 4,7). Well, in the suffering of martyrdom, as in broken vessels, shone the greatest brilliance of his glory, which defeated the impious enemies of the evangelical preaching with the sudden clarity of Christ for them. In short, the spirit of the Lord worked in the times of the prophets the prefiguration and the announcement of future things, (Cf 1Co 12,6) either through those who knew it, or through those who did not know it. But it can not be said that his sins were not sins, because God, who knows how to use well even our ills, also used his sins to signify the things he wanted. Therefore, if it was not sinful to make or fulfill the vow to offer the sacrifice of a human life, or even the sacrifice of a parricide precisely because it meant something great and spiritual, then in vain God would have forbidden such things and would have testified that he hated them , because even what he ordered to do certainly refers to some meaning of spiritual and great things. And then, why should I forbid those things, since they could be done lawfully by the very meaning of one’s own things, by which these things were also lawfully done? And the reason is because human sacrifices, which mean something to be believed, do not please God, when one is not killed by enemies because of justice, because he wanted to live righteously or did not want to sin, but a man is immolated on the other hand as host chosen as cattle. So what? Someone could say that the victims of animals, by the very fact that they had already been used, although they too could refer to the meaning of spiritual things, which would be given to them by those who understand this correctly, made men less attentive to the investigation of the great mystery of Christ and the Church. Therefore, God wanted to awaken, with an outstanding and unexpected thing, the sleeping spirits of men. And this he did, above all, because he had forbidden such sacrifices to be offered to him and he sought to be offered something of that nature, so that admiration itself would generate a great problem and the great problem would give rise to the desire of the mind. pious to the investigation of the great mystery, and the pious mind of man, scrutinizing the depth of the prophecy, will raise, as with a hook, the fish, to Christ the Lord, from the depth of the Scriptures. I do not object to this reason and consideration. But one thing is the question of the intention of the one who makes the vow and another thing that of the providence of God, which makes optimal use of any intention of the one who makes the vow. Wherefore, if the spirit of the Lord, which came upon Jephthah, absolutely commanded Jephthah to make the vow, which the Scripture does not make clear, however, if God, whose commands it is not lawful to despise, commanded this, there is not only They reprimand foolishness; they have to praise obedience. Because although man kills himself, which is not lawful to do by human will and decision, it is clear that we must think that this is done by obedience, rather than by malice, if God has commanded it. I have already discussed enough about this question in Book I of the De Civitate Dei. But if Jephta, following a human error, thought that he should offer a human sacrifice, his sin about his only daughter was certainly punished with justice - a thing that he himself seems to express enough with his words when he says: Woe to a thousand, my daughter , you are an impediment to me; you have become a stumbling block before my eyes, and when he breaks his clothes; nevertheless, this error of his has also some praise for the faith, because he feared God, fulfilling what he had promised, and did not bow down to himself the judgment of divine judgment, or hoping that God would forbid him, as he did with Abraham , or deciding to fulfill the will of God, by understanding that he did not forbid it, instead of despising that will. In spite of everything, here we can also rightly inquire if it is better understood that God does not want this to be done, and, thus, if it is not done, God is better obeyed. Because God already showed that he did not want these sacrifices to be made, not only in the son of Abraham, but also in the prohibition he imposed on the law (Cf Genesis 22,12). But if Jephthah had not done it for this reason, it would seem that he had forgiven himself in his only daughter, instead of having followed the will of God. Therefore, in the fact that the daughter came to meet him, he understood better that God is avenger and submitted faithfully to just punishment, fearing a more severe punishment, as if it were a distortion. For Jephthah also believed that the soul of his daughter, good and virgin, would be well received, because she had not offered herself to be immolated, but had not opposed the vow and the will of her father and had followed the judgment of God. Since death is not to be voluntarily procured to oneself, nor voluntarily caused to another, neither should death be rejected when God sends it, since by its decision we have to endure it at any moment. And no one who refuses to bear it, works to avoid it altogether, but only strives to delay it. Now I will investigate and briefly explain, with the help of God, what the spirit of the Lord wanted to prefigure in this action through Jephta, or without knowing it, or knowing it, or by his imprudence, or by his obedience, or for his offense, or for his faith. For he warns us and urges us in a certain way this place of the Sacred Scriptures to think of a strong and courageous man. For thus describes the Scripture to Jephthah. His name means “He who opens.” Now, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Gospel says, (Cf Lc 24,27) opened to his disciples the meaning to understand the Scriptures (Lc 24,45). Jephthah was condemned by his brothers and kicked out of his father’s house, accusing him of being the son of a prostitute (Cf Jc 11,2.3), as if they were born of a legitimate wife. The same thing was done against the Lord by the chief priests and the scribes and the Pharisees, who seemed to boast of the observance of the law, accusing him as if he were a destroyer of the law and, therefore, as if he were an illegitimate child. . Although she had taken her body from a holy virgin, which the faithful know well, however, her mother, as far as her origin is concerned, can also be called a Jewish synagogue. Check whoever the prophetic books are and see how many times and with what harsh words and with what indignation the Lord is accused that people of fornication, as if it were a prostitute woman. In relation to this, we have even in this book of the Judges those facts mentioned recently, one concerning the ephod that Gideon did, following which, as we read, he fornicated all Israel (Cf Jc 8,27); and the other, concerning that the Israelites went after the gods of the nations among which they lived. Because of these sins, the wrath of God fell upon them, so that the children of Ammon (Cf Jc 10,6-8) crushed them for eighteen years. Well, were not those same priests and scribes and Pharisees born of the same people of Israel, who, as we have said, were prefigured in those who expelled Jephthah, like these to Christ the Lord, persecuting him as a non-legitimate son? But the similarity is insinuated, as I have said, in the fact that they, as observers of the law, thought that they had rightly expelled who seemed to act against the precepts of the same law, as if they were the children. legitimate and he the son not legitimate. According to this, it is said that these people fornicated, because by not keeping the precepts, they did not show fidelity to God as a husband. On Jephthah the following is said: And the sons of the wife grew and drove Jephthah away. (Jc 11,2) The word grew up means “prevailed.” This was fulfilled in the Jews, who prevailed over the weakness of Christ, because he wanted to suffer from them, in the Passion, what he had to suffer. Jacob also prevailed over the angel with whom he struggled to predict this same and meaning this same thing (Cf Genesis 32,24-28). So they said to Jephthah, “You shall have no inheritance in our father’s house, because you are the son of a prostitute.” It is as if they were saying what the Gospel expresses: This man, who thus breaks the Sabbath, (John 9,16) does not come from God. And they, boasting of being the legitimate children, said to the Lord: We are not born of fornication; we have God as our only father(John 8,41). And Jephthah fled from the presence of his brothers and dwelt in the country of Tob (Jc 11,3). He fled, because he hid his greatness. He fled, because he hid those who attacked him. Because if they had known him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2,8). He fled, because they saw the weakness of the one who died; but they did not see the power of the one who resurrected. But he dwelt in a good land, or, to put it more explicitly, in “optimal” land. Because the Greek term agazón means in Latin optimum (optimum), and this is the meaning of “Tob”. And here it seems to me that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is meant. For what earth more optimal than the earthly body clothed in the excellence of immortality and incorruption? With regard to what is said of Jephthah, after fleeing from the presence of his brothers and living in the land of Tob, he was joined by thieves and made raids with him (Jc 11,3), we must say that before the Passion he was also objected to the Lord to eat with the publicans and sinners, and he answered that it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, (Cf Matthew 9,11-12) and the Scripture says that he was counted among the wicked, (Isaiah 53,12) when he was crucified among thieves, and one of they moved him from the cross to paradise (Cf Lc 23,33.43). However, after resurrecting and beginning to be in the land of Tob, according to what we discussed above, around him were evil men who sought the forgiveness of sins, and these men were with him, since they lived according to its precepts. And this never ceased to happen until now and will continue to happen as long as the wicked take refuge in him, so that he justifies the wicked who are converted to him, and the wicked learn his ways (Cf Ps. 50,15). And the very fact that those who had despised Jephthah-he was also a Gileadite-should turn to him and seek him out of their enemies, in what clear way it prefigures and means that those who despised Christ, turned back to him, in him they find salvation! Well, it is about those to whom the Apostle Peter reproaches them for this same sin, as it is read in the Acts of the Apostles, (Cf Acts 2,22-37) and those same ones he exhorts them to convert to the one they had persecuted, and they were sorry They wished to obtain salvation from the one they had alienated from themselves-for what is it to be freed from their enemies but to be freed from their sins? For the Scripture says: Do penance and let each one of you be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and your sins will be forgiven you (Hch 2,38), or rather it is about that call of the people of Israel that is expected for the end. Indeed, it seems that it is rather this hypothesis, when it says: And it happened after the days (Jude 11,4). And this means without a doubt after a while. And here it is insinuated that we must not understand what happens in the recent Passion of the Lord, but what will happen next. And it seems also related to this the fact that the elders of Gilead came to Jephthah (Cf Jc ll,5), so that by senile age we understand that it is about the later and last times. Gilead means “he who despises” or “revelation.” And both things agree quite well with this matter, because first they despised the Lord and then they will be revealed to them. On the other hand, the fact that Jephthah was sought as the leader against the children of Ammon to deliver the Israelites, defeating the Ammonites, since the Israelites wanted to fight against them having Jephthah as their leader, and like Ammon means « son of my people “or” people of sadness “, it is clear that they are meant here or the enemies of the people themselves, who were predicted to persevere in infidelity, or all the people without exception predestinated to gehenna, where there will be for them weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25,30), as if it were a people of sadness. Although it can also be called a town of sadness quite conveniently for the devil and his angels, or because they get eternal misfortune for those they deceive, or because they themselves are destined to eternal misfortune. Jephthah responds in the following manner to the elders of Gilead, certainly a way to express the prophecy much more clearly: Are not you who hated me and expelled me from my father’s house and cast me away from you? And why do you come now, when you are troubled? (Jc 11,7) A thing similar to this one is foreshadowed in Joseph, despised by his brothers, who sold him (Cf Genesis 37,38). When hunger took hold of them, they came to their help and compassion (Cf Genesis 42,44). But in the case of Jephthah, the significance of future things appears much more clearly, because they did not return to Jephthah precisely the brothers who threw him out of the house, but the elders of Gilead, pleading with him on behalf of all the people. In the same way, the people are called Israel, already in those who lived then and reproved Christ, and in those who returned later to seek their help. And this is said to an enemy people, who drag and keep long hatreds, already in their ancestors, and in their descendants, and that becomes in the end those that are to become: Are not you who hated me and expelled me? from my father’s house? This same thing was demonstrated in those who persecuted Christ, because they expelled him from the house of David, in which his kingdom will have no end (Lc 1,33). And the elders of Gilead said to. Jephta: “It’s not like that; now we come to you (Jc 11,8.9).” It is as if the converted Jews said to Christ: We come then to persecute you; we come now to follow you. They also affirm that he will be their leader against the enemies. Jephta replies that he will be his boss if he defeats their enemies, something that Gideon did not want, when they had wanted it (Cf Jc 8,22); for he answers them: The Lord will be your master (Jc 8,23). Under the title of head means the king, an institution that did not have those people at the time of the Judges. They began to have a king with Saul (Cf 1R 10,1) and then with his successors, who are mentioned in the books of the Kings. In Deuteronomy, when they are commanded what kind of king they should have, if they want to have one (Cf Deuteronomy 17,14), they are not called a king, but a prince. But as Jephthah meant the true king-a fact that was written even in the title that was nailed to the cross, and which Pilate did not dare to remove or amend (Cf John 19,19-22), that is why we thought he said to himself: I will be your master (Jc 11,9). They had said: You will be our head (Jc 11,8); because the head of the male is Christ (Cf 1Co 11,3), and Christ is the head of the body of the Church (Cf Ef 5,23). Finally, after Jephthah freed them from all enemies, they did not make him king, so that we understand that what was said referred more to the prophecy about Christ than to Jephthah himself, from whom the Scripture ends by saying: And Jephthah He judged Israel six years; and Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in his city of Gilead. He judged Israel like the other Judges. He did not reign there as a prince, like those mentioned in the books of the Kings. Jephthah, once constituted head of the Israelites, already sent messengers to the enemies, bringing before them a message of peace (Cf Jc 11, 1). In this fact it is revealed what the Apostle says, in whom Christ spoke: If possible, as far as it depends on you, have peace with all men (Rm 12,18). But, as I am in a great hurry to finish, it is too long to expose all the things that Jephthah sent. As for the meaning of future things, I think that we must understand them in such a way that we can see in them the teaching of Christ, which instructs us about our behavior, that is, how we have to live among those who have not been called. according to the divine decision. For the Lord knows his people (2 Tm 2,19). Now, that Jephthah received the spirit of the Lord when he was going to defeat the enemies means that the Holy Spirit would be given to the members of Christ. That Jephthah traveled through Gilead and Manasseh and passed through the watchtower of Gilead, and from the watchtower of Gilead he passed on to the other side of the children of Ammon (Jc 11,29), it means that the members of Christ walk towards the attainment of victory against the enemies. For Gilead means “despiser,” and Manasseh, “necessity.” Therefore, the despisers, the derogatory ones have to be overcome by those who progress. The need must be overcome, lest the one who progresses, by overcoming the despisers, yield to those who intimidate. We must also pass through the watchtower of Gilead, because Gilead also means “revelation”. A watchtower is a height to look in the distance (prospicere) and to look with disdain (despicere), that is, to see from above (desuper aspicere). Therefore, the watchtower of Gilead seems to me to mean very well the pride of revelation. And that is why the Apostle says: So that I should not be proud because of the magnitude of the revelations (2 Corinthians 12,7). Then we must also transcend this law, that is, we must not remain in it because of the danger of falling. Overcome these things, easily overcome the enemies, as indicated by the following words: And from the watchtower of Gilead passed to the other side of the children of Ammon. These enemies have been talked about before. And Jephthah made a vow and said: “If you give me truly to the children of Ammon in my hand, whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it will be for the Lord and I will offer it as a burnt offering”. (Jc 11,30.31) Whichever person Jephthah had thought, according to this passage and according to human thought, it does not seem that he had thought of his only daughter; otherwise, he would not have said, seeing her coming to meet him: Woe to me, my daughter; you are an impediment to me; You have become a stumbling block before my eyes. The text says: You are an impediment for me, as if I wanted to say that he is prevented from doing this, to not fulfill what he had thought. But Jephthah, who had no more children, who did he think the first one would come to? Did you think maybe about his wife? Is it not true that God did not want this to be done and not to go unpunished, so that no one in the future would dare to do it and to prefigure, through his providence, the mystery of the Church, and for that very reason that happened? Well, from both things the prophecy is derived: by what he thought when making the vow, and by what happened when he did not want it. If he thought of his wife, the Church is the wife of Christ: For this reason man will leave his father and mother and will join his wife, and they will be one flesh. This mystery is great, says the Apostle, but I say it about Christ and the Church. Now, since Jephthah’s wife could not be a virgin, in the fact that she was presented with the daughter (instead of the wife) and not left unpunished, the audacity of the one offering a forbidden sacrifice and the virginity of church. And it is not far from the truth that, under the name of the daughter, the Church itself is meant. Because from what other woman, if not from this one, was the figure even the woman whom the Lord said, after healing her for having touched the border of her dress: Child, your faith has saved you; go in peace (Matthew 9,20-22). And certainly, in a text that no one can doubt, Christ called his disciples the children of the bridegroom, clearly indicating that he was the bridegroom, saying: Can not the children of the bridegroom fast when the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the husband will be taken from them, and then they will fast (Matthew 9,15). The holocaust will be the Church, which the holy Apostle calls a chaste virgin (Cf 2Co 11,2), when in the resurrection of the dead it will be done in all things what is written: Death has been absorbed in victory. Then he will give the kingdom to God and to the Father, a kingdom that is the Church, whose figure represented the same one who made the vow. But as it will happen when the sixth age of the world has been fulfilled, that is why a period of sixty days was requested to cry virginity. The Church naturally gathers of all ages. The first is that which goes from Adam to the flood; the second, from the flood -from Noah- to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the exile of Babylon; the fifth, from the exile of Babylon to the birth of the virgin; the sixth, from that fact to the end of the world. Throughout these six ages, as if they were sixty days, the virgin holy Church cried her virginity. Because even if it was about her virginity, there were sins to cry about. And because of these sins, that virgin, totally whole, spread throughout the world, says every day: (And) forgive us our debts (Matthew 6,12). And it seems to me that the author chose to call those sixty days two months because of two men: one, for whom death has come; another, through whom the resurrection of the dead has come. Because of these two men there is also talk of two Testaments. The text continues: It became the norm in Israel that from time to time the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite would regret four days a year (Jc 11,39.40). I think that these words, after the holocaust has been made, do not mean anything about eternal life, but refer to the past times of the Church, in which there were blessed who mourned. In the four days the universality of the Church is represented, because of the four parts of the world through which the Church is spread far and wide. But, according to historical accuracy, I think the Israelites decreed this only because they understood that in this matter the judgment of God had taken place to punish the father, so that no one would dare in the future to offer a sacrifice like this. . For why should a time of mourning and lamentation be established, if that vow was a vow of joy? But if we also have to refer to the final judgment of God the fact that the people of Ephraim were defeated by Jephthah according to those words of the Lord: But to those who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them before me. , then those forty-two thousand who perished in the battle, are not mentioned here without some reason (Cf Jc 12,6). Well, as those two months, because of the sixty days, mean the number six of the six ages of the world, here too the number seven multiplied by six means this, referring to the six ages of the world; because seven multiplied by six are forty-two. And Jephthah himself did not in vain judge the people for six years. — QUESTIONS ON JUDGES, Q. 49 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Judges 11:30

Ephrem the Syrian: People imitate those who do good deeds, therefore, not out of love for these good deeds but because of their utility.… The king of Moab took note of Jephthah. But, because it was his firstborn and a human being rather than an animal that he killed, God took pity on him, since he did it in affliction and not through love. In the case of Jephthah, if it had been one of his servants who had been first to encounter him, he would have killed him. But, in order that people would not engage in the sacrifice of their fellow human beings, he caused his own daughter to meet him, so that others would be afraid, lest they offer human beings by vow to God. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 10.3

Jerome: And whereas he [Jovinianus] prefers the fidelity of the father Jephthah to the tears of the virgin daughter, that corroborates our point. For we are not commending virgins of the world so much as those who are virgins for Christ’s sake. Most Hebrews blame the father for the rash vow he made, “If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatsoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be for the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” Supposing (the Hebrews say) a dog or an ass had met him, what would he have done? Their meaning is that God so ordered events that he who had improvidently made a vow should learn his error by the death of his daughter. — Against Jovinianus 1.23

Judges 11:31

Augustine of Hippo: With these words [of his vow] at any rate Jephthah did not vow some kind of animal that he could offer as a whole burnt offering according to the law; it is neither customary now nor was it in the past that cattle would run to meet generals returning victoriously from war. As far as mute animals are concerned, dogs often run to meet their masters and sport with them in fawning servitude. But Jephthah could not have been thinking about dogs in his vow, because it would seem that he would have vowed not only something unlawful but also something contemptible and unclean according to the law. It would have been an insult to God. Nor does he say, “I will offer as a whole burnt offering whatever will come out of the doors of my house to meet me.” He says, “I will sacrifice whoever comes out of my house.” Thus, there can be no doubt that he was thinking of nothing else than a human being—not his only daughter, however. Yet who would have been able to surpass her in her father’s eyes except perhaps his wife? — QUESTIONS ON Judges 49.6

Judges 11:34

Augustine of Hippo: The Scriptures do not seem to pass judgment on this vow and its fulfillment as it does quite clearly in the case of Abraham, when he was ordered to sacrifice his son and did so. Rather the Scriptures seem to have only recorded the matter and left it to the reader to evaluate, just as in the case of Judah, Jacob’s son, who in ignorance lay with his daughter-in-law but committed fornication by the very act, because he thought her to be a prostitute. The Scriptures never approve nor disapprove of the act explicitly but let the matter stand, to be evaluated and contemplated after consulting the righteousness and law of God. Therefore, the Scriptures of God do not offer any comment in either the vow or its fulfillment, so that our mind might be put to work to pass judgment on this matter and so that we might now say that such a vow displeased God and led to the punishment that his only daughter, of all people, ran out to meet her father. — QUESTIONS ON Judges 49.7

Judges 11:35

Origen of Alexandria: The remaining sacrifices, of which those relating to the law are a symbol, are akin to this sacrifice. But in addition, the other sacrifices akin to this sacrifice seem to me to be the shedding of the blood of the noble martyrs. It was not in vain that the disciple John saw them standing beside the heavenly altar. “But who is wise, that he shall understand these things? Or intelligent, and he shall know them?“3Now comprehend, even if to a limited extent, the more spiritual sense of such sacrifices which cleanse those for whom they are offered; one must understand the sense of the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah who was offered as a burnt offering because of the vow of him who conquered the children of Ammon. She who was offered as a burnt offering consented to this vow, for, when her father said, “I have opened my mouth to the Lord against you,” she said to him, “And if you have opened your mouth to the Lord against me, perform your vow.” Such accounts give an appearance of great cruelty to God to whom such sacrifices are offered for humanity’s salvation. We need a generous and perceptive spirit in order to refute the reproaches made against providence and, at the same time, to make a defense of all the sacrifices insofar as they are rather mysterious and beyond human nature. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 6.276-78

Judges 11:39

Ambrose of Milan: It is also sometimes contrary to duty to fulfill a promise or to keep an oath. As was the case with Herod, who swore that whatever was asked he would give to the daughter of Herodias, and so allowed the death of John, that he might not break his word. And what shall I say of Jephthah, who offered up his daughter in sacrifice, she having been the first to meet him as he returned home victorious; whereby he fulfilled the vow which he had made that he would offer to God whatever should meet him first. It would have been better to make no promise at all than to fulfill it in the death of his daughter. — On the Duties of the Clergy 1.50.255

Ambrose of Milan: Never shall I be led to believe that the leader Jephthah made his vow otherwise than without thought, when he promised to offer to God whatever should meet him at the threshold of his house on his return. For he repented of his vow, as afterwards his daughter came to meet him. He tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter, you have entangled me, you have become a source of trouble for me.” And though with pious fear and reverence he took upon himself the bitter fulfillment of his cruel task, yet he ordered and left to be observed an annual period of grief and mourning for future times. It was a hard vow, but far more bitter was its fulfillment, while he who carried it out had the greatest cause to mourn. Thus it became a rule and a law in Israel from year to year, as it says: “that the daughters of Israel went to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.” I cannot blame the man for holding it necessary to fulfill his vow, but yet it was a wretched necessity which could only be solved by the death of his child.…What, then, in the case of esteemed and learned people is full of marvel, that in the case of a virgin is found to be far more splendid, far more glorious, as she says to her sorrowing father, “Do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth.” But she asked for a delay of two months in order that she might go about with her companions upon the mountains to bewail fitly and dutifully her virginity now given up to death. The weeping of her companions did not move her, their grief did not prevail upon her, nor did their lamentations hold her back. She did not allow the day to pass, nor did the hour escape her notice. She returned to her father as though returning according to her own desire, and of her own will [she] urged him on when he was hesitating, and acted thus of her own free choice, so that what was at first an awful chance became a pious sacrifice. — On the Duties of the Clergy 3.12.78, 81

Augustine of Hippo: As regards to the fact that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to God as a whole burnt offering, these are the facts: he had vowed that if he were to obtain the victory, he would offer as a whole burnt offering whoever would come out of his house and meet him; because he had vowed this and won the battle and his daughter had been the one to meet him first, he fulfilled his vow. This event has become a great and rather difficult question to settle both for some who investigate the matter with piety and genuinely seek to know what this passage means and for some who out of ignorant impiety oppose the Holy Scriptures and call this a horrible misdeed that the God of the law and prophets would have delighted in sacrifices, yes, even human sacrifices. First let us reply to their calumnies by noting that the whole burnt offerings of cattle did not delight the God of the law and the prophets—or as I prefer to say, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What pleased God about those sacrifices was that they were full of meaning and a foreshadowing of future things. We, however, have the very substance which was foreshadowed by these sacrifices that he wished to commend to us. Moreover, there was also a very pertinent reason why those sacrifices have been changed so that they no longer are commanded but even forbidden: it is so that we may not think that God is pleased by such sacrifices according to some carnal passion. — QUESTIONS ON Judges 49.1

Augustine of Hippo: But we rightly ask whether human sacrifices must have foreshadowed future events.… But if this were true, this type of sacrifice would not displease God. But in fact the Scriptures themselves clearly testify that human sacrifices displease him. For when God wanted and commanded all the firstborn to belong to him and to be his, he nonetheless wanted the firstborn of humankind to be redeemed by their parents, so that they would not entrust their firstborn children to God through immolation.…Now clearly God loves and rewards those sacrifices when a just man endures injustice and struggles for the truth even to the point of death or when he is killed by enemies whom he has offended for righteousness’ sake, as he has returned them good for evil, that is, love instead of hatred.… In imitation of Abel, thousands of martyrs have struggled for the truth to the point of death and have been sacrificed by savage enemies. The Scripture says of them, “God has tested them like gold in a furnace and he has accepted them as a whole burnt offering.” So too the apostle says, “I am being sacrificed.“13 But that is not how Jephthah made a whole burnt offering to the Lord out of his daughter. Rather he offered her as a literal sacrifice in the way that it was commanded for animals to be offered and forbidden for humans to be sacrificed. What he did seems rather similar to what Abraham did. In that instance the Lord gave him a special command that this ought to be done. He did not order him by way of a general commandment that such sacrifices should take place at some time. Indeed, the general rule prohibited it. — QUESTIONS ON Judges 49.2-4

John Chrysostom: For Jephthah likewise, when he had promised that the first thing that met him, after a victorious battle, he would sacrifice, fell into the snare of child-murder; for his daughter first meeting him, he sacrificed her and God did not forbid it. And I know, indeed, that many of the unbelievers impugn us of cruelty and inhumanity on account of this sacrifice; but I should say, that the concession in the case of this sacrifice was a striking example of providence and clemency; and that it was in care for our race that He did not prevent that sacrifice. For if after that vow and promise He had forbidden the sacrifice, many also who were subsequent to Jephthah, in the expectation that God would not receive their vows, would have increased the number of such vows, and proceeding on their way would have fallen into child-murder. But now, by suffering this vow to be actually fulfilled, He put a stop to all such cases in future. And to shew that this is true, after Jephthah’s daughter had been slain, in order that the calamity might be always remembered, and that her fate might not be consigned to oblivion, it became a law among the Jews, that the virgins assembling at the same season should bewail during forty days the sacrifice which had taken place; in order that renewing the memory of it by lamentation, they should make all men wiser for the future; and that they might learn that it was not after the mind of God that this should be done, for in that case He would not have permitted the virgins to bewail and lament her. And that what I have said is not conjectural, the event demonstrated; for after this sacrifice, no one vowed such a vow unto God. Therefore also He did not indeed forbid this; but what He had expressly enjoined in the case of Isaac, that He directly prohibited; plainly shewing through both cases, that He doth not delight in such sacrifices. — HOMILIES CONCERNING THE STATUES 14.7