# Jephthah



## scottmaciver

In Judges 11 did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter or did he put her into tabernacle servitude?

It would be interesting to hear your reasons as to why you hold to a particular view

Scott


----------



## LawrenceU

I don't see how you can get around a literal burnt offering sacrifice if you take Scripture at face value.

11.31. . . then whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lords' and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11.39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.


----------



## PresbyDane

LawrenceU said:


> I don't see how you can get around a literal burnt offering sacrifice if you take Scripture at face value.
> 
> 11.31. . . then whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lords' and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
> 
> 11.39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.


----------



## Elimelek

Dear scottmaciver

I agree with LawrenceU and Martin Marsh. Unfortunately I haven't listened to Joshua's link, so forgive me if I repeat something that has already been 'said.'

The book of Judges starts of with the story of Caleb (the only surviving person of the desert generation and the only one that had firsthand experience of God's wonders and acts in the desert) who promised his daughter to the man who captures Debir (or Kiriath-arba) (Judges 1:11-15). 

Here we find the first promise made in the book of Judges. According to the rabbi's of old (i.e. the founding fathers of Rabinnic Judaism), this promise was the first irresponsible promise in the book of Judges. 

Yet, it turned out well in the end. Otniel the first judge (and by account the most righteous one), received Achsah, Caleb's daugther as a price. I am of the opinion that it had to do with a true relationship between Caleb and God that this unfortunate event had a good ending. Achsah confronted her father about her barreness - signified by the Negeb - and Caleb gave her springs of water. (Often ground and a woman and a city are thrown in the same pot. There is usually a relation between these three in the Bible, for instance in various prophecies. In the Ancient Near East is becomes much clearer and various fertility cults were based on it.)

Deterioration of Israel's relationship with God then starts at a great pace as almost every judge is worse than the previous.

When we meet Jepthah in Judges 11, Israel's relationship with God has gone from bad to worse. Jepthah's actions (like those of every other judge in the book Judges) depicts the current state of the relationship in which the Israelites stood with God. He doesn't rely on God but see Him as a god one need to bargain with, like the Canaanite gods. (In the Ugaritic Keret story - a story set within a Canaanite religious background - king Keret (or Kirtu) who is childless and has lost all his wives, makes a promise to the goddess Asherah if she will assist him in getting the daughter of the king of the city 'Udmu. After he took the king's duaghter as his wife, he never honoured his promise to Asherah and therefore she made him very ill. If it was not for the god El who had compassion on him, he would've died.) 

Jeptah's promise is the second irresponsible promise made in the book of Judges. This time, there is no daughter to give to a man according to Jeptah's heart. (If I remember correctly, Othniel is called a man after Caleb's heart, as Caleb is called a man after God's heart in the book of Joshua.)

Trying to manipulate God in the same way as manipulating the Canaanite gods had a detrimental effect on Jephtah's household. (It is interesting that in the book of Judges the worse a woman is treated, the worse the relationship with God is depicted.)

The story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19) depicts how far the Israelites had moved from God. This leads to civil war (Judges 20) and the third irresponsible promise in the book Judges. In Judges 21:1 it is clear that the Israelites promised, "No one of us shall give his daughter in marriage to Benjamin." Due to this promise and the civil war, the Benjaminites were almost whiped out. It is another war and other unsual acts towards women that, shows that Israel had conformed with the Canaanite nations and were far from God.

Jephtah's story is the half way mark in the sad events that led to a situation where the Lord was no longer known to Israel. 1 Samuel starts with how the presence of the Lord is again felt within Israel.

Kind regards


Elimelek


----------



## Contra_Mundum

How does Jeptha make it into the "Hall of Faith" if he acted *contrary to faith* and murdered his daughter to fulfill a vow made in folly? BTW, its sinful to compound sin and fulfill a sinful vow. Or it's sinful to fulfill a foolish vow in a sinful manner. And "sin" and "faith" are opposed to one another.

She "bewailed her virginity" because she was going to live devoted (and unmarried) in the Tabernacle service for the rest of her life. That's my estimate. And no, it does no "violence" to the text.


----------



## Elimelek

Dear Contra_Mundum

You wrote:


> She "bewailed her virginity" because she was going to live devoted (and unmarried) in the Tabernacle service for the rest of her life. That's my estimate. And no, it does no "violence" to the text.



I can think of other ways in which one can do violence to the text. What I've written in my previous post is my own humble opinion. The reason I would not choose for the idea of tabernacle service is as follows:


The tabernacle never mentioned in the book of Judges and I am not clear what type of service a woman could do in the tabernacle.
The tabernacle is also not mentioned in 1 and 2 Samuel or in 1 and 2 Kings. The ark of the covenant (which represents the presence of God) is found only in Judges 20:27 where it is in Bethel. The ark is later found to be in Siloh(1 Samuel 4) when the Israelites mistakenly try to manipulate God to give them victory over the Philistines.
The lack of the mentioning of the ark and the tabernacle helps in desribing the dark mood of the book of Judges. The question (it seems to me) that is answered in the book is, "What happen to people when they turn their back on God?"
Thus, the tabernacle seems to me, to be a very-desert-exodus-experience thing.
You wrote:


> How does Jeptha make it into the "Hall of Faith" if he acted *contrary to faith* and murdered his daughter to fulfill a vow made in folly?



I am not clear about Jephtah in the "Hall of Faith." Could you maybe clarify it?

Kind regards


Elimelek


----------



## SolaScriptura

Contra_Mundum said:


> How does Jeptha make it into the "Hall of Faith" if he acted *contrary to faith* and murdered his daughter to fulfill a vow made in folly? BTW, its sinful to compound sin and fulfill a sinful vow. Or it's sinful to fulfill a foolish vow in a sinful manner. And "sin" and "faith" are opposed to one another.
> 
> She "bewailed her virginity" because she was going to live devoted (and unmarried) in the Tabernacle service for the rest of her life. That's my estimate. And no, it does no "violence" to the text.



Bruce,

I reject the interpretation of the "hall of faith" that you implicitly posit. Heb 11 is simply a running list of examples of specific examples of "faith" in action. It in no way leads me to believe that in general that a man like Samson was anything other than a lech of a man. Or that Jephthah was a completely honorable man.

I think that the book of Judges presents a definite picture of not only the nation of Israel, but of the spiritual state of the judges themselves: they go from good to bad. 

For those interested, I encourage you to read Dan Block's commentary on Judges and Ruth. 

BTW - the story of Ruth is all the more beautiful when it is understood within the broader (dark) context of the time of the judges.


----------



## A5pointer

I am not so sure the hall of fame reference is the best way to interperet the text. It is backward hermaneutic. The hall of fame is a list contains names of many sinners whose sins are recorded in the bible. I think he killed her like the text says. Her bemoaning of her virginity seems to be a reference to her not having children to pass on the line and name of Jeptha(a tragedy in the ANE) making it even more costly to him.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Is Hebrews referencing Jephthah's faith as demonstrated in a specific act or circumstance? If so, it would seem more likely that it was his conquering of the Ammonites that showed his faith, rather than his rash vow:

Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, *Jephthah*, of David and Samuel and the prophets-- 
Heb 11:33 who *through faith conquered kingdoms*, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 
Heb 11:34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, *became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight*.​
There's one other thing the Hebrews 11 crowd have in common besides faith, and it is that they were all sinners.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's an assessment by a pastor friend of mine, Bob Vincent: 
Judges as an Ethical Farce


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Elimelek:

Please note the following Scriptures, referencing women serving at the Tabernacle:

Exo 38:8 He made the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the *ministering women who ministered in the entrance of the tent of meeting*.

1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with *the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting*.

Again, the example of Anna, Luke 2:36-38 (where particular reference is made to her continuing virginity)

"'Tabernacle" = "Tent of Meeting", see Ex.27:21, so I fail to see how you think the Tabernacle is nowhere to be found in 1&2 Sam?

I do strongly object to the view that Jeptha slew his daughter, but also acknowledge that many scholars and lovers of the Bible do interpret his act as a literal burnt-sacrifice. Personally, I think that there would be no way that the author of Hebrews would (under inspiration) glorify God through Jeptha's faith in Heb.11:32.


----------



## Augusta

Thanks for the link Joshua. I am undecided on the issue. We just read this passage in family worship. It is tough to explain the Levite's concubine and then Jepthah following hard after it to the kids.  I like the points made by Rev. Ruddell. We may have to revisit this. The kids have also being debating this passage with their teachers at school.


----------



## Skyler

Contra_Mundum said:


> Elimelek:
> 
> Please note the following Scriptures, referencing women serving at the Tabernacle:
> 
> Exo 38:8 He made the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the *ministering women who ministered in the entrance of the tent of meeting*.
> 
> 1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with *the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting*.
> 
> Again, the example of Anna, Luke 2:36-38 (where particular reference is made to her continuing virginity)
> 
> "'Tabernacle" = "Tent of Meeting", see Ex.27:21, so I fail to see how you think the Tabernacle is nowhere to be found in 1&2 Sam?
> 
> I do strongly object to the view that Jeptha slew his daughter, but also acknowledge that many scholars and lovers of the Bible do interpret his act as a literal burnt-sacrifice. Personally, I think that there would be no way that the author of Hebrews would (under inspiration) glorify God through Jeptha's faith in Heb.11:32.



The author of Hebrews also included David(an adulterer), Gideon(an idolator--cf Judges 8:27), Jacob(a liar and a thief), Rahab(a prostitute), and so forth. I don't think that Jephthah's sin--if it does extend to burning his daughter--impedes God's glory through his faith.

I could be wrong. I don't know.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ben,
Given what else we read about Israel's attitude toward human-sacrifice (of the grossest form), I'll just have to disagree with you. That's not to miss the fact that all the saints of Heb.11 are sinners too, but Jeptha's seldom remembered apart from his vow, and I can't see Israel (or anyone) admiring him as a hero IF he was so dull of spiritual sense. Seriously.


I recommend Keil & Delitsch commentary to those interested, as well.

Bruce,


> I am not so sure the hall of fame reference is the best way to interperet the text. It is backward hermaneutic. The hall of fame is a list contains names of many sinners whose sins are recorded in the bible. *I think he killed her like the text says*. Her bemoaning of her virginity seems to be a reference to her not having children to pass on the line and name of Jeptha(a tragedy in the ANE) making it even more costly to him.


And *that's* "begging the question" of what the text "says".

And the "backward hermeneutic" statement seems to me to presume a certain view of "history-of-religions" theological evolution, which I reject as a non-starter for Christian interpretation. You don't have to agree with that assessment, but I take the Bible as an organic whole--one that has grown and developed, but which has intertextuality as its fiber. The oak-tree doesn't look like an acorn, but the DNA hasn't changed.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Jephthah's section in the book of Judges is so short that we don't really know what happened afterwards. Even assuming the literal interpretation is true, perhaps God later brought him to better knowledge and repentance. Also, if Jephthah did this deed, I think we could say that he did it in substantial ignorance. The text makes plain he was fulfilling a vow he thought was obligatory before God.

Contrast that to the case of David, who committed both adultery and murder while fully knowing exactly what he was doing. But really, the redeemed sinner David occupies a more exalted place in the record of faith than Jephthah, by serving more than anyone else as a type of Jesus Christ in his office as King over God's people, ruling as a man after God's own heart.

Speaking of David, and more particularly of Jesus, Jephthah did this at a period in Israelite history when there was no king, and every man did what was right in his own eyes. So will we do without the shepherding of our King.




EDIT -- Whoops, David is in Heb 11 by name.


----------



## Elimelek

Dear Contra_Mundum and the rest

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes  and for all those clarifying the part about Hebrews 11. In the end everything boils down to how we understand the inspiration of the Bible. Personally I see it as God's Word in human words (God se Woord in mensetaal), so even with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit there is room for interpretation and understanding of Bible writers who were human, like you and me.

I respect your take as well as those of others on this passage. It is interesting that the Bible doesn't state explicitly that Jephtah sacrificed her as a burnt offering. Yet, in Judges 11 verse 40 we read, "that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephtah the Gileadite four days in the year." I just wonder, what whould be the reason for the lamentation (if that is how the Hebrew should be translated)? 

The only thing the Bible is clear about is that Jepthah honoured his vow. Judges 11:39 reads:


> And at the end of the two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made... (ESV)


 The vow was stated in Judges 11:30b-31 as follows:


> If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.


 I would think that the implication is clear, how horrible it may be!

For me, it makes sense that the Israelites and their judges started to mingle with the Canaanites in such a way, that they even thought about God and tried to worship Him along the lines of the Canaanite gods. 

Kind regards


Elimelek (or whatever)


----------



## Elimelek

Yes I did, the idea of offering an animal in the place of his first born is possible (like Christ with us), but I still don't understand why the daugthers of Israel mourned every year four days in the mountains? I agree that Jephtah's name was blotted out, due to his vow. 

There are two possible parallels that should also be considered in Old Testament when considering Jephtah's sacrificial act, namely the episode where Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22) [if it was not for the angel of the Lord that called from heaven a second time, Abraham would probably have sacrificed Isaac (Gen 22:15-19)] and an episode involving Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14 [Saul made a rash vow, 'Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.' (1 Sam 14:24). Jonathan didn't know about it, and he ate some honey (1 Sam 14:27). In 1 Sam 14:45 Saul says, "God do so to me and more also; you shall surely die, Jonathan" (ESV). Saul was prepared to honour his vow by ensuring that Jonathan is put to death. However the Israelites saved Jonathan.]

In both cases the fathers (Abraham and Saul) were prepared to have their sons killed. In Abraham's case, because he listened to God, in Saul's case because of his vow. 

I wonder how the abovementioned texts could illuminate Judges 11?

Kind regards


Elimelek (or whatever)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A couple thoughts on Abraham and Saul (see Elimelek's post #21):

--Abraham also testified to his faith in the resurrection when he says: "And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder; and *we will worship, and come again to you*." Gen 22:5 ; cf. Heb.11:19. And the Lord ultimately did not mean for Abraham to actually kill Isaac, and restrained him.


--Saul *erred*, and Israel _*restrained*_ him. Saul might have (if Jeptha was believed to be a righteous instance) appealed to the former leader's recorded act, as a prior instance of approved example of honoring of a difficult oath. If such were the case, how should Israel have reacted?


True, no one has yet suggested that Jeptha was righteous if he did burn his daughter. But certainly neither of the other moments suggest that Jeptha should not have refrained from killing her, or indicate that he did in fact.

But, finally, are these passages MORE relevant to interpreting Judges 11 than an appeal to Hebrews 11? A superficial similarity in that the three speak about _killing one's offspring_ does not seem to me to bind the passages together. The details and directions of all three seem to diverge rather than converge.


----------



## py3ak

Numbers 8, although it uses a different word, speaks of Aaron offering the Levites to the Lord. 

In addition, it should be remembered that Jephthah's vow offered God the choice of whatever He wanted from Jephthah's house. Instead of leaving Jephthah in charge of what he would give, it explicitly surrendered that control to God. God chose Jephthah's daughter. For destruction? It would have been no service to the Lord to kill his daughter, contrary to God's laws.

Or look at it this way: what if a donkey had come out? Such an animal could not be offered as a burnt sacrifice: but it could be redeemed, it could be killed, or presumably the priests or Levites could use it. With an indefinite vow such as that, it seems that the presumption should be that whatever winds up being devoted will be devoted according to its nature. Gold was not burned on the altar of incense, and fish were not offered as burnt offerings.


----------



## Skyler

py3ak said:


> Numbers 8, although it uses a different word, speaks of Aaron offering the Levites to the Lord.
> 
> In addition, it should be remembered that Jephthah's vow offered God the choice of whatever He wanted from Jephthah's house. Instead of leaving Jephthah in charge of what he would give, it explicitly surrendered that control to God. God chose Jephthah's daughter. For destruction? It would have been no service to the Lord to kill his daughter, contrary to God's laws.
> 
> Or look at it this way: what if a donkey had come out? Such an animal could not be offered as a burnt sacrifice: but it could be redeemed, it could be killed, or presumably the priests or Levites could use it. With an indefinite vow such as that, it seems that the presumption should be that whatever winds up being devoted will be devoted according to its nature. Gold was not burned on the altar of incense, and fish were not offered as burnt offerings.



Just out of curiosity, why did he specify a "burnt offering" rather than "will be given to the Lord"?


----------



## py3ak

I think it reveals what he had in mind. He made an indefinite vow, but was only thinking in terms of livestock: but God challenged him that giving up a possession is not necessarily deep dedication. When Jephthah said, "You can have whatever you want", God in effect said, "I want your heart".


----------



## Augusta

Did people keep livestock in their houses?  That part has always bugged me. Why would he say it like that? When you come home it is usually people who come out to meet you, or the dog will come to greet you if you have one, but livestock? This whole story is a conundrum.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jonathan,

If "olah" in the text is _not_ a literal sacrifice (and I think it is not), it is an exceptional use of the term; but that is precisely why the passage is a difficult one.

Thus, the question: does Jeptha use "extreme language" to describe his dedication? Ruben has pointed to the "nature" of the thing devoted indicating the proper "nature" of the "devotion", i.e. how it should be done. I think that is a _reasonable_ approach to the text.

I'm not saying it is totally _unreasonable_ to think the text means a "human sacrifice", bloody and burnt. The point made about Israel's degeneration from being a holy people would certainly give that view its strongest appeal, in my opinion. But that's not the sole consideration, or (again, jmo) the interpreter's primary consideration.

If the author (or Jeptha) used the term "Cherem" or "accursed" (e.g Josh.6:18) I would actually be MORE inclined to think that he DID kill her. Another option would have been "qodesh" or "holy/consecrated/devoted" (e.g.Josh.6:19), and that might have been clearer or simpler. But then something expressed in the "olah" terminology is plainly not there.

Finally, we don't know if such a manner (use of "olah") of speaking of things given to the Lord _according to thier nature _was not common in (or before or after) Jeptha's day.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Augusta said:


> Did people keep livestock in their houses?  That part has always bugged me. Why would he say it like that? When you come home it is usually people who come out to meet you, or the dog will come to greet you if you have one, but livestock? This whole story is a conundrum.



It's not so far fetched. I bet many Israelites were more likely to keep a young lamb or kid (goat) in the house than a dog or cat. (Remember, some Americans keep pot bellied pigs in their houses.)

2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, "There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 
2Sa 12:2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 
2Sa 12:3 but the poor man had nothing but *one little ewe lamb*, which he had bought. And *he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him*. 
2Sa 12:4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him." 
2Sa 12:5 Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 
2Sa 12:6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." ​


----------



## TimV

> Or look at it this way: what if a donkey had come out? Such an animal could not be offered as a burnt sacrifice: but it could be redeemed, it could be killed, or presumably the priests or Levites could use it.



I'm having a "why didn't I think of that" moment. Donkeys, dogs, people, camels and horses are all illegal to offer as sacrifice. Obviously there was some form of redemption needed, and his daughter had to be offered in some sort of perpetual service. You'd have thunk a theonomist would have spotted that.. but thanks!

Welkom by ons board, Dominee!


----------



## christiana

The problem with all of that is how far it is from what God's word actually said! This has all been hashed out on PB before and I researched some other views, including Matthew Henry who says Jepthah killed his daughter as he had sworn in his oath.
Problem is our human reasoning is far removed from how God thinks. Like said in Psalm, 'You thought I was altogether as you". He isnt and our efforts to make Him human will never succeed, thankfully, as He is a holy sovereign God who does as He pleases and we can just fall into line and take notice. We cannot make it say what it doesnt!! Jephtha killed his daughter!
P.S. I dont have as much trouble with that as I do with chopping up a concubine and placing parts of her on 12 different doorsteps! That is most difficult for me!!


----------



## Wanderer

py3ak said:


> I think it reveals what he had in mind. He made an indefinite vow, but was only thinking in terms of livestock: but God challenged him that giving up a possession is not necessarily deep dedication. When Jephthah said, "You can have whatever you want", God in effect said, "I want your heart".




I'm thinking focusing on the Vow itself is the most import lesson here to be learned. How many times have you seen in movies, on TV, or in real life where some is in a tight spot, makes a promise to God, if God would only help them out, then they will do something in return. And when God "comes through" they may or may not complete their Vow. Most of the time they don't. 

God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.

Jephthah was very careless with his vow, just like most of us are today. God through His sovereignty showed Jephthah that he was careless, and Jephthah knew he had to make good on his promise. Scripture provided no way out for him. If he didn't complete his promise, then he will sinned against God. And if he did complete the he would loose his daughter.

As to human sacrifices, almost everyone I know say this is a terrible thing. But wait! Didn't God tell Abraham to sacrifice his only son? And wasn't Christ sacrificed for us all on a cross? I'm not trying to say the Christian should make human sacrifices, but there are rare instances where a human sacrifice was required, that being Christs. And there was a time where the wiliness to make a human sacrifice was evidence of faith.

With all that in mind, we see that Jephthah made a foolish promise to his God. God reveals to Jephthah is foolish promise made to him. And then we see Jephthah fulfilling his promise. Didn't Jephthah wiliness to carry through with his promise similar to Abraham's? After all, didn't Abraham reckoned that God could raise his son up from the dead? Couldn't it be possible that Jephthah thought the same thing? Anyhow we all know that God will indeed raise her up in the last days.

Now, God being the one that the promise was made to could have very well release Jephthah from his promise and prevented him from sacrificing his daughter, just like he prevented Abraham from making his sacrifice. But we don't see that God stopped the sacrifice. And scripture infers that Jephthah made good on his oath to God. Also scripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Jephthah sinned by killing his daughter. Therefore we can's say that he sinned by fulfilling his oath. 

Thus, the lesson to be learned from this passage I believe is that God wants us to fulfill our promises, and to take them seriously.

Did you promise your spouse that you will love, honor and cherish them to death? The you better do it!

Did you promise to pay your mortgage? Then do it!

Now days people are always looking for some escape from fulfilling their promises. One thing came be said about Jephthah, and that is, he made good on his promise to God, even when he really, really, really, with tears in his eye, didn't want to do it. And do you think if he could have thought of a loop hole in his promise, don't you think he would have tried to exercise it? The fact is, there was no way out for him. He had to do it.


*(BTW, I hope I don't receive to many negative replies. I know by taking this position in the past that I've been labeled as some sort of heretic, but I believe my view is the correct one. Though I know it is probably the most politically incorrect view. )*


----------



## py3ak

The concubine has never bothered me: thinking that a given Levite is a very cold, heartless man doesn't seem like much of a stretch: and sending a strong message by dissecting someone who was already dead doesn't even seem that unreasonable.

But offering an abomination to God, _in fulfillment of a vow_, where _God_ chose the content of the sacrifice, and appearing with Abraham and Moses as an encouragement to those who do not draw back to perdition but rather believe to the saving of the soul - now that's a bit hard to grasp. I think when you put it in its total Biblical context, when you see the theological context it comes in, when you use the law of charity towards Jephthah as you interpret (not hard to do given his excellent command of the OT -see chapter 10), and when you look closely at certain details of the narrative, it is not hard to see that he did fulfill his vow, though it was hard for him; but nothing is spelled out as to the manner in which he fulfilled his vow, and we know from Numbers 8 that sacrificial language could be used in a figurative sense.

-----Added 2/2/2009 at 09:31:14 EST-----



TimV said:


> Welkom by ons board, Dominee!



I didn't know you spoke in tongues, Tim!


----------



## christiana

Soooo, are we not straining to see what is more acceptable to us, rather than what is quite clearly stated?
Strange how so much is left to our own thoughts on this dilemma, is it not?


----------



## TimV

> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.



That's not just wrong, it's really, really wrong, as any major confession will tell you. Not that one needs the confessions for this one.


----------



## py3ak

No, I don't think so. After all, what is _clearly_ stated is that Jephthah performed his vow: I haven't seen any denials of that point. The question relates to the _manner_ in which that vow was performed: and again, an unclean, unsacrificeable animal could have emerged. 

But let me return to the point of charity: Jephthah I take to be our brother in Christ. As such, even in our interpretations of Scripture, we owe him charity. It is not charity to think that he behaved as though Jehovah were Molech, pleased with the stench of burning human flesh.

-----Added 2/2/2009 at 09:50:50 EST-----



Wanderer said:


> Now, God being the one that the promise was made to could have very well release Jephthah from his promise and prevented him from sacrificing his daughter, just like he prevented Abraham from making his sacrifice. But we don't see that God stopped the sacrifice. And scripture infers that Jephthah made good on his oath to God. Also scripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Jephthah sinned by killing his daughter. Therefore we can's say that he sinned by fulfilling his oath.



I think there is a shorter way to absolve Jephthah from sin: pay attention to details in the text (lamenting virginity, for instance); pay attention to theological context; and Jephthah fulfilled his vow, but he did it in a way appropriate to the victim God chose. 

Even when God did give a command for Abraham to slay Isaac, God prevented the execution of that command.


----------



## Wanderer

TimV said:


> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just wrong, it's really, really wrong, as any major confession will tell you. Not that one needs the confessions for this one.
Click to expand...




Ok, Tim. I'll bite. Educate me please.

Which confessions are what scripture say that God does not take vows seriously?

Which confession are what scripture says or indicates that we shouldn't be careful about what we promise?

What confession or scripture says or indicates that God will not hold us to our word?


----------



## Theoretical

Wanderer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reveals what he had in mind. He made an indefinite vow, but was only thinking in terms of livestock: but God challenged him that giving up a possession is not necessarily deep dedication. When Jephthah said, "You can have whatever you want", God in effect said, "I want your heart".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking focusing on the Vow itself is the most import lesson here to be learned. How many times have you seen in movies, on TV, or in real life where some is in a tight spot, makes a promise to God, if God would only help them out, then they will do something in return. And when God "comes through" they may or may not complete their Vow. Most of the time they don't.
> 
> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> Jephthah was very careless with his vow, just like most of us are today. God through His sovereignty showed Jephthah that he was careless, and Jephthah knew he had to make good on his promise. Scripture provided no way out for him. If he didn't complete his promise, then he will sinned against God. And if he did complete the he would loose his daughter.
> 
> As to human sacrifices, almost everyone I know say this is a terrible thing. But wait! Didn't God tell Abraham to sacrifice his only son? And wasn't Christ sacrificed for us all on a cross? I'm not trying to say the Christian should make human sacrifices, but there are rare instances where a human sacrifice was required, that being Christs. And there was a time where the wiliness to make a human sacrifice was evidence of faith.
> 
> With all that in mind, we see that Jephthah made a foolish promise to his God. God reveals to Jephthah is foolish promise made to him. And then we see Jephthah fulfilling his promise. Didn't Jephthah wiliness to carry through with his promise similar to Abraham's? After all, didn't Abraham reckoned that God could raise his son up from the dead? Couldn't it be possible that Jephthah thought the same thing? Anyhow we all know that God will indeed raise her up in the last days.
> 
> Now, God being the one that the promise was made to could have very well release Jephthah from his promise and prevented him from sacrificing his daughter, just like he prevented Abraham from making his sacrifice. But we don't see that God stopped the sacrifice. And scripture infers that Jephthah made good on his oath to God. Also scripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Jephthah sinned by killing his daughter. Therefore we can's say that he sinned by fulfilling his oath.
> 
> Thus, the lesson to be learned from this passage I believe is that God wants us to fulfill our promises, and to take them seriously.
> 
> Did you promise your spouse that you will love, honor and cherish them to death? The you better do it!
> 
> Did you promise to pay your mortgage? Then do it!
> 
> Now days people are always looking for some escape from fulfilling their promises. One thing came be said about Jephthah, and that is, he made good on his promise to God, even when he really, really, really, with tears in his eye, didn't want to do it. And do you think if he could have thought of a loop hole in his promise, don't you think he would have tried to exercise it? The fact is, there was no way out for him. He had to do it.
> 
> 
> *(BTW, I hope I don't receive to many negative replies. I know by taking this position in the past that I've been labeled as some sort of heretic, but I believe my view is the correct one. Though I know it is probably the most politically incorrect view. )*
Click to expand...


So if I vow to God tomorrow to:

(1) Say prayers to Allah
(2) Build and worship an idol
(3) Blaspheme all three persons of the Trinity
(4) Actively and vigorously break the Sabbath and do everything I can to make others do so.
(5) Tell my parents I want them to burn and actively slander their name in the community.
(6) Kill and beat up as many people as I want to do.
(7) Hire a prostitute and try to seduce as many friends as I can.
(8) Joyride a few cars, steal my roommate's stuff, and generally be a thief.
(9) Lie profusely and viciously, both about myself and those I wish to slander.
(10) Covet and desire every good thing everyone I know has.

What I am hearing alleged here is that if I make this vow, unless God himself stays my hand, I sin _unless_ I fulfill every aspect of my vow. Your position leaves only 2 options:

(1) That fulfilling the vow is not sinful, and the sinful nature of the acts promised are still sinful, so either fulfilling or not fulfilling the vow is sin.

(2) That fulfilling the vow makes previously sinful acts no longer sinful because committing them is now your obligation before God.

Neither position seems to me at all consistent with God's holiness and hatred of sin. Moreover, if both fulfilling and not fulfilling the vow is sin, then there's no door for repentance whatsover.

Am I missing something here?



TimV said:


> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just wrong, it's really, really wrong, as any major confession will tell you. Not that one needs the confessions for this one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wanderer

py3ak said:


> No, I don't think so. After all, what is _clearly_ stated is that Jephthah performed his vow: I haven't seen any denials of that point. The question relates to the _manner_ in which that vow was performed: and again, an unclean, unsacrificeable animal could have emerged.
> 
> But let me return to the point of charity: Jephthah I take to be our brother in Christ. As such, even in our interpretations of Scripture, we owe him charity. It is not charity to think that he behaved as though Jehovah were Molech, pleased with the stench of burning human flesh.
> 
> -----Added 2/2/2009 at 09:50:50 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, God being the one that the promise was made to could have very well release Jephthah from his promise and prevented him from sacrificing his daughter, just like he prevented Abraham from making his sacrifice. But we don't see that God stopped the sacrifice. And scripture infers that Jephthah made good on his oath to God. Also scripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Jephthah sinned by killing his daughter. Therefore we can's say that he sinned by fulfilling his oath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a shorter way to absolve Jephthah from sin: pay attention to details in the text (lamenting virginity, for instance); pay attention to theological context; and Jephthah fulfilled his vow, but he did it in a way appropriate to the victim God chose.
> 
> Even when God did give a command for Abraham to slay Isaac, God prevented the execution of that command.
Click to expand...




I don't quite understand. I'm not trying to absolve ( to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt) Jephthah from sin. For other than him not being careful with the making of his vow, I don't see any sin on his part.


----------



## TimV

You said



> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.



Then you said



> Ok, Tim. I'll bite. Educate me please.
> 
> What confession or scripture says or indicates that God will not hold us to our word?



And I timed myself, and in less than two minutes after typing WCF oaths vows in at Google I found: (yes, I knew it was there, but still)



> 7. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.



Friend, it was NO VOW. It was an ILLEGAL VOW, and wasn't binding. Like Oedipus Rex, he WASN'T MARRIED since the VOW WAS ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE NO VOW.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Folks, 

I really don't think Jephthah's "oath" - whatever he meant or whatever he did with his daughter - is in view in Hebrews 11, anymore than David's adultery is in view, or Abraham's cowardice in Egypt... I think that Hebrews 11 is referencing him as someone who had faith that he would conquer his enemies because of the Lord.


----------



## Theoretical

SolaScriptura said:


> Folks,
> 
> I really don't think Jephthah's "oath" - whatever he meant or whatever he did with his daughter - is in view in Hebrews 11, anymore than David's adultery is in view, or Abraham's cowardice in Egypt... I think that Hebrews 11 is referencing him as someone who had faith that he would conquer his enemies because of the Lord.


True, and even if he did sacrifice his daughter via an unlawful vow, horrible a sin though it is, he could be forgiven of it.


----------



## Wanderer

Theoretical said:


> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reveals what he had in mind. He made an indefinite vow, but was only thinking in terms of livestock: but God challenged him that giving up a possession is not necessarily deep dedication. When Jephthah said, "You can have whatever you want", God in effect said, "I want your heart".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking focusing on the Vow itself is the most import lesson here to be learned. How many times have you seen in movies, on TV, or in real life where some is in a tight spot, makes a promise to God, if God would only help them out, then they will do something in return. And when God "comes through" they may or may not complete their Vow. Most of the time they don't.
> 
> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> Jephthah was very careless with his vow, just like most of us are today. God through His sovereignty showed Jephthah that he was careless, and Jephthah knew he had to make good on his promise. Scripture provided no way out for him. If he didn't complete his promise, then he will sinned against God. And if he did complete the he would loose his daughter.
> 
> As to human sacrifices, almost everyone I know say this is a terrible thing. But wait! Didn't God tell Abraham to sacrifice his only son? And wasn't Christ sacrificed for us all on a cross? I'm not trying to say the Christian should make human sacrifices, but there are rare instances where a human sacrifice was required, that being Christs. And there was a time where the wiliness to make a human sacrifice was evidence of faith.
> 
> With all that in mind, we see that Jephthah made a foolish promise to his God. God reveals to Jephthah is foolish promise made to him. And then we see Jephthah fulfilling his promise. Didn't Jephthah wiliness to carry through with his promise similar to Abraham's? After all, didn't Abraham reckoned that God could raise his son up from the dead? Couldn't it be possible that Jephthah thought the same thing? Anyhow we all know that God will indeed raise her up in the last days.
> 
> Now, God being the one that the promise was made to could have very well release Jephthah from his promise and prevented him from sacrificing his daughter, just like he prevented Abraham from making his sacrifice. But we don't see that God stopped the sacrifice. And scripture infers that Jephthah made good on his oath to God. Also scripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Jephthah sinned by killing his daughter. Therefore we can's say that he sinned by fulfilling his oath.
> 
> Thus, the lesson to be learned from this passage I believe is that God wants us to fulfill our promises, and to take them seriously.
> 
> Did you promise your spouse that you will love, honor and cherish them to death? The you better do it!
> 
> Did you promise to pay your mortgage? Then do it!
> 
> Now days people are always looking for some escape from fulfilling their promises. One thing came be said about Jephthah, and that is, he made good on his promise to God, even when he really, really, really, with tears in his eye, didn't want to do it. And do you think if he could have thought of a loop hole in his promise, don't you think he would have tried to exercise it? The fact is, there was no way out for him. He had to do it.
> 
> 
> *(BTW, I hope I don't receive to many negative replies. I know by taking this position in the past that I've been labeled as some sort of heretic, but I believe my view is the correct one. Though I know it is probably the most politically incorrect view. )*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I vow to God tomorrow to:
> 
> (1) Say prayers to Allah
> (2) Build and worship an idol
> (3) Blaspheme all three persons of the Trinity
> (4) Actively and vigorously break the Sabbath and do everything I can to make others do so.
> (5) Tell my parents I want them to burn and actively slander their name in the community.
> (6) Kill and beat up as many people as I want to do.
> (7) Hire a prostitute and try to seduce as many friends as I can.
> (8) Joyride a few cars, steal my roommate's stuff, and generally be a thief.
> (9) Lie profusely and viciously, both about myself and those I wish to slander.
> (10) Covet and desire every good thing everyone I know has.
> 
> What I am hearing alleged here is that if I make this vow, unless God himself stays my hand, I sin _unless_ I fulfill every aspect of my vow. Your position leaves only 2 options:
> 
> (1) That fulfilling the vow is not sinful, and the sinful nature of the acts promised are still sinful, so either fulfilling or not fulfilling the vow is sin.
> 
> (2) That fulfilling the vow makes previously sinful acts no longer sinful because committing them is now your obligation before God.
> 
> Neither position seems to me at all consistent with God's holiness and hatred of sin. Moreover, if both fulfilling and not fulfilling the vow is sin, then there's no door for repentance whatsover.
> 
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just wrong, it's really, really wrong, as any major confession will tell you. Not that one needs the confessions for this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I think you are taking the position to the extreme.

What I am saying that if you are going to make a promise, you are to take in consideration of what you are promising. 

Therefore, before taking any oath or promise, one is to examine that promise very carefully, realizing that you will be held to your word and judged accordingly. I would advise anyone in general that they should not make promises if they can at all avoid it. I believe that would be in accordance with the King's commands, for didn't the King say:

" Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. "

So when I read the story of Jephthah and his daughter, I think back on the King's words and say how much better are his ways than mine. And many times before I sign a contract of some sort or make a promise of any kind, I think on Jephthah daughter. 

Isn't this what the King would have us to do?

Christians are to be characterized as a people that keep their oaths. Christ is very clear on that fact.


As far as a door to repentance. I think back about the women who was convicted of murder in Texas. And then in prison she became a christian. Just because she repented of her sin, didn't mean that she wasn't to suffer the consequences of her sin. Yes, God could have been merciful to her, and he could have been merciful to Jephthah in this matter. But he chose for the women to be executed for her sins, and like wise he chose for Jephthah daughter to die. After all, isn't it He that decrees when we live, where we live, when we die, and how we die?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Mac!
How is it NOT a sin to make a burnt offering of a person?

There are NO examples of this as "OK" in the Bible, and the one example we DO have, 2Ki.3:27, Israel recognized as unbelievable abomination!

Isaac? 1) God gave a specific COMMAND to do it, 2) God intended that it should NOT be fulfilled, and ended his trial of Abraham when Abraham achieved what God DID intend.

Not even people who think Jeptha DID kill her think he did the RIGHT thing!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not even people who think Jeptha DID kill her think he did the RIGHT thing!



True that!


----------



## Theoretical

Wanderer said:


> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking focusing on the Vow itself is the most import lesson here to be learned. How many times have you seen in movies, on TV, or in real life where some is in a tight spot, makes a promise to God, if God would only help them out, then they will do something in return. And when God "comes through" they may or may not complete their Vow. Most of the time they don't.
> 
> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> Jephthah was very careless with his vow, just like most of us are today. God through His sovereignty showed Jephthah that he was careless, and Jephthah knew he had to make good on his promise. Scripture provided no way out for him. If he didn't complete his promise, then he will sinned against God. And if he did complete the he would loose his daughter.
> 
> As to human sacrifices, almost everyone I know say this is a terrible thing. But wait! Didn't God tell Abraham to sacrifice his only son? And wasn't Christ sacrificed for us all on a cross? I'm not trying to say the Christian should make human sacrifices, but there are rare instances where a human sacrifice was required, that being Christs. And there was a time where the wiliness to make a human sacrifice was evidence of faith.
> 
> With all that in mind, we see that Jephthah made a foolish promise to his God. God reveals to Jephthah is foolish promise made to him. And then we see Jephthah fulfilling his promise. Didn't Jephthah wiliness to carry through with his promise similar to Abraham's? After all, didn't Abraham reckoned that God could raise his son up from the dead? Couldn't it be possible that Jephthah thought the same thing? Anyhow we all know that God will indeed raise her up in the last days.
> 
> Now, God being the one that the promise was made to could have very well release Jephthah from his promise and prevented him from sacrificing his daughter, just like he prevented Abraham from making his sacrifice. But we don't see that God stopped the sacrifice. And scripture infers that Jephthah made good on his oath to God. Also scripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Jephthah sinned by killing his daughter. Therefore we can's say that he sinned by fulfilling his oath.
> 
> Thus, the lesson to be learned from this passage I believe is that God wants us to fulfill our promises, and to take them seriously.
> 
> Did you promise your spouse that you will love, honor and cherish them to death? The you better do it!
> 
> Did you promise to pay your mortgage? Then do it!
> 
> Now days people are always looking for some escape from fulfilling their promises. One thing came be said about Jephthah, and that is, he made good on his promise to God, even when he really, really, really, with tears in his eye, didn't want to do it. And do you think if he could have thought of a loop hole in his promise, don't you think he would have tried to exercise it? The fact is, there was no way out for him. He had to do it.
> 
> 
> *(BTW, I hope I don't receive to many negative replies. I know by taking this position in the past that I've been labeled as some sort of heretic, but I believe my view is the correct one. Though I know it is probably the most politically incorrect view. )*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I vow to God tomorrow to:
> 
> (1) Say prayers to Allah
> (2) Build and worship an idol
> (3) Blaspheme all three persons of the Trinity
> (4) Actively and vigorously break the Sabbath and do everything I can to make others do so.
> (5) Tell my parents I want them to burn and actively slander their name in the community.
> (6) Kill and beat up as many people as I want to do.
> (7) Hire a prostitute and try to seduce as many friends as I can.
> (8) Joyride a few cars, steal my roommate's stuff, and generally be a thief.
> (9) Lie profusely and viciously, both about myself and those I wish to slander.
> (10) Covet and desire every good thing everyone I know has.
> 
> What I am hearing alleged here is that if I make this vow, unless God himself stays my hand, I sin _unless_ I fulfill every aspect of my vow. Your position leaves only 2 options:
> 
> (1) That fulfilling the vow is not sinful, and the sinful nature of the acts promised are still sinful, so either fulfilling or not fulfilling the vow is sin.
> 
> (2) That fulfilling the vow makes previously sinful acts no longer sinful because committing them is now your obligation before God.
> 
> Neither position seems to me at all consistent with God's holiness and hatred of sin. Moreover, if both fulfilling and not fulfilling the vow is sin, then there's no door for repentance whatsover.
> 
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just wrong, it's really, really wrong, as any major confession will tell you. Not that one needs the confessions for this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are taking the position to the extreme.
> 
> What I am saying that if you are going to make a promise, you are to take in consideration of what you are promising.
> 
> Therefore, before taking any oath or promise, one is to examine that promise very carefully, realizing that you will be held to your word and judged accordingly. I would advise anyone in general that they should not make promises if they can at all avoid it. I believe that would be in accordance with the King's commands, for didn't the King say:
> 
> " Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. "
> 
> So when I read the story of Jephthah and his daughter, I think back on the King's words and say how much better are his ways than mine. And many times before I sign a contract of some sort or make a promise of any kind, I think on Jephthah daughter.
> 
> Isn't this what the King would have us to do?
> 
> Christians are to be characterized as a people that keep their oaths. Christ is very clear on that fact.
Click to expand...

But the position has to be taken to the extreme. 

If there's a threshold for which breaking the vow is less sinful than carrying it out, then where is it located? If repenting of the vow and NOT carrying it out is not a valid option, then what option is there?

If I vow those things I've mentioned, under your position am I or am I not morally obligated to carry them out? 

If I repent of the oath I made does it discharge the vow or am I still obligated to carry it out?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Even if it would be a sin to break an oath to commit murder (I'm granting that for the sake of argument)... it would be a far lesser sin to say, "Lord, please forgive me for my hasty oath to commit an egregious sin," than to go on and carry out the murder.


----------



## satz

Here is, at least as I see it, another example of someone deciding to break off an oath to sin after he realised that to fulfil the oath would be sinful. David did not explicitly use the word "oath" or "vow", but he did invoke the name of God.



> 1 Sam 25:21Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good. 22So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 23And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, 24And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid. 25Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. 26Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. 27And now this blessing which thine handmaid hath brought unto my lord, let it even be given unto the young men that follow my lord. 28I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine handmaid: for the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of the LORD, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days. 29Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling. 30And it shall come to pass, when the LORD shall have done to my lord according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee ruler over Israel; 31That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself: but when the LORD shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid. 32And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: 33And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. 34For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 35So David received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person.


----------



## Wanderer

TimV said:


> You said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God takes Vows very seriously. I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should be very careful about what we promise, and realize that God will hold us to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Tim. I'll bite. Educate me please.
> 
> What confession or scripture says or indicates that God will not hold us to our word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I timed myself, and in less than two minutes after typing WCF oaths vows in at Google I found: (yes, I knew it was there, but still)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friend, it was NO VOW. It was an ILLEGAL VOW, and wasn't binding. Like Oedipus Rex, he WASN'T MARRIED since the VOW WAS ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE NO VOW.
Click to expand...


Hmm. So the WCF provide one an escape clause when contracting with God?

I don't think that argument will hold much water.

BTW, the WCF just say, "No man may vow", I don't see any kind of release in that statement, giving the someone an out. If anything, the WCF is suggesting that the person is committing a sin in making the vow. Which agrees with what I have been saying all along.

As to Oedipus Rex, who says he wasn't married? Yes he was tricked into marring his mother, and that was a incestuous marriage, and in order for him to be right before God if he was a Christian, then a divorce would seem to be mandated. By the way wasn't Jocasta made queen because she was married to her son? At least that is how I remember the tragedy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

OK.
Mac, within the bounds of the confessions that rule this board, defining what has already been agreed to as "biblical" and already "proven"--which you agreed to abide by--your view is unconfessional, meaning it is unbiblical.

This is a moderating warning. Cease promoting the view that *compounding sin* is _not _adding sin to sin, and making an evil situation worse.

You may not fulfill a vow to sin. You may not offer to God worship in an unacceptable manner, something he has not commanded, or has disallowed.


----------



## Wanderer

satz said:


> Here is, at least as I see it, another example of someone deciding to break off an oath to sin after he realised that to fulfil the oath would be sinful. David did not explicitly use the word "oath" or "vow", but he did invoke the name of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Sam 25:21Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good. 22So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 23And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, 24And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid. 25Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. 26Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. 27And now this blessing which thine handmaid hath brought unto my lord, let it even be given unto the young men that follow my lord. 28I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine handmaid: for the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of the LORD, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days. 29Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling. 30And it shall come to pass, when the LORD shall have done to my lord according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee ruler over Israel; 31That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself: but when the LORD shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid. 32And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: 33And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. 34For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 35So David received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person.
Click to expand...


I love this story. Here you see King David declaring judgment on this wicket man, very much the same way that God declares judgment on sinners. But notice, the scriptures indicate that the Lord sent Abigail to cause him to repent of what he was planning. For doesn't the scriptures say, "Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me."

And if there was an oath in there, it should be noted that David said, "So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." 

Meaning, he is saying that if he doesn't kill this man and all the men, then the God should also spare the enemies of David. David could say this, but this statement by itself does not obligate him nor God. So in reality all that it means is that David was very enraged and was planning on killing some men. And he would have done so, if he Lord didn't send Abigail to stop him.

-----Added 2/2/2009 at 11:13:49 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> OK.
> Mac, within the bounds of the confessions that rule this board, defining what has already been agreed to as "biblical" and already "proven"--which you agreed to abide by--your view is unconfessional, meaning it is unbiblical.
> 
> This is a moderating warning. Cease promoting the view that *compounding sin* is _not _adding sin to sin, and making an evil situation worse.
> 
> You may not fulfill a vow to sin. You may not offer to God worship in an unacceptable manner, something he has not commanded or disallowed.





Actually I would agree strongly with:

"You may not fulfill a vow to sin. You may not offer to God worship in an unacceptable manner, something he has not commanded. "


I'm would also state that you can not make a vow to sin, which is in line with the confession.

I don't think I was promoting anything other Christian are to consider seriously their vows prior to taking them so that they wouldn't sin by taking those vows or sin in keeping those vows.

If someone believes that I was promoting sin by promoting that which I immediately just said, please PM me. This would be of great concern to me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

OK, Mac. I wouldn't want to mistakenly attribute to you something you didn't say. But it did appear, _even after the WCF was quoted to you,_ that you had an issue with what it said, namely that it was sinful to fulfill a sinful vow, that somehow the WCF was offering an illegitimate "escape clause" for the "inconvenience" of fulfilling such a vow as was sinful to bind oneself to performing.

That sort of vow should be *repented of,* correct? Abjured, and not performed.

It seems that, so far in this thread, you have been the only person taking the position that Jeptha DID kill the girl, but DIDN'T sin when he did so.

Rather than arguing for the necessity of fulfilling "difficult" vows, and "swearing to your own hurt," it would have been prudent to deal with the great and many problems that are raised when the rashness of the vow in the first place is superseded by the apparent sinfulness of trying to carry it out by the "most obvious" method.

It is indeed the case that a "rash" vow must frequently be performed, even when the cost is high, but the consequences are not sinful. Detrimental maybe, but not excusable.

But note what the confession says regarding "monastical" vows. Without promise from God to fulfill them, and positive commands to marry and be fruitful, it is more sinful not to repent of the original vow, and abjure it, than to "suck it up" and stay single because you "vowed it to God."

It would be an easy argument to make that _the "cost" may be high, but that's the price you pay for not thinking far enough ahead. She can find another man, but you're stuck in the cloister._ The point is clear enough, I think. We need _*Scriptural warrant, with no disallowance*_, for the vows in the first place, since they are an "element of religious worship," invoking God as witness.


----------



## Wanderer

Theoretical said:


> Wanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I vow to God tomorrow to:
> 
> (1) Say prayers to Allah
> (2) Build and worship an idol
> (3) Blaspheme all three persons of the Trinity
> (4) Actively and vigorously break the Sabbath and do everything I can to make others do so.
> (5) Tell my parents I want them to burn and actively slander their name in the community.
> (6) Kill and beat up as many people as I want to do.
> (7) Hire a prostitute and try to seduce as many friends as I can.
> (8) Joyride a few cars, steal my roommate's stuff, and generally be a thief.
> (9) Lie profusely and viciously, both about myself and those I wish to slander.
> (10) Covet and desire every good thing everyone I know has.
> 
> What I am hearing alleged here is that if I make this vow, unless God himself stays my hand, I sin _unless_ I fulfill every aspect of my vow. Your position leaves only 2 options:
> 
> (1) That fulfilling the vow is not sinful, and the sinful nature of the acts promised are still sinful, so either fulfilling or not fulfilling the vow is sin.
> 
> (2) That fulfilling the vow makes previously sinful acts no longer sinful because committing them is now your obligation before God.
> 
> Neither position seems to me at all consistent with God's holiness and hatred of sin. Moreover, if both fulfilling and not fulfilling the vow is sin, then there's no door for repentance whatsover.
> 
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are taking the position to the extreme.
> 
> What I am saying that if you are going to make a promise, you are to take in consideration of what you are promising.
> 
> Therefore, before taking any oath or promise, one is to examine that promise very carefully, realizing that you will be held to your word and judged accordingly. I would advise anyone in general that they should not make promises if they can at all avoid it. I believe that would be in accordance with the King's commands, for didn't the King say:
> 
> " Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. "
> 
> So when I read the story of Jephthah and his daughter, I think back on the King's words and say how much better are his ways than mine. And many times before I sign a contract of some sort or make a promise of any kind, I think on Jephthah daughter.
> 
> Isn't this what the King would have us to do?
> 
> Christians are to be characterized as a people that keep their oaths. Christ is very clear on that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the position has to be taken to the extreme.
> 
> If there's a threshold for which breaking the vow is less sinful than carrying it out, then where is it located? If repenting of the vow and NOT carrying it out is not a valid option, then what option is there?
> 
> If I vow those things I've mentioned, under your position am I or am I not morally obligated to carry them out?
> 
> If I repent of the oath I made does it discharge the vow or am I still obligated to carry it out?
Click to expand...



Point taken.

This is why I avoid if at all possible taking a vow in the first place. Promises can get you into sticky situations. I think of many scriptural references. I think about where Joshua made a vow with the Gibeonites. It was sin for him to make such as vow in the first place, but he still had to keep it anyways.

Also, least Numbers gives wives and daughters an out for rash vows, where I can't find any relief for men.

I need to give this more thought.

We all know that the avoidance of sin, and the compounding of sin needs to be avoided, and we all know that God provides us a ways out of sin. So there must be a path of reasoning here.

But right now I don't see it.

My main point has always been refrain from making sinful promises in the first place. Ya know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But, oh what to do when you are trapped in sin!!!!!!

All that I can say to the sinner right now is for him to cry out to God for mercy.


----------



## TimV

> But, oh what to do when you are trapped in sin!!!!!!
> 
> All that I can say to the sinner right now is for him to cry out to God for mercy.



And not compound sin. Right? 'cause if you agree with this I think we're all on the same page.

Peace, brother.


----------



## Theoretical

TimV said:


> But, oh what to do when you are trapped in sin!!!!!!
> 
> All that I can say to the sinner right now is for him to cry out to God for mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not compound sin. Right? 'cause if you agree with this I think we're all on the same page.
> 
> Peace, brother.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wanderer

Contra_Mundum said:


> OK, Mac. I wouldn't want to mistakenly attribute to you something you didn't say. But it did appear, _even after the WCF was quoted to you,_ that you had an issue with what it said, namely that it was sinful to fulfill a sinful vow, that somehow the WCF was offering an illegitimate "escape clause" for the "inconvenience" of fulfilling such a vow as was sinful to bind oneself to performing.
> 
> That sort of vow should be *repented of,* correct? Abjured, and not performed.
> 
> It seems that, so far in this thread, you have been the only person taking the position that Jeptha DID kill the girl, but DIDN'T sin when he did so.
> 
> Rather than arguing for the necessity of fulfilling "difficult" vows, and "swearing to your own hurt," it would have been prudent to deal with the great and many problems that are raised when the rashness of the vow in the first place is superseded by the apparent sinfulness of trying to carry it out by the "most obvious" method.
> 
> It is indeed the case that a "rash" vow must frequently be performed, even when the cost is high, but the consequences are not sinful. Detrimental maybe, but not excusable.
> 
> But note what the confession says regarding "monastical" vows. Without promise from God to fulfill them, and positive commands to marry and be fruitful, it is more sinful not to repent of the original vow, and abjure it, than to "suck it up" and stay single because you "vowed it to God."
> 
> It would be an easy argument to make that _the "cost" may be high, but that's the price you pay for not thinking far enough ahead. She can find another man, but you're stuck in the cloister._ The point is clear enough, I think. We need _*Scriptural warrant, with no disallowance*_, for the vows in the first place, since they are an "element of religious worship," invoking God as witness.




I was only commenting that WCF only say that "No man should make a vow". In that taking such as vow be sin.

As to be repented of, I don't think the WCF states that. Chapter 22 is about the taking of lawful oaths and promises more so that the keeping of oaths and promises.

However, I do think about Martin Luther who obviously did away with his monastic vows, and I think of many other people who have broken ties with churches of Satan and I do not believe that God is going to count it against them. For if this were the case, then many of us would be in serious trouble.

But at the same time, I believe it is very dangerous for rules to be laid out on when and when you can not break your promises. Each situation is unique, and each situation I believe requires careful examination, much consultation, and requires much prayer and searching through God's word. 


As far as Jephthah goes, I think he was is a position as Joshua when he made a promise that he shouldn't have. I will say that if he had the WCF Chapter 22 and understood it, he wouldn't have found himself in the mess he was in. But he only had the first five books the bible, and I don't know how much he read them.

How privilege we are to have completed scriptures to guide us!!!!

May we all learn from Jephthah, and I would advice everyone to read WCF Chapter 22 in order to keep us from making unlawful promises.

-----Added 2/3/2009 at 01:22:35 EST-----



Theoretical said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, oh what to do when you are trapped in sin!!!!!!
> 
> All that I can say to the sinner right now is for him to cry out to God for mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not compound sin. Right? 'cause if you agree with this I think we're all on the same page.
> 
> Peace, brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I would agree that we should avoid compounding sin. And many times that can be a fine line.

As far as on the same page, I don't know if we are there together, but we are obviously in the same chapter, and I am trying to catch up to you.


----------



## py3ak

Wanderer said:


> As far as Jephthah goes, I think he was is a position as Joshua when he made a promise that he shouldn't have. I will say that if he had the WCF Chapter 22 and understood it, he wouldn't have found himself in the mess he was in. But he only had the first five books the bible, *and I don't know how much he read them.*



In Judges 10 you see that Jephthah displays some excellent familiarity with those five books.

I think Ecclesiastes has made your main point for you: it is better to not vow, than to vow and not pay.


----------



## LawrenceU

Has anyone read the link that Chris posted above to Bob Vincent's sermon? It encapsulates a lot of the way that I read judges. Those people were not righteous in their actions for the most part. It is a narrative of a gracious God dealing mercifully with a consistently rebellious people. Just look at the great hero Gideon and what he did in leading his people astray after such great success.

I don't think you can rip Jepthah from that context and understand it accurately without doing some serious eisegetical gymnastics.


----------



## Elimelek

Dear friends

I am amazed in how this thread has grown. Please bear with me if I go back on three remarks in some of the earlier posts on this thread.

Joshua wrote:


> So, you don't think having one's name blotted out in the OT was lamentable? Or perpetual virginity of a woman never being able to marry?


Joshua, I am of the opinion that the only way that Jephtah's name could be blotted out was by having no offspring. The clearest way in indicating the end to Jephtah's name in Israel, would have been a sacrifice based on heathen practices. If I remember correctly the god Cemosh of the Moabites were known as someone to whom humans were sacrificed. My take on Jephtah's vow is, that it brought him to the point of getting mixed up with who the Lord really is. Some Israelites started with a syncretistic type of worship, which is even going so far as the prophets. 

The argument that Jephtah's daughter was doing tabernacle duty as a virgin, is more or less build on the silence of the Bible in not describing the sacrifice. Nowhere (else, depending on your point of view) in the Bible (as far as I can tell), is there an example of a woman who was designated to temple/tabernacle service because she was 'sacrificed' to the Lord.

I find it interesting that the early Christian Church saw Jephtah's sacrifice as literal. During the Middle Ages the position started to change and it was said that Jephtah's sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice. Martin Luther saw it as a literal sacrifice.

Contra Mundum wrote:


> But, finally, are these passages MORE relevant to interpreting Judges 11 than an appeal to Hebrews 11? A superficial similarity in that the three speak about killing one's offspring does not seem to me to bind the passages together. The details and directions of all three seem to diverge rather than converge.
> 
> What is clear to me about Judges 11:39-40 is the following:


 It seems to me that we may have different ways of reading the Bible. I am very very cautious of too quickly reading the Old Testament through the eyes of the New Testament. (However I am not saying is should or can't be done, but it would only be my next step.) In Judges 19-20 plays clearly on Genesis 18:16 - 19:38 which implies that Israel has become just as Sodom and Gommora. I mentioned Genesis 22 and 1 Samuel 14 as it is the nearest examples of something similar that is described in the Bible. Yet, we need to be cautious to oversimplify things. There are points of agreement in all three stories and points of disagreement. I am not denying that. 

The Bible is very sympathetic to the victim of Jephtah's vow.
In the context of the Bible, this sacrifice happened in the time before the prophets when the Canaanite peoples made human sacrifices. In 2 Kings 3:26-27 we read of the king of Moab, who sacrificed his firstborn to Cemosh (although the god's name is not mentioned). It shocked the Israelites so much that they turned from their persecution of the Moabites. (This was however in the time of the kings).
The important theme of worshipping the Lord in your own way, recurs in Judges. The book ends with the words:


> In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (ESV)


 This theme is seen in the story of the Levite and how they reverted to Idol worship in Judges 18. It becomes clear in the way that the marginalised are dealt with. Look at how the Levite in Judges 19 treats his concubine.
 [FONT=&quot]Augusta wrote:


> Did people keep livestock in their houses? That part has always bugged me. Why would he say it like that? When you come home it is usually people who come out to meet you, or the dog will come to greet you if you have one, but livestock? This whole story is a conundrum.


The Hebrew word 'bayit' is much more comprehensive than how we understood it today. It could mean 'household,' thus a the people that stays with you and my have nothing to do with animals. 

It is also possible that the ancient Israelites had the same concept of a house than the Zulu and Sotho speaking peoples of South Africa. When they refer to a house, it refers to the house and its immediate surroundings. In Afrikaans we would call it a 'kraal.' (These day, some English Dictionaries also includes the word.) It is the ground, including the place where the cattle are braising, it also includes the family graveyard. If you go to a Zulu person's house (in rural areas), you don't knock and enter when he opens the door, you stand outside his yard and shouts 'Ko-ko' until someone comes out and invite you into the grounds and thus into his house. 

If it is the first option, Jephtah's mistake wasn't just the fact that the vow he took was irresponsible, but that he thought he could manipulate God in the same way as the heathens (Canaanites) believed that they could manipulate their gods. The Lord gives him victory over the Amonites, but He punishes his arrogance and sinful vow severely, by sending out Jephtah's daughter. The Lord is not like other gods, He is the One and true God who no-one should take for granted. 

I wonder if something similar doesn't happen in 1 Samuel 3:19-4:22. The Israelites thought that they could manipulate the Lord by forcing him to be present in battle. By using the symbol of his presence, almost as if God was some sort of a jack-in-the-box that would jump out at any moment, they brought the ark of the covenant in their camp. God punished them by letting this symbol of his presence be captured. It is interesting that Eli dies when he hears that God's ark is gone and Phinehas' wife names her son Ichabod which could be translated, 'Where is the Presence [of God]/ Honour?' Even the Philistines in 1 Samuel 5-7:1 are taught that you don't play or take the Lord for granted. 

I think Jephtah took the Lord for granted with his vow, not remembering that the Lord is not like the Canaanite gods that is easily manipulated.

All and all, this is my take on the story of Jepthah's daughter. I am open to be convinced otherwise.

Kind regards


Elimelek (or whatever) 
[/FONT]


----------



## TsonMariytho

Elimelek said:


> Jephtah





Contra_Mundum said:


> Jeptha





py3ak said:


> Jephthah



Let's standardize our spelling here, folks. It's Yiphtach!

(Actually, let's not.)


----------



## A5pointer

On a lighter note. I am probably the only one here who had the this text preached on at my wedding. The preacher my freind made the point of not taking vow making lightly. You should have seen the faces on many of the attendees after the text was read.


----------



## TsonMariytho

py3ak said:


> In Judges 10 you see that Jephthah displays some excellent familiarity with those five books.



That's a good point. Jephthah was familiar with Israel's history, and knew enough to describe to Ammon why it would be insanity to go up against the Israelite people while they were trusting in God. Jephthah was part of the believing remnant in Israel.

I guess that somewhat works against the "he acted out of ignorance" line -- if not to refute it, then at least to make it somewhat cloudy.


----------



## Skyler

A5pointer said:


> On a lighter note. I am probably the only one here who had the this text preached on at my wedding. The preacher my freind made the point of not taking vow making lightly. You should have seen the faces on many of the attendees after the text was read.


----------



## Theognome

A5pointer said:


> On a lighter note. I am probably the only one here who had the this text preached on at my wedding. The preacher my freind made the point of not taking vow making lightly. You should have seen the faces on many of the attendees after the text was read.



Aye, I know that look. At my wedding, Chopin's funeral march was played on the piano 'cause Toni and I both like the tune. That also caused some 'deer in the headlights' expressions.

Theognome


----------



## PresbyDane

A5pointer said:


> On a lighter note. I am probably the only one here who had the this text preached on at my wedding. The preacher my freind made the point of not taking vow making lightly. You should have seen the faces on many of the attendees after the text was read.



I do not think that would be my choise text for a wedding


----------



## Elimelek

Before Jephthah's tragic vow, he first tries the way of diplomacy. Some of you have mentioned that out of his speech given to the Amorites, it can be decused that he knew the Law of Moses/ Pentateuch very well. I find Judges 11:24 very interesting:


> Will you not possess what *Chemosh* your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess. (ESV)



*Milkom* was the god of the Ammonites, not _*Chemosh*_. It seems that there is a little bit confusion between Amorites, Ammonites and even the Moabites in Judges 11:1-28. Maybe it is because all of them were seen to be the same in their ways. (Anyway, all were Canaanites.) 

I do find it interesting that _*Chemosh*_ is mentioned, while one would actually expect the name of *Milkom *to be associated with the Amorites/ Ammonites. But _*Chemosh*_ would make perfect sense if it's name called to mind human sacrifice. (I've indicated in a previous post that humans were sacrificed to Chemosh.) In such a case the 'house' of Jephthah would be a literal house where only humans stayed. He thus knew that he was promising a human sacrifice. At least the Bible writer intended the first hearers/ readers to understand his vow in such a way - something not acceptable in Israel.

In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) there is no textual note indicating a possible scribal error. The Septuagint also gives the Ammonite god the name 'Chamôs' (Χαμως). (The original vocalisation of the god's name was probably Kamis, but has been changed in the Bible to remind the reader of the Middle Hebrew word meaning "to wither or wrinkle" over and against the possibly more original meaning "conqueror" or "subduer.")


----------



## TsonMariytho

Hello Elimelek,

I don't think it is a good assumption to make, that Jephthah knew he was promising human sacrifice. We have to operate from what we know about him, which was that he was a man of faith. That he could feel forced into a sin out of ignorance is possible, but why would he knowingly set himself up for such?



Elimelek said:


> It seems that there is a little bit confusion between Amorites, Ammonites and even the Moabites in Judges 11:1-28. Maybe it is because all of them were seen to be the same in their ways. (Anyway, all were Canaanites.)



I don't think the above is correct, in a proper sense. There are various lists of the Canaanite nations, e.g:

Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 
Gen 15:19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 
Gen 15:20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 
Gen 15:21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites."​
... however, Israel was not given the land of the Moabites, Ammonites, or Edomites, who were not properly speaking Canaanites, but rather tribes and nations related to Abraham's family with some vestigial respect due them for that reason.

-----Added 2/3/2009 at 04:36:53 EST-----



Elimelek said:


> I find Judges 11:24 very interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you not possess what *Chemosh* your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess. (ESV)
Click to expand...


It is interesting, indeed. So the question is, did Jephthah believe Chemosh was a real god, or is he just using an argumentative tactic here, one that is perhaps ill advised for a man of God, but one which he hoped would be persuasive? Matthew Henry suggests the latter, and points out that the testimony of the Torah is that Yahweh, not the idol Chemosh, parceled out the land of the Ammonites:

Deu 2:19 And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.' 
Deu 2:20 (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there--but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim-- 
Deu 2:21 a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place,​


----------



## py3ak

Elimelek said:


> Before Jephthah's tragic vow, he first tries the way of diplomacy. Some of you have mentioned that out of his speech given to the Amorites, it can be decused that he knew the Law of Moses/ Pentateuch very well. I find Judges 11:24 very interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you not possess what *Chemosh* your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess. (ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Milkom* was the god of the Ammonites, not _*Chemosh*_. It seems that there is a little bit confusion between Amorites, Ammonites and even the Moabites in Judges 11:1-28. Maybe it is because all of them were seen to be the same in their ways. (Anyway, all were Canaanites.)
> 
> I do find it interesting that _*Chemosh*_ is mentioned, while one would actually expect the name of *Milkom *to be associated with the Amorites/ Ammonites. But _*Chemosh*_ would make perfect sense if it's name called to mind human sacrifice. (I've indicated in a previous post that humans were sacrificed to Chemosh.) In such a case the 'house' of Jephthah would be a literal house where only humans stayed. He thus knew that he was promising a human sacrifice. At least the Bible writer intended the first hearers/ readers to understand his vow in such a way - something not acceptable in Israel.
> 
> In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) there is no textual note indicating a possible scribal error. The Septuagint also gives the Ammonite god the name 'Chamôs' (Χαμως). (The original vocalisation of the god's name was probably Kamis, but has been changed in the Bible to remind the reader of the Middle Hebrew word meaning "to wither or wrinkle" over and against the possibly more original meaning "conqueror" or "subduer.")
Click to expand...


However, another point to consider is that Jephthah was actually _closer_ to the Ammonites than we are: perhaps he knew more about their worship practices than we do?

Also, however you take it, Jephthah is clearly confident that his God has given his people this land (which was true), and challenging the Ammonites. He is not afraid of diplomacy failing: he is pointing out that they have no claim on the land they are now demanding as theirs by right.


----------



## Elimelek

Hi py3ak

I feel that I may have said too much for Jephthah's daughter being sacrificed by him. I actually don't want to come over as someone that persists in pressing my point of view on others, although I might be guilty of that on this thread.

Be it as it may, I would like to respond on your remark:


> However, another point to consider is that Jephthah was actually _closer_ to the Ammonites than we are: perhaps he knew more about their worship practices than we do?



We actually know quite a lot about their practices from archaeological finds and various Ammorite and Moabite inscriptions, which is written in paleo-Hebrew script. 

TsonMariytho wrote:


> We have to operate from what we know about him, which was that he was a man of faith.



That is according to the Hebrews 11 in the New Testament, written ages after the story of Jephthah. Do we know it or is it an assumption?

TsonMariytho wrote:


> ... however, Israel was not given the land of the Moabites, Ammonites, or Edomites, who were not properly speaking Canaanites, but rather tribes and nations related to Abraham's family with some vestigial respect due them for that reason.



Interesting point that you raise. Out of archaeological accounts it seems that there is no clear difference between the Canaanites and the Israelites or the other nations you mentioned. We even has the Kuntillet 'Ajrud jar at Khirbet el-Qom which depicts "Yahweh and his Asherah." If I have it right, this sherd is found in the same time as the rule of the Judges. If so, we have proof of syncrestism between the religion of Israel and the peoples around them. To me it seems the Bible is taking a strong stance against this type of thing. The pot sherd fits into the larger picture - or so I think.

TsonMariytho wrote:


> So the question is, did Jephthah believe Chemosh was a real god, or is he just using an argumentative tactic here, one that is perhaps ill advised for a man of God, but one which he hoped would be persuasive?



I won't be surprised if Jephthah and the other Israelites thought of Chemosh as a true god, but not their god - monolatry (worshipping one god). We know that there is only one God, the Lord. Yet, people like Solomon wouldn't have build temples for other gods, if he didn't acknowlegde their existence. The prophetic Psam 82 works with this assumption of people who thought that God was just one among many. The prophet takes this concept, link to this wrong syncretistic way of understanding God as surely some Israelites wrongly did, and then turns it on its head when he declares that the gods are useless and therefore demoted by God. In doing so, he confirms that there is only one God, the Lord.

I am wondering, why is it so important in knowing if Jephthah physically sacrified his daugther or not? What implications does it have?

Kind regards

Elimelek


----------



## TsonMariytho

Elimelek said:


> TsonMariytho wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to operate from what we know about him, which was that he was a man of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is according to the Hebrews 11 in the New Testament, written ages after the story of Jephthah. Do we know it or is it an assumption?
Click to expand...


In my opinion, we could know it from either account even standing by itself. However, according to the PuritanBoard rules, an assumption of all our discussions here (and one with which I happen to agree) is that scripture as handed to us by Spirit-directed apostles and prophets is inerrant. Therefore in a few cases (not so much in this one) we would allow an apostle to give us information about an OT account that we have no other way of knowing.

-----Added 2/4/2009 at 05:02:07 EST-----

Just to explain my reasoning further, if I told you about a person who:

- Was familiar with the scriptures, and believed them.
- Trusted God to do for him what God had done for his people before.
- Stepped out into a dangerous situation, trusting that God would uphold him.
- Had the Spirit of God come upon him.
- Was used by God in that situation quite decisively, to accomplish something benefiting God's people...

... then would you describe that person as a "man of faith"? I'd say probably we all would. And the above is all from the Judges account.


----------



## Elimelek

Dear TsonMariytho

I've read through the rules again, just to make sure about "inerrancy." I agree with the Bible being the infallible Word of God, something which is attested in both the Heidelberg's Cathecism and the Confessio Belgica. The idea that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts is not something which I read as a requirement to partake in the PuritanBoard. 

I don't think that working with the idea of mechanical inspiritation, helps with the interpretation of the Bible. There are difficult passages and ideas that developed and I believed was made known by the Lord through the ages which accumilated in God's Son, Jesus Christ - the living Word of God. He is the only way through which we can be saved from sin (and ourselves). I think that reading the Bible synchronic without even thinking about it in a diachronic way could lead to shallow reading of God's Word. It could make someone lazy in asking questions to the text and may cast answers in stone. (Yes, some answers is cast in stone, but the Bible is not a black and white book, it is the testimony of God's concern and reaching out to us in this world. Because situations differ, God's made his Will concrete in this world in various situations.) 

I've written previously that I believe that the Bible in God's Word in human words (God se Woord in mensetaal). It is infallible because God through his Holy Spirit is/was responsible for it. 

Another view is that the Bible is just God's Word, as if it was angels that dictated the Bible word for word. (The human aspect is almost nullified.) This view is what I understand under inerrancy. This view I cannot hold, because it is not honest with the origin of the Bible. The Bible itself doesn't claim to be this.

A third view is that the Bible is just human word about God (Mensewoorde oor God), which implies that everything is relative. This view undermines God's part in the Bible and place the Bible on the same level as any other religious or devotional book.

I thought that it was not required to hold the Bible as the inerrant Word of God to be part of the Puritan Board, but to hold the Bible as the infallable Word of God. 

According to me, am I may be wrong, Judges does not sketch Jephthah as a 'man of faith.' The book of Hebrews however does, probably because early Christians were Jewish and Rabbinic Judaism saw Jephthah as such. Did God change his mind about Jephthah, I doubt, did the context in which the writer of Judges and the writer of te Letter to the Hebrews change? Surely. But again, that is my take.

I follow and understand your take on the matter although I don't think that I have to agree with everything. 

If the Puritanboard have Biblical inerrancy as a doctrine, I am afraid that I should be banned from the board, although I like it here and it is one of very few places where one can constructively participate in discussions concerning God's Word.

Kind regards

Jacobus


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Elimelek said:


> If the Puritanboard have Biblical inerrancy as a doctrine, I am afraid that I should be banned from the board...



We do and thank you for the intellectual honesty in pointing out your fundamental clash with orthodoxy on this point.


----------



## Jan Ziska

Does anyone know the traditional Jewish interpretation of the passage?

EDIT: What is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility?


----------



## discipulo

Jan Ziska said:


> Does anyone know the traditional Jewish interpretation of the passage?
> 
> EDIT: What is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility?



I also didn’t know and used the word Inerrancy with the Chicago statement in mind, and thinking that was the orthodox way to state that the Bible has no errors in any matter.

But Inerrancy is a XIXth century word, that was never used before for the Bible.

This word from conservative Theologians opened a parallel breach for Criticism, exactly what they were trying to prevent in the first place. 

Stating that the autographa, the original manuscripts, are Perfect (which is true of course) is not enough, since those are lost.

How to prove then with a scientific methodology that the apographa, the ancient manuscripts we have that are copies, are faithful to the originals? 

By statistic, number or probability? That can always be refuted with the same method.

Since the apographa can’t be compared to the originals that are lost, we cannot either apply to Paleography as our final authority.

So the Reformers, the Puritans used infallible, infallibilitas, (as we also have in our confessions).

We don’t have the original autographa, but we trust that the apographa are faithful copies of the original inspired manuscripts.

This is may opinion now:

I believe in God’s Providential Preservation of His Word, I believe the Bible we have today is Infallible and without error in any matter, that is my presupposition, because God is Sovereign.

That is why we can quote Scripture as a sure foundation of Scripture: 

_*All Scripture *is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work._ 2 Timothy 3:16

I attach a very good article on this (already posted by a fellow PBer) that relies a lot on Richard Muller’s research.


----------



## robinsoz

I take the view that Jepthah did sacrifice his daughter.

It seems to me that Jepthah's sinned twice, first in making the vow in the first place and secondly in carrying it out.

Murder and human sacrifice are expressly condemned in the law. The example of Abraham does not apply here - as God specifically commanded Abraham to offer his son as a test - not intending to allow the sacrifice to carried out.

When Jepthah came to realize what he had done in making the vow, he should have gotten down on his knees and repented of his sin. Instead, it appears that he did not acknowledge the sinfulness of swearing a rash vow but instead decided to compound the error by adding a murder to it.

Judges just records this incident - nowhere does it indicate that this behavior was pleasing to God.

Just my opinion.


----------



## TimV

> I don't think that working with the idea of mechanical inspiritation, helps with the interpretation of the Bible.



Yes, and a reason the once mighty NGK has had so many of the best of the Afrikaner nation leave it. I am deeply saddened.


----------



## bob

The plain sense of the passage, as I understand it, is that Jepthah sacrificed his daughter. Some have even suggested that this (human sacrifice) was Jepthah's original intent in making the vow. Barnes, for example, writes: "_They (the words of the verse) also preclude any other meaning than that Jephthah contemplated a human sacrifice. This need not, however, surprise us, when we recollect his Syrian birth and long residence in a Syrian city, where such fierce rites were probably common. The Syrians and Phoenicians were conspicuous among the ancient pagan nations for human sacrifices, and the transfer, under such circumstances, to Yahweh of the rites with which the false gods were honored, is just what one might expect._ Perhaps Barnes opinion is a bit of stretch, but unless Jepthah was very poor, a vow to "sacrifice the first sheep I see" somehow seems to not be all that weighty of a vow. It was not uncommon for a man to offer an animal as a sacrifice to the Lord. If he was successful in battle, it would seem that he would have anticipated a hero's welcome, which one could assume would have first included the cheering members of the household. 

I am not sure that the debate regarding Jepthah and his daughter can be answered with any degree of certainty. That the concept of humans sacrificing humans is despicable all are agreed. That the ancient Jews regarded swearing an oath as binding is also without dispute. So strong are the texts on paying what is vowed perhaps some would have shuddered to not pay their vow no matter how rashly it was uttered. Whether the temptation to follow the customs of the pagan tribes would have been strong enough to so obscure their own understanding of what God required in worship could be argues, yet on the other hand, the whole spiraling degeneration of Israel as revealed in Judges stemmed from their disobedience to utterly destroy the Canaanites. If this gruesome interpretation is indeed correct, it only serves to show the awful potential ramifications of the results of failing to obey God. 

The answer surrounding the debate has been contested from antiquity. For those interested in the ancient understanding of the passage, K & D submits: 

"_With regard to Jephthah’s vow, the view expressed so distinctly by Josephus and the Chaldee was the one which generally prevailed in the earlier times among both Rabbins and fathers of the church, viz., that Jephthah put his daughter to death and burned her upon the altar as a bleeding sacrifice to Jehovah. It was not till the middle ages that Mos. and Dav. Kimchi and certain other Rabbins endeavoured to establish the view, that Jephthah merely dedicated his daughter to the service of the sanctuary of Jehovah in a lifelong virginity. _"


----------



## py3ak

To this point, I have not found a proponent of the human sacrifice view who adequately deals with the point that Jephthah's daughter is the one who urges him to keep his vow.

I have also not found any of them to deal with the fact that _charity toward our brethren_ is also an interpretive principle.


----------



## Jon Lake

Augusta said:


> Did people keep livestock in their houses?  That part has always bugged me. Why would he say it like that? When you come home it is usually people who come out to meet you, or the dog will come to greet you if you have one, but livestock? This whole story is a conundrum.


My wife and I have a sheep in our house! Oh, wait! Sorry, we have a Bichon......she just needs to be groomed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

bob said:


> The plain sense of the passage, as I understand it, is that Jepthah sacrificed his daughter....
> 
> The answer surrounding the debate has been contested from antiquity. For those interested in the ancient understanding of the passage, K & D submits:
> 
> "_With regard to Jephthah’s vow, the view expressed so distinctly by Josephus and the Chaldee was the one which generally prevailed in the earlier times among both Rabbins and fathers of the church, viz., that Jephthah put his daughter to death and burned her upon the altar as a bleeding sacrifice to Jehovah. It was not till the middle ages that Mos. and Dav. Kimchi and certain other Rabbins endeavoured to establish the view, that Jephthah merely dedicated his daughter to the service of the sanctuary of Jehovah in a lifelong virginity. _"



But note also that it is the _latter_ view (non-literal sacrifice) that K&D end up supporting by their exegesis:


> yet, on looking more closely into the matter, we find insuperable difficulties in the way of the literal interpretation of the words. Since יֵצֵא אֲשֶׁר הַיֹּוצֵא cannot be taken impersonally, and therefore when Jephthah uttered his vow, he must at any rate have had the possibility of some human being coming to meet him in his mind; and since the two clauses “he shall be the Lords,” and “I will offer him up for a burnt-offering,” cannot be taken disjunctively in such a sense as this, it shall either be dedicated to the Lord, or, if it should be a sacrificial animal, I will offer it up as a burnt-offering, but the second clause simply contains a more precise definition of the first-Jephthah must at the very outset have contemplated the possibility of a human sacrifice. Yet not only were human sacrifices prohibited in the law under pain of death as an abomination in the sight of Jehovah (Lev_18:21; Lev_20:2-5; Deu_12:31; Deu_18:10), but they were never heard of among the Israelites in the early times, and were only transplanted to Jerusalem by the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh.
> 
> *If Jephthah therefore vowed that he would offer a human sacrifice to Jehovah, he must either have uttered his vow without any reflection, or else have been thoroughly depraved in a moral and religious sense. But what we know of this brave hero by no means warrants any such assumptions,* His acts do not show the slightest trace of impetuosity and rashness. He does not take to the sword at once, but waits till his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites have been without effect. Nor does he utter his vow in the midst of the confusion of battle, so that we might fancy he had made a vow in the heat of the conflict without fully weighting his words, but he uttered it before he set out against the Ammonites (see Jdg_11:30 and Jdg_11:32). So far as the religious training of Jephthah was concerned, it is true that he had led the life of a freebooter during his exile from his country and home, and before his election as the leader of the Israelites; but the analogous circumstances connected with David's life preclude us from inferring either moral depravity or religious barbarism from this. When David was obliged to fly from his country to escape from Saul, he also led a life of the same kind, so that all sorts of people came to him, not pious and virtuous people, but all who were in distress and had creditors, or were embittered in spirit (1Sa_22:2); and yet, even under these circumstances, David lived in the law of the Lord. Moreover, Jephthah was not destitute of the fear of God. This is proved first of all by the fact, that when he had been recalled from his exile he looked to Jehovah to give him the victory over the Ammonites, and made a treaty with the elders of Gilead “before Jehovah” (Jdg_11:9 and Jdg_11:10); and also by the fact, that he sought to ensure the help of God in war through the medium of a vow. And again, *we have no right to attribute to him any ignorance of the law.* Even if Kurtz is correct in his opinion, that the negotiations with the king of the Ammonites, which show the most accurate acquaintance with the Pentateuch, were not carried on independently and from his own knowledge of the law, and that the sending of messengers to the hostile king was resolved upon in the national assembly at Mizpeh, with the priests, Levites, and elders present, so that the Levites, who knew the law, may have supplied any defects in his own knowledge of the law and of the early history of his people; a private Israelite did not need to study the whole of the law of the Pentateuch, and to make himself master of the whole, in order to gain the knowledge and conviction that a human sacrifice was irreconcilable with the substance and spirit of the worship of Jehovah, and that Jehovah the God of Israel was not a Moloch. And again, even if we do not know to what extent the men and fathers of families in Israel were acquainted and familiar with the contents of the Mosaic law, the opinion is certainly an erroneous one, that the Israelites derived their knowledge of the law exclusively from the public reading of the law at the feast of tabernacles in the sabbatical year, as enjoined in Deu_31:10.; so that if this public reading, which was to take place only once in seven years, had been neglected, the whole nation would have been left without any instruction whatever in the law. The reason for this Mosaic precept was a totally different one from that of making the people acquainted with the contents of the law (see the commentary on this passage). And again, though we certainly do not find the law of the Lord so thoroughly pervading the religious consciousness of the people, received as it were in succum et sanguinem, in the time of the judges, that they were able to resist the bewitching power of nature-worship, but, on the contrary, we find them repeatedly falling away into the worship of Baal; yet we discover no trace whatever of human sacrifices even in the case of those who went a whoring after Baalim. And although the theocratical knowledge of the law seems to have been somewhat corrupted even in the case of such men as Gideon, so that this judge had an unlawful ephod made for himself at Ophrah; the opinion that the Baal-worship, into which the Israelites repeatedly fell, was associated with human sacrifices, is one of the many erroneous ideas that have been entertained as to the development of the religious life not only among the Israelites, but among the Canaanites, and which cannot be supported by historical testimonies or facts. That the Canaanitish worship of Baal and Astarte, to which the Israelites were addicted, required no human sacrifices, is indisputably evident from the fact, that even in the time of Ahab and his idolatrous wife Jezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian king Ethbaal, who raised the worship of Baal into the national religion in the kingdom of the ten tribes, persecuting the prophets of Jehovah and putting them to death, there is not the slightest allusion to human sacrifices. Even at that time human sacrifices were regarded by the Israelites as so revolting an abomination, that the two kings of Israel who besieged the king of the Moabites - not only the godly Jehoshaphat, but Jehoram the son of Ahab and Jezebel - withdrew at once and relinquished the continuance of the war, when the king of the Moabites, in the extremity of his distress, sacrificed his son as a burnt-offering upon the wall (2Ki_3:26-27). With such an attitude as this on the part of the Israelites towards human sacrifices before the time of Ahaz and Manasseh, who introduced the worship of Moloch into Jerusalem, *we cannot, without further evidence, impute to Jephthah the offering of a bloody human sacrifice, the more especially as it is inconceivable, with the diametrical opposition between the worship of Jehovah and the worship of Moloch, that God should have chosen a worshipper of Moloch to carry out His work, or a man who was capable of vowing and offering a human-being sacrifice.* The men whom God chose as the recipients of His revelation of mercy and the executors of His will, and whom He endowed with His Spirit as judges and leaders of His people, were no doubt affected with infirmities, faults, and sins of many kinds, so that they could fall to a very great depth; but nowhere is it stated that the Spirit of God came upon a worshipper of Moloch and endowed him with His own power, that he might be the helper and saviour of Israel.
> 
> We cannot therefore regard Jephthah as a servant of Moloch, especially when we consider that, in addition to what has already been said, the account of the actual fulfilment of his vow is apparently irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of the words עֹולָה וְהַעֲלִיתִיהוּ, as signifying a bleeding burnt-offering. *We cannot infer anything with certainty as to the mode of the sacrifice, from the grief which Jephthah felt and expressed when his only daughter came to meet him.* For this is quite as intelligible, as even the supporters of the literal view of these words admit, on the supposition that Jephthah was compelled by his vow to dedicate his daughter to Jehovah in a lifelong virginity, as it would be if he had been obliged to put her to death and burn her upon the altar as a burnt-offering. But the entreaty of the daughter, that he would grant her two months' time, in order that she might lament her virginity upon the mountains with her friends, would have been marvellously out of keeping with the account that she was to be put to death as a sacrifice. To mourn one's virginity does not mean to mourn because one has to die a virgin, but because one has to live and remain a virgin. But even if we were to assume that mourning her virginity was equivalent to mourning on account of her youth (which is quite untenable, as בְּתוּלִים is not synonymous with נְעוּרִים), “it would be impossible to understand why this should take place upon the mountains. It would be altogether opposed to human nature, that a child who had so soon to die should make use of a temporary respite to forsake her father altogether. It would no doubt be a reasonable thing that she should ask permission to enjoy life for two months longer before she was put to death; but that she should only think of bewailing her virginity, when a sacrificial death was in prospect, which would rob her father of his only child, would be contrary to all the ordinary feelings of the human heart. Yet, inasmuch as the history lays special emphasis upon her bewailing her virginity, this must have stood in some peculiar relation to the nature of the vow. When a maiden bewails her virginity, the reason for this can only be that she will have to remain a bud that has not been allowed to unfold itself, prevented, too, not by death, but by life” (P. Cassel, p. 473). And this is confirmed by the expression, to bewail her virginity “upon the mountains.” “If life had been in question, the same tears might have been shed at home. But her lamentations were devoted to her virginity, and such lamentations could not be uttered in the town, and in the presence of men. Modesty required the solitude of the mountains for these. The virtuous heart of the maiden does not open itself in the ears of all; but only in sacred silence does it pour out its lamentations of love” (P. Cassel, p. 476).
> 
> And so, again, *the still further clause in the account of the fulfilment of the vow, “and she knew no man,” is not in harmony with the assumption of a sacrificial death.* This clause would add nothing to the description in that case, since it was already known that she was a virgin. The words only gain their proper sense if we connect them with the previous clause, he “did with her according to the vow which he had vowed,” and understand them as describing what the daughter did in fulfilment of the vow. The father fulfilled his vow upon her, and she knew no man; i.e., he fulfilled the vow through the fact that she knew no man, but dedicated her life to the Lord, as a spiritual burnt-offering, in a lifelong chastity. It was this willingness of the daughter to sacrifice herself which the daughters of Israel went every year to celebrate-namely, upon the mountains whither her friends had gone with her to lament her virginity, and which they commemorated there four days in the year. *And the idea of a spiritual sacrifice is supported not only by the words, but also most decisively by the fact that the historian describes the fulfilment of the vow in the words “he did to her according to his vow,” in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that he regarded the act itself as laudable and good.* But a prophetic historian could never have approved of a human sacrifice; and it is evident that the author of the book of Judges does not conceal what was blameable even in the judges themselves, from his remarks concerning the conduct of Gideon (Jdg_8:27), which was only a very small offence in comparison with the abomination of a human sacrifice. To this we have to add the difficulties connected with such an act. The words “he did to her according to his vow” presuppose undoubtedly that Jephthah offered his daughter as עֹולָה to Jehovah. But burnt-offerings, that is to say bleeding burnt-offerings, in which the victim was slaughtered and burnt upon the altar, could only be offered upon the lawful altar at the tabernacle, or before the ark, through the medium of the Levitical priests, unless the sacrifice itself had been occasioned by some extraordinary manifestation of God; and that we cannot for a moment think of here. But is it credible that a priest or the priesthood should have consented to offer a sacrifice upon the altar of Jehovah which was denounced in the law as the greatest abomination of the heathen? This difficulty cannot be set aside by assuming that Jephthah put his daughter to death, and burned her upon some secret altar, without the assistance and mediation of a priest; for such an act would not have been described by the prophetic historian as a fulfilment of the vow that he would offer a burnt-offering to the Lord, simply because it would not have been a sacrifice offered to Jehovah at all, but a sacrifice slaughtered to Moloch.
> 
> *All these circumstances, when rightly considered, almost compel us to adopt the spiritual interpretation of the words, “offer as a burnt-offering.”* It is true that no exactly corresponding parallelisms can be adduced from the Old Testament in support of the spiritual view; but the germs of this view, as met with in the Psalms and the writings of the prophets, are contained in the demand of God addressed to Abraham to offer Him his only son Isaac as a burnt-offering, when compared with the issue of Abraham's temptation-namely, that God accepted his willingness to offer up his son as a completed sacrifice, and then supplied him with a ram to offer up as a bleeding sacrifice in the place of his son. As this fact teaches that what God demands is not a corporeal but a spiritual sacrifice, so the rules laid down in the law respecting the redemption of the first-born belonging to the Lord, and of persons vowed to Him (Exo_13:1, Exo_13:13; Num_18:15-16; Lev_27:1.), show clearly how the Israelites could dedicate themselves and those who belonged to them to the Lord, without burning upon the altar the persons who were vowed to Him. And lastly, it is evident, from the perfectly casual reference to the women who ministered at the tabernacle (Exo_38:8; 1Sa_2:22), that there were persons in Israel who dedicated their lives to the Lord at the sanctuary, by altogether renouncing the world. And there can be no doubt that Jephthah had such a dedication as this in his mind when he uttered his vow; at all events in case the Lord, to whom he left the appointment of the sacrifice, should demand the offering up of a human being. The word עֹולָה does not involve the idea of burning, like our word burnt-offering, but simply that of going up upon the altar, or of complete surrender to the Lord. עֹולָה is a whole offering, as distinguished from the other sacrifices, of which only a part was given up to the Lord. When a virgin, therefore, was set apart as a spiritual עֹולָה, it followed, as a matter of course, that henceforth she belonged entirely to the Lord: that is to say, was to remain a virgin for the remainder of her days. The fact that Nazarites contracted marriages, even such as were dedicated by a vow to be Nazarites all their lives, by no means warrants the conclusion that virgins dedicated to the Lord by a vow were also free to marry if they chose. It is true that we learn nothing definite from the Old Testament with regard to this spiritual sacrificial service; but the absence of any distinct statements upon the subject by no means warrants our denying the fact. Even with regard to the spiritual service of the women at the tabernacle we have no precise information; and we should not have known anything about this institution, if the women themselves had not offered their mirrors in the time of Moses to make the holy laver, or if we had not the account of the violation of such women by the sons of Eli. In this respect, therefore, the remarks of Clericus, though too frequently disregarded, as very true: “It was not to be expected, as I have often observed, that so small a volume as the Old Testament should contain all the customs of the Hebrew, and a full account of all the things that were done among them. There are necessarily many things alluded to, therefore, which we do not fully understand, simply because they are not mentioned elsewhere.”



Consequently, if their exegesis is correct, then _the earlier opinions_ of the "Rabbins and fathers of the church" is _out of accord_ with the proper, true, and *oldest* understanding of the author, and previous similar exegetes, regardless of attitudes that prevailed at a later time.


----------

