SEV Biblia, Chapter 11:23
Así que el SEOR el Dios de Israel ech los amorreos delante de su pueblo Israel; ¿y lo has de poseer t?
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Judges 11:31
Verse 31. Shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.] The text is hlw[ whytyl[hw hwhyl hyhw vehayah layhovah, vehaalithihu olah; the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering; that is, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough; to have been made without them, it must have been the vow of a heathen, or a madman. If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering; and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, &c., had been returning from a visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites, &c., because they offered their sons and daughters to Molech in the fire, i.e., made burnt-offerings of them, as is generally supposed. That Jephthah was a deeply pious man, appears in the whole of his conduct; and that he was well acquainted with the law of Moses, which prohibited all such sacrifices, and stated what was to be offered in sacrifice, is evident enough from his expostulation with the king and people of Ammon, ver. 14-27. Therefore it must be granted that he never made that rash vow which several suppose he did; nor was he capable, if he had, of executing it in that most shocking manner which some Christian writers ("tell it not in Gath") have contended for. He could not commit a crime which himself had just now been an executor of God's justice to punish in others. It has been supposed that "the text itself might have been read differently in former times; if instead of the words hlw[ whytyl[hw , I will offer IT a burnt-offering, we read hlw[ awhytyl[hw , I will offer HIM (i.e., the Lord) a burnt- offering: this will make a widely different sense, more consistent with everything that is sacred; and it is formed by the addition of only a single letter, ( a aleph,) and the separation of the pronoun from the verb. Now the letter a aleph is so like the letter [ ain, which immediately follows it in the word hlw[ olah, that the one might easily have been lost in the other, and thus the pronoun be joined to the verb as at present, where it expresses the thing to be sacrificed instead of the person to whom the sacrifice was to be made. With this emendation the passage will read thus: Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors or my house to meet me-shall be the Lord's; and I will offer HIM a burnt-offering." For this criticism there is no absolute need, because the pronoun wh hu, in the above verse, may with as much propriety be translated him as it. The latter part of the verse is, literally, And I will offer him a burnt-offering, hlw[ olah, not hlw[l leolah, FOR a burnt-offering, which is the common Hebrew form when for is intended to be expressed. This is strong presumption that the text should be thus understood: and this avoids the very disputable construction which is put on the w vau, in whytyl[hw vehaalithihu, OR I will offer IT up, instead of AND I will offer HIM a burnt-offering. "From ver. 39 it appears evident that Jephthah's daughter was not SACRIFICED to God, but consecrated to him in a state of perpetual virginity; for the text says, She knew no man, for this was a statute in Israel. laryb qj yhtw vattehi chok beyishrael; viz., that persons thus dedicated or consecrated to God, should live in a state of unchangeable celibacy. Thus this celebrated place is, without violence to any part of the text, or to any proper rule of construction, cleared of all difficulty, and caused to speak a language consistent with itself, and with the nature of God." Those who assert that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter, attempt to justify the opinion from the barbarous usages of those times: but in answer to this it may be justly observed, that Jephthah was now under the influence of the Spirit of God, ver. 29; and that Spirit could not permit him to imbrue his hands in the blood of his own child; and especially under the pretense of offering a pleasing sacrifice to that God who is the Father of mankind, and the Fountain of love, mercy, and compassion. The versions give us but little assistance in clearing the difficulties of the text. In the Targum of Jonathan there is a remarkable gloss which should be mentioned, and from which it will appear that the Targumist supposed that the daughter of Jephthah was actually sacrificed: "And he fulfilled the vow which he had vowed upon her; and she knew no man: and it was made a statute in Israel, that no man should offer his son or his daughter for a burnt-offering, as did Jephthah the Gileadite, who did not consult Phinehas the priest; for if he had consulted Phinehas the priest, he would have redeemed her with money." The Targumist refers here to the law, Lev. xxvii. 1-5, where the Lord prescribes the price at which either males or females, who had been vowed to the Lord, might be redeemed. "When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord at thy estimation: the male from twenty years old even unto sixty, shall be fifty shekels of silver; and if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels; and from five years old unto twenty years, the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten." This also is an argument that the daughter of Jephthah was not sacrificed; as the father had it in his power, at a very moderate price, to have redeemed her: and surely the blood of his daughter must have been of more value in his sight than thirty shekels of silver. Dr. Hales has entered largely into the subject: his observations may be seen at the end of this chapter.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 23. So now the Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel , etc.] It is his doing, and not the work of the Israelites; it is he that dispossessed the Amorites, and put the Israelites into the possession of their land, and therefore they enjoy it by a good tenure: and shouldest thou possess it ? what through the blessing of God on their arms they have obtained by conquest, and he has settled them in; did they conquer, that thou should possess what they conquered? did their God put it into their hands to deliver it into thine? did they fight to recover for thee what thou hadst lost, and to put thee into the possession of it? did not they fight in their own defence, and their enemies and their land fell into their hands, and by the laws and right of nations became theirs? and canst thou expect to possess it? what reason is there for it?
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 12-28 - One instance of the honour and respect we owe to God, as our God, is rightly to employ what he gives us to possess. Receive it from him, us it for him, and part with it when he calls for it. The whole of thi message shows that Jephthah was well acquainted with the books of Moses. His argument was clear, and his demand reasonable. Those wh possess the most courageous faith, will be the most disposed for peace and the readiest to make advances to obtain; but rapacity and ambitio often cloak their designs under a plea of equity, and render peacefu endeavours of no avail.
Original Hebrew
ועתה 6258 יהוה 3068 אלהי 430 ישׂראל 3478 הורישׁ 3423 את 853 האמרי 567 מפני 6440 עמו 5971 ישׂראל 3478 ואתה 859 תירשׁנו׃ 3423
