# Weeping about virginity - Judges 11:34-40



## AThornquist

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord that if He gave the Ammonites into his hands he would take whoever greeted him from his house and sacrifice him or her to the Lord. And then Judges 11:34-40 reads this way:



> *34* Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. *35* And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” *36* And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.”* 37* So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” *38* So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. *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. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel *40* that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.



I am confused about this. She and her companions wept about her virginity? The most logical conclusion I have is that motherhood and a heritage were valued far more at that time than they are today. Thus, she died without the opportunity to have children, which would be tragic to them. Is this a correct interpretation? I have a hard time concluding that they wept just because she wasn't able to be with a man. I mean, with the time frame of two months, she could conceivably get married, no longer be a virgin, and die with her life fulfilled -- IF sex is the issue.

What do you think?


----------



## au5t1n

I think that conclusion is correct - she would never live to see a family. Getting married before the "event" would be extremely irresponsible as it would leave some poor man widowed intentionally for naught, and she could conceivably get pregnant and take the child with her.


----------



## riceman

I remember the first time I read this also and that's what I thought too, then I researched a little bit and found that some interpret it as her being sacrificed. Which is pretty heartbreaking and very confusing.


----------



## au5t1n

riceman said:


> I remember the first time I read this also and that's what I thought too, then I researched a little bit and found that some interpret it as her being sacrificed. Which is pretty heartbreaking and very confusing.


It does say she was sacrificed, but I think the question is why did they weep "for her virginity" when she was soon to be sacrificed?


----------



## riceman

austinww said:


> riceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the first time I read this also and that's what I thought too, then I researched a little bit and found that some interpret it as her being sacrificed. Which is pretty heartbreaking and very confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It does say she was sacrificed, but I think the question is why did they weep "for her virginity" when she was soon to be sacrificed?
Click to expand...


I agree, it seems a little odd for it to be about sex and then she weeps for two months b/c she's going to be a virgin. I think you and Thornquist make a good case, given that since she will stay a virgin Jephtha's line is basically cut-off. Which would explain why he tore his clothes earlier. That seems to be the issue more than her not having to 'know' someone.

But then I'm trying to figure out why in the world he would offer up as a burnt offering anything that walked out of his house in the first place? I don't think sheep and goats were regular traffic were they? I'm not a scholar but that seems odd. I know that's not the original question, but while we're here why not. =]


----------



## AThornquist

Austin is correct. She was sacrificed. Jephthah made that ridiculous vow and had to keep it, much to his chagrin. I'm just trying to get a hold on why the daughter and her companions wept about it for two months. It must have been important or meaningly considering it became a custom for daughters of Israel to lament Jephthah's daughter four days out of the year.

-----Added 10/2/2009 at 11:37:00 EST-----



riceman said:


> But then I'm trying to figure out why in the world he would offer up as a burnt offering anything that walked out of his house in the first place? I don't think sheep and goats were regular traffic were they? I'm not a scholar but that seems odd. I know that's not the original question, but while we're here why not. =]




Good question. I read that and thought critical, un-Christlike thoughts toward Jephthah. It was ridiculous. But I believe it was because Jephthah had fears and doubts. His vow was "just to be sure" God would be with them. This would be similar to Gideon's doubts.


----------



## au5t1n

riceman said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> riceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the first time I read this also and that's what I thought too, then I researched a little bit and found that some interpret it as her being sacrificed. Which is pretty heartbreaking and very confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It does say she was sacrificed, but I think the question is why did they weep "for her virginity" when she was soon to be sacrificed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, it seems a little odd for it to be about sex and then she weeps for two months b/c she's going to be a virgin. I think you and Thornquist make a good case, given that since she will stay a virgin Jephtha's line is basically cut-off. Which would explain why he tore his clothes earlier. That seems to be the issue more than her not having to 'know' someone.
> 
> But then I'm trying to figure out why in the world he would offer up as a burnt offering anything that walked out of his house in the first place? I don't think sheep and goats were regular traffic were they? I'm not a scholar but that seems odd. I know that's not the original question, but while we're here why not. =]
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he tore his clothes because he loved his daughter, not because his line was ending. Do we know his line was ending? Perhaps he had a son. Either way, it's sad enough to lose his daughter.

It was certainly a foolish and rash vow.


----------



## OPC'n

Yeah, instead of weeping for months she should have run off! That's what I would have done! You bet ya!


----------



## au5t1n

in my opinion it's significant enough that she would never grow up and have a family of her own. That's why I think they wept for that time over her virginity.

Now that I think about it, wasn't not bearing children considered a curse among the Hebrews? Barren women such as Rachel and Hannah come to mind.


----------



## AThornquist

The text said that his daughter was his only child _at the time_. Perhaps he had a child around the time the Gildeadites and Ephraimites went to war in ch. 12, but it is irrelevant to his reaction at this time. I suppose he could have been grief stricken because his bloodline would have completely ceased after the sacrifice of his daughter OR he deeply loved his daughter because she was his only child. It's speculation either way, methinks. (And maybe he grief was because of BOTH of those things.)

-----Added 10/2/2009 at 11:44:59 EST-----



OPC'n said:


> Yeah, instead of weeping for months she should have run off! That's what I would have done! You bet ya!



I'm not sure - are you joking? I only ask because this would have been one of the hardest circumstances to obey the 5th commandment. And she did. She truly is an example of a godly daughter.


----------



## OPC'n

AThornquist said:


> The text said that his daughter was his only child _at the time_. Perhaps he had a child around the time the Gildeadites and Ephraimites went to war in ch. 12, but it is irrelevant to his reaction at this time. I suppose he could have been grief stricken because his bloodline would have completely ceased after the sacrifice of his daughter OR he deeply loved his daughter because she was his only child. It's speculation either way, methinks. (And maybe he grief was because of BOTH of those things.)
> 
> -----Added 10/2/2009 at 11:44:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of weeping for months she should have run off! That's what I would have done! You bet ya!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure - are you joking? I only ask because this would have been one of the hardest circumstances to obey the 5th commandment. And she did. She truly is an example of a godly daughter.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not joking! I'm all into submission to parents and to husbands but my submission would have hit the wall at this point. I would have been gone and let my father who was stupid enough to make such a vow live with the consequences!


----------



## au5t1n

Both works for me. I certainly can't imagine any father (even such a foolish one) realizing his daughter is going to die, and then tearing his clothes because of his bloodline ending, but not for his daughter's death!


----------



## riceman

austinww said:


> Both works for me. I certainly can't imagine any father (even such a foolish one) realizing his daughter is going to die, and then tearing his clothes because of his bloodline ending, but not for his daughter's death!



Sorry for the confusion. If his daughter was only going to be a virgin for the rest of her life and not be actually sacrificed then he tore his clothes b/c his line was ending, not just b/c his daughter wasn't going to have sex. Her father lamenting doesn't make sense if it's b/c she will not have sex, but it does make sense if his line is cut-off. 

Unless you believe that she was actually sacrificed, then naturally that's why he tore his clothes and lamented. Which I agree with fully. I was trying to make sense of his lamenting for her virginity if he didn't actually sacrifice her.

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 12:10:51 EST-----



OPC'n said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text said that his daughter was his only child _at the time_. Perhaps he had a child around the time the Gildeadites and Ephraimites went to war in ch. 12, but it is irrelevant to his reaction at this time. I suppose he could have been grief stricken because his bloodline would have completely ceased after the sacrifice of his daughter OR he deeply loved his daughter because she was his only child. It's speculation either way, methinks. (And maybe he grief was because of BOTH of those things.)
> 
> -----Added 10/2/2009 at 11:44:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of weeping for months she should have run off! That's what I would have done! You bet ya!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure - are you joking? I only ask because this would have been one of the hardest circumstances to obey the 5th commandment. And she did. She truly is an example of a godly daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not joking! I'm all into submission to parents and to husbands but my submission would have hit the wall at this point. I would have been gone and let my father who was stupid enough to make such a vow live with the consequences!
Click to expand...


I think Sarah has a point doesn't she? Given that human sacrifice is forbidden and the father did speak foolishly, is she still obligated to honor this request?

You know, as the 'smart' kids say when you teach them the 5th commandment "What if my mom and dad tell me to kill my best friend? Do I gotta listen to them then?"


----------



## au5t1n

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know you meant if she wasn't sacrificed. I don't see non-sacrifice as a reading that fits with the text, but you already said you agree, so I won't keep babbling about that.

While I think the daughter's decision is honorable, I can't bring myself to blame Sarah for what she would do!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The matter of _how_ Jephtha's vow was fulfilled is partially relevant to the original question.

Was she *killed* or was she *devoted*? Heb.11:32 ranks Jephtha among the premiere OT men of faith--a hard designation to ascribe to a man who would have been guilty of a most despicable crime against God, his law, his reputation, against the girl... Human sacrifice was unheard of in Israel, and an obscenity.

If she was devoted, then it is likely (in this case, anyway) this meant that she was not able to marry. It was something of an equivalent to the Nazarite vow. Sex was an act that rendered the party ceremonially unclean, and so to be devoted to God in this way demanded ultra-cleanliness (cf. 1Sam.21:4-5).

In any case, while theologians of note have debated the issue, I am thoroughly convinced she was not killed, but went to service at the Tabernacle. Hence, the passage takes pains to affirm to us not her burning, but her perpetual virginity.


----------



## AThornquist

Veeeeerrrrryyyyy interesting, Rev. Buchanan.


----------



## OPC'n

Contra_Mundum said:


> The matter of _how_ Jephtha's vow was fulfilled is partially relevant to the original question.
> 
> Was she *killed* or was she *devoted*? Heb.11:32 ranks Jephtha among the premiere OT men of faith--a hard designation to ascribe to a man who would have been guilty of a most despicable crime against God, his law, his reputation, against the girl... Human sacrifice was unheard of in Israel, and an obscenity.
> 
> If she was devoted, then it is likely (in this case, anyway) this meant that she was not able to marry. It was something of an equivalent to the Nazarite vow. Sex was an act that rendered the party ceremonially unclean, and so to be devoted to God in this way demanded ultra-cleanliness (cf. 1Sam.21:4-5).
> 
> In any case, while theologians of note have debated the issue, I am thoroughly convinced she was not killed, but went to service at the Tabernacle. Hence, the passage takes pains to affirm to us not her burning, but her perpetual virginity.



But was she a Levite? I thought only the Levites could worked in the Tabernacle.


----------



## AThornquist

The wording of his vow points to giving a burnt offering though, doesn't it? 

What do you think about the ESV Study Bible notes on this passage? Would this be the standard argument you hear against your position, Rev. Buchanan?

30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 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.”



> Judg. 11:31 *whatever comes out.* The wording here would indicate that Jephthah intended to offer some animal as a burnt offering. However, the grammar also allows for “whoever” (see esv footnote), in which case Jephthah would have intended to offer a human sacrifice all along. If so, what surprised him was not that he had to sacrifice a person, but that it was his daughter. Human sacrifice was strictly forbidden in Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 19:5; Ezek. 20:30–31; 23:37, 39). Yet, Jephthah's foolishness impelled him to make such a vow and apparently to follow through with this abomination (see note on Judg. 11:39).


----------



## au5t1n

austinww said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know you meant if she wasn't sacrificed. I don't see non-sacrifice as a reading that fits with the text, but you already said you agree, so I won't keep babbling about that.
> 
> While I think the daughter's decision is honorable, I can't bring myself to blame Sarah for what she would do!


I think I will have to retract that third sentence. Apparently another reading is possible. *eating my words*


----------



## JennyG

It's one problematic passage however you read it. On the one hand I wonder if it could possibly be right for Jephthah to keep his vow, if it meant human sacrifice, which the Lord abhors. Saul made a rash vow which was supposed to result in Jonathan's death, but the people prevented it. It's hard to see Jephthah as in the right....but almost a bigger problem (to me) is Hebrews 11 v 32 where he is presented as a hero of faith, making it hard to see him as wrong!!

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 06:00:25 EST-----

sorry, I see this point has already been made, but I still think it's a troublesome question...it was surely a rash and foolish vow for a hero of faith to make, however you look at it


----------



## py3ak

It seems this topic routinely comes up for discussion, so a search for "Jephthah" will find several threads where arguments are set out in more detail. Because of that I will just briefly say that of multiple arguments against reading the passage as meaning that Jephthah tied his daughter to an altar, and slit her throat and burned her body, there are a few that particularly appeal to me.
1. Jephthah left the choice of offering to God. It was God who determined who or what would come out of Jephthah's house. That is one reason why Jephthah can be mentioned in Hebrews 11 - he was willing to give up whatever the Lord might demand of him.
2. If a donkey or mule had come out of the house first, I don't think anyone would argue that Jephthah killed it, because God did not say he wanted donkeys offered in sacrifice. The firstborn of a donkey had to be redeemed or its neck broken: but it couldn't be offered on an altar. In the same way, the firstborn son had to be redeemed, but there was no option for breaking his neck. In other words, there was legislation in place (and Jephthah knew his Pentateuch, as you can see in the letter he sends) dealing with situations where something was offered to God that was not suitable to be offered by means of having its body burnt on an altar. Why would anyone assume that this legislation was not taken into account in this instance?
3. Jephthah is our brother in Christ. Would you want your brethren to take a text as indicating that you committed human sacrifice? Then give Jephthah the benefit of the doubt here.
4. Numbers 8, especially vv.13,16-18. This shows what "human sacrifice" looked like in Israel. When someone objects that the term for burnt offering is not used of the Levites, I admit that's true; but the Levites were also allowed to marry and bear children.


----------



## riceman

Duuuudddeee, I can give 'thanks' now. Sweeeeeetttt. [apply surfer inflection]

Can you hand it out like candy or are you supposed to be sparing with it? Does it lose 'value' if you give it away willy-nilly? Does me being a newbie affect the value of my 'thanks'? Did I use the right letter in "affect"? Maybe an 'e'? I feel like a Made-man.


----------



## au5t1n

riceman said:


> Duuuudddeee, I can give 'thanks' now. Sweeeeeetttt. [apply surfer inflection]
> 
> Can you hand it out like candy or are you supposed to be sparing with it? Does it lose 'value' if you give it away willy-nilly? Does me being a newbie affect the value of my 'thanks'? Did I use the right letter in "affect"? Maybe an 'e'? I feel like a Made-man.


I think there is a limit of 20 a day or something like that, and then you lose them, though I have never experienced this. Perhaps if you save your thanks for really useful posts, people will come to value them more!


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I believe there were women who served in or about the temple. See the following Scriptures:
Exodus 38.8; 1 Samuel 2.22; Matthew 26.69 cp. John 18.16; Luke 2.37 This is the kind of devotedness to which Jephthah's daughter served for the rest of her life.


----------



## OPC'n

I think Ruben makes a good point. The Levites married and had children so the fact that she had to work in the Tabernacle wouldn't guarantee that she would have to stay a virgin, yet this text states that she wept over being a virgin. In fact, I don't see any Scriptural warrant for Tabernacle workers being made to stay a virgin in order to be ultra pure. The other question no one has answered is didn't one have to be a Levite to work in the Tabernacle? Was she from the Levite tribe?


----------



## Peairtach

It would be nice to think that there are still women out there in Western "Civilisation" that "weep for their virginity"

I don't know if that's a


----------



## christiana

I was involved in an earlier thread on this topic.

I just find it sad that so many have a need to alter scripture to make it more acceptable and cant just believe what God so clearly had recorded for our learning. It may be hard but it is His plainly stated word that Jephtha honored his foolish vow.


----------



## Romans922

AThornquist said:


> Austin is correct. She was sacrificed. Jephthah made that ridiculous vow and had to keep it, much to his chagrin. I'm just trying to get a hold on why the daughter and her companions wept about it for two months. It must have been important or meaningly considering it became a custom for daughters of Israel to lament Jephthah's daughter four days out of the year.
> 
> -----Added 10/2/2009 at 11:37:00 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> riceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then I'm trying to figure out why in the world he would offer up as a burnt offering anything that walked out of his house in the first place? I don't think sheep and goats were regular traffic were they? I'm not a scholar but that seems odd. I know that's not the original question, but while we're here why not. =]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. I read that and thought critical, un-Christlike thoughts toward Jephthah. It was ridiculous. But I believe it was because Jephthah had fears and doubts. His vow was "just to be sure" God would be with them. This would be similar to Gideon's doubts.
Click to expand...


Just a note: Jephthah didn't have to keep his vow. It was wrong of him to make the stupid/unwise vow. He should have never kept this vow (because it was foolish). Ask yourself the question, if you made a vow, as you stood outside of your house, "whoever next comes out of my house I will sacrifice", you wife or daughter comes out, would you sacrifice them? NO! You would repent of your foolish vow, and lean on the grace of Jesus Christ. 

You would never go through with the vow because that would be murder. He should've not made the vow, but also he should've not kept it.

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 01:28:21 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> The matter of _how_ Jephtha's vow was fulfilled is partially relevant to the original question.
> 
> Was she *killed* or was she *devoted*? Heb.11:32 ranks Jephtha among the premiere OT men of faith--a hard designation to ascribe to a man who would have been guilty of a most despicable crime against God, his law, his reputation, against the girl... Human sacrifice was unheard of in Israel, and an obscenity.
> 
> If she was devoted, then it is likely (in this case, anyway) this meant that she was not able to marry. It was something of an equivalent to the Nazarite vow. Sex was an act that rendered the party ceremonially unclean, and so to be devoted to God in this way demanded ultra-cleanliness (cf. 1Sam.21:4-5).
> 
> In any case, while theologians of note have debated the issue, I am thoroughly convinced she was not killed, but went to service at the Tabernacle. Hence, the passage takes pains to affirm to us not her burning, but her perpetual virginity.



David was among those in Hebrews 11 as well, did he not commit murder? Adultery? etc...

I don't think we have to push the buttons here to make his actions better than they were.


----------



## py3ak

OPC'n said:


> I think Ruben makes a good point. The Levites married and had children so the fact that she had to work in the Tabernacle wouldn't guarantee that she would have to stay a virgin, yet this text states that she wept over being a virgin. In fact, I don't see any Scriptural warrant for Tabernacle workers being made to stay a virgin in order to be ultra pure. The other question no one has answered is didn't one have to be a Levite to work in the Tabernacle? Was she from the Levite tribe?



Anna was not from the tribe of Levi.


----------



## TimV

Wasn't Anna a worshiper rather than a paid worker?

PS, thanks again Ruben for that post. Obviously if the dog came out first everyone knew that it couldn't be killed and bled. It's an ignorance of Biblical law that causes some people to suppose the young woman was killed and bled for the Lord's enjoyment. Wasn't it Antiocus Epiphanes that polluted the Alter by offering a pig?


----------



## py3ak

I suppose, but the point is she didn't depart from the temple precincts. It wasn't necessary to be a Levite to be completely engaged in the service of God in connection with the tabernacle/temple.

I think it happened more than once, but Antiochus was the first I recollect.

You're right about the Biblical law. It requires twisting of other texts to render Jephthah guilty of human sacrifice.


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Ruben makes a good point. The Levites married and had children so the fact that she had to work in the Tabernacle wouldn't guarantee that she would have to stay a virgin, yet this text states that she wept over being a virgin. In fact, I don't see any Scriptural warrant for Tabernacle workers being made to stay a virgin in order to be ultra pure. The other question no one has answered is didn't one have to be a Levite to work in the Tabernacle? Was she from the Levite tribe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anna was not from the tribe of Levi.
Click to expand...


Calvin states that no one but priests were allowed into the temple. He states that Zacharias, a man during Anna's time, went into the temple but the ppl stood without bc they were not allowed in so as to show that we are not allowed into God's presence without our High Priest going before us.


----------



## py3ak

You have to distinguish between different parts of the temple.


----------



## Augusta

I have been recently converted on this issue by this passage in Leviticus 27. Israelites could consecrate or sanctify certain things to service in the temple and they could then be redeemed after a time. Things devoted however could not be redeemed back. They were the Lord's from that time forth. I agree with Rev. Buchanan and Ruben that Jephtha's daughter was devoted and therefore belonged to the Lord for service in the Temple, could not be redeemed and therefore could never marry. 

Leviticus 27
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. 

3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 

4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. 

5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 

6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. 

7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 

8 But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him. 

*28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.*


----------



## christiana

Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible
scroll down to vv29-40


----------



## christiana

it would appear that taking a different view than is clearly stated would then give license to distort other scriptures as well.

. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and *I will offer it up as a burnt offering*.”
32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,[a] with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
Jephthah’s Daughter

34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! *For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.”*

i will just hang it on a hook and go with psalm 131


----------



## Augusta

I think also that it would be called an unlawful vow instead of just a rash vow if it was truly something unlawful, as human sacrifice was. The fact that it is only called rash, as in  "I didn't think of my daughter coming out of the house," argues against the human sacrifice view.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 04:16:53 EST-----

Here is another argument from Leviticus 27:29 which I left out above but shouldn't have.

29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 

We know that people were devoted as well as animals, but we don't hear of any hint of human sacrifice. If it was an animal according to the above verse it would *surely *be put to death. If, however, it was a person, obviously Israel wasn't in the habit of putting people to death via human sacrifice on the altar.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Like the case of Saul and the witch of Endor, I am amazed at the intransigence of some folks over a frankly difficult text. If it wasn't difficult, how come history shows us so much argument over it? Imagine, calling into question the fidelity of orthodox ministers, laymen, and scholars because they interpret the text differently from others who fancy their side superior because theirs is the supposed "literal" interpretation!

No one on my side (the "dedication" side) has said that holding the "face" meaning of the text (which in both cases is the "difficult" or "hard" interpretation) does not have either a sound defense or that those who defend it are suspect in their Christianity.

When other scriptures (and we ARE supposed to compare Scripture with Scripture in the Rule of Faith) are brought to bear on the interpretation, and it is shown that there is another strong case to be made, I see some defending the "hard-truth" interpretation (e.g. the flaming immolation of J's daughter) retreat into a sort-of fundy/Dispensational shell, and begin hurling invectives of "Scripture twisting" at the others.

Well then, does a "surface" reading of 2Pet.2:1 or 2Cor.5:14 prove an _*un*limited atonement?_ If such is not acceptable to a satisfied, orthodox Calvinist, then why here accuse the other side (a demon, not a ghost; a dedication, not a human barbecue) of mishandling the Word, when we are simply trying to harmonize (in either case) a historic narrative text with its implications in the rest of Scripture?


----------



## TimV

Great work, Traci.


----------



## christiana

please forgive me if what i said triggered that strong response. if it appears clear i just accept it and if it doesnt i hang it on a hook for a while as i review commentaries. i am aware there is much controversy over that passage. so sorry if i sounded harsh or critical; not my intent.
one must be very brave to post on PB lol perhaps it is time to hide under the bed for a while.


----------



## py3ak

Dear Christiana, posting on the PB often does require some courage. You and I disagree on the issue of Jephthah's daughter (and since I think the law is clear I don't believe I am twisting Scripture in interpreting this narrative in accordance with the rest of what we know of Jephthah from Scripture, and in accordance with the legislation God had given which would apply to such a case); but I am glad you have posted on it, because it's good to be challenged, and to go back and make sure that you are not altering what God has says because of personal distaste for it. I've looked at the issue multiple times, and I always come to the same conclusion, though I've learned about some new lines of evidence. But since learning new lines of evidence is a benefit, I have no desire for my rational opposition to hide under a bed.


----------



## Augusta

No bed hiding allowed. You might rehurt your ribs getting under there.


----------



## Christusregnat

It appears that the women in the Old Testament understood the blessing and the curse on Eve than modern women do, and therefore saw child-bearing and raising godly seed as the major human purpose of their lives, just as a man should consider his vocation. Hence the sorrow for not fulfilling her calling in life.

Cheers,


----------



## riceman

christiana said:


> please forgive me if what i said triggered that strong response. if it appears clear i just accept it and if it doesnt i hang it on a hook for a while as i review commentaries. i am aware there is much controversy over that passage. so sorry if i sounded harsh or critical; not my intent.
> one must be very brave to post on PB lol perhaps it is time to hide under the bed for a while.



I thought he sacrificed her too. After reading through this thread though, I'm not too sure I'm there anymore. So I know how ya feel =]


----------



## JennyG

I've been looking up old threads and thinking hard I would dearly like to believe she wasn't sacrificed after all (when I saw that interpretation first, it was a case of yesss! that must be it!)......but I found like Christiana in the end I really, really can't get by what the text says:
whatsoever cometh forth.....I will offer it up for a burnt offering,
..........and [he] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.
Joshua you said


> I think we ought to be less inclined toward rapaciousness and more charitable to believe that Jephthah, otherwise shown to be a righteous man, would not carry out such an atrocious thing, when Scripture does not say that He did.


but Scripture sure seems to say that he did, plus I'm unsure that charity (however necessary in real-life judgments) is demanded of us towards Jephthah here.

I see no alternative to hanging it on Christiana's same peg of psalm 131, and also saying thankfully with Matthew Henry,


> Concerning this and some other such passages in the sacred story, which learned men are in the dark, divided, and in doubt about, we need not much perplex ourselves; what is necessary to our salvation, thanks be to God, is plain enough.


----------



## christiana

when thinking on 'what must have been factual because of the law' we must remain aware that the whole of the book of judges is a declaration of what takes place under the circumstances of 'in those days there was no king in israel and men did what was right in their own eyes.' many warngs here!
jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering as he promised, in my opinion.
horrible, yes but clearly declared by a holy God so i will submit to the truth of scripture as i see it and the early church fathers saw it and matthew henry saw it.
this explanation works for me.
jephthah still belonged in the hall of faith as a forgiven sinner, same as me, because he had faith in a sovereign God and not because he did all things correctly in doing what was right in his own eyes.


----------



## py3ak

But Christiana, if Jephthah "did what was right in his own eyes" constantly then he wasn't a man of faith at all. Furthermore, in being constrained by his vow he shows that he's not just doing whatever is right in his own eyes; he feels bound to keep his word. The story of Ruth, which takes place in the time of the Judges, shows that the wickedness was not all-pervasive - Boaz himself is quite a model character.

The parallel of: "Whatever comes out I will offer as a burnt-offering" and "Jephthah did as he had vowed" is there: Jephthah kept his vow. No one is disputing that he kept it, or that his daughter urged him to keep it. What we are saying is that the vow was kept in accordance with God's laws, and in keeping with the nature of what was being offered. When the Israelites returned from battle with spoil, a part of which was to be devoted to the Lord, they didn't burn on an altar the captive women or the captive donkeys or the captive gold (Numbers 31:25-54) - such things could be offered, but not through that altar of burnt offerings.
If the text said, "Jephthah burned his daughter" then any other interpretation would be twisting. But when the text says that he fulfilled his vow, and there is a mechanism in place for understanding how he could do that without at the same time offending God more deeply than by not keeping his vow (Traci provided a very helpful reference for that), it is a sad lack of charity to our brother in Christ not to prefer that option. Especially when it fits with the whole presentation of his character (just, knowledgeable of the law, faithful); explains other phenomena in the text (e.g., bewailing virginity); and fits better with the rest of Biblical revelation (2 Kings 3:27; Genesis 22:12; Ezekiel 16:20,21). We should remember that it was God who chose Jephthah's daughter to come out to him. Jephthah left to God the choice of what He wanted, and God chose his daughter. Did God choose to be honoured by a murder contrary to His word, in submission to a view of the binding nature of oaths that was itself drawn from His word?


----------



## JennyG

> Jephthah kept his vow. No one is disputing that he kept it, or that his daughter urged him to keep it. What we are saying is that the vow was kept in accordance with God's laws, and in keeping with the nature of what was being offered.


I'm not going to answer for Nancy here, but it seems to me that what you say could well be the case. The only thing is that since scripture does not assert it, neither should we.


> it is a sad lack of charity to our brother in Christ not to prefer that option. Especially when it fits with the whole presentation of his character (just, knowledgeable of the law, faithful);


This doesn't strike me as a reason to, really. 
After all who would not indignantly repudiate the idea that David (going by his known character) could ever have dealt with Uriah as he in fact did.........if we didn't just happen to know the truth?


----------



## py3ak

Jenny, the point is not that the law of charity should override what the text says. But the text says, "the thing that David had done displeased the Lord." It's not part of the law of charity to argue that it pleased the Lord. But just as with our living brothers and sisters the law of charity does require us to put the best _possible_ construction on their actions (love thinks no evil, you remember), so in matters of Biblical interpretation. These are not merely historical characters: they are our brothers in Christ, and the Golden Rule applies to them as well. It isn't the only consideration in reading Biblical narratives, but it is a consideration, and perhaps one of the most neglected.


----------



## bug

Does the scripture ever actually pass a judgment on the validity of Jepthah's vow? Does the bible ever call it rash? It is worth noting that he makes the vow after the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. is that significant? Perhaps also we should ask who or what was most likely to come out of front door? If I go on a long journey, perhaps to do something potentially dangerous I know that upon my return it will not be the pet dog that is first to the door, but my daughter. I believe Jepthah did leave the object of the promise to God to determine, but I think he did it in the full knowledge of who potentially may greet him. 

I would also suggest that wording of v39 is very significant, "And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man." He carried out his vow and she knew no man. I am greatful to those who have explained just how he could do that without actually breaking his word, and yet also honouring God. They have explained that far better then I ever could have done.


----------



## christiana

i didnt say he did what was right in his own eyes 'constantly'
i really dont see myself as lacking charity because i read and accept what scripture says rather than seek ways to avoid it and find more palatable ways of conforming it to my tastes.
bottom line, like baptism, we see this differently. i'm o.k. with being different as long as i 'err' on the side of what is stated. besides, when did 'burnt offering' cease to be burnt?


----------



## py3ak

The reason you get so much push back is that you present others as seeking ways to make Scripture conform to their tastes. Attributing motivations to others is uncharitable. If you are attempting to think the best you can of Jephthah, but don't see a way around it, you can still be charitable to him on the worse reading of the text - but be charitable to the rest of us as well! It is possible, as our knowledge of our selves indicates, that *we are bound* _by the text in context_ *not* to think that Jephthah killed her.

The point of the burnt offerings is that they were wholly consumed - they were devoted in their entirety to God so that no human partook of them. And that, in the manner appropriate to the subject, is what happened with Jephthah's daughter - no man partook of her, _she knew no man_! (Which is remarkably understated if she was burned to a crisp.)

Perhaps this is a good place to warn against _letterism_ - attempting to insist that language is used without any flexibility. When Dr. Dulcamara says that he sells Ysault's love potion _ogni giorno a tutto il mondo_ (every day to the whole world), it would be absurd to represent him as meaning more than that he has a brisk market in that commodity wherever he goes (and yes, I am aware that he is lying, before anyone brings it up). It sometimes seems to me that the educated are more prone to forget the vivid flexibility of language than the uneducated, and that is an area where there is an artificial illiteracy quite impossible to a simple person.


----------



## JennyG

py3ak said:


> Jenny, the point is not that the law of charity should override what the text says. But the text says, "the thing that David had done displeased the Lord." It's not part of the law of charity to argue that it pleased the Lord. But just as with our living brothers and sisters the law of charity does require us to put the best _possible_ construction on their actions (love thinks no evil, you remember), so in matters of Biblical interpretation. These are not merely historical characters: they are our brothers in Christ, and the Golden Rule applies to them as well. It isn't the only consideration in reading Biblical narratives, but it is a consideration, and perhaps one of the most neglected.


that's certainly a very good point!
but as a general principle, I don't know. We aren't always told when someone's behaviour is wrong. In David's case the affair of Bathsheba is marked, but his polygamy passed over in silence. We don't therefore put a charitable spin on it and reckon it must have been the right thing at the time!


----------



## py3ak

The general principle isn't "If Scripture doesn't in that very text call it sin" we must assume it wasn't. The general principle is, "In matters where a sinful attitude or action could be surmised or not, the law of charity requires us to put the best construction on it." So for instance when Jacob commands his family to put away their strange gods (Genesis 35:2), although that text doesn't say it, it's clear enough from the rest of Scripture that some among his family were sinning. If Jacob was aware of the problem before and didn't deal with it, he was sinning: if he was unaware, he was not paying enough attention or someone was being very sneaky. In that situation, though that passage doesn't spell out a condemnation, charity doesn't require us to pretend that no sin happened.
But then you take the contention between Paul and Barnabas: the Bible does not say that Barnabas was wrong and Paul was right. It doesn't assign blame to either one. Obviously in the long run Barnabas' view that Mark was worth investing in was true; but given what Paul and his new travelling companions faced, it is probably true as well that Mark wasn't at that point cut out for front line ministry. There, charity keeps me from accusing Paul of harshness or Barnabas of obstinacy: each one had a point, each one stuck to his point, each one was blessed by God - but they couldn't do the same work as they used to do.


----------



## JennyG

To be honest I thought you'd say that, but actually I believe I had veered off the point a little. Whether Jephthah did right or not is a separate point from _what_ he did.
I would take it as read that everyone's motives here are the best, as I'm sure Christiana does too, and when I say this it's no way meant to suggest otherwise. It's just that whichever way round I go, I arrive back at the same words, "he vowed.... he did with her according to his vow".


> It sometimes seems to me that the educated are more prone to forget the vivid flexibility of language than the uneducated, and that is an area where there is an artificial illiteracy quite impossible to a simple person.


I'm not so sure - I would have said it requires quite educated, sophisticated argumentation to get past the simple face value of the words here.


----------



## py3ak

I think everyone who looks at the text comes back around and realizes that he fulfilled his vow. The question comes in on whether he honorably completed that vow according to the laws of God and without doing about the most abominable thing recorded in the OT, or whether he dishonorably completed an illegal vow, contravening God's laws and rendering himself worthy of death. The law of charity does come into play when the choice is between those two options.

When Paul says "We are the circumcision" (Phil. 3:3) that's not a claim that all Christians are physically circumcised - language has a certain pictorial flexibility. Jephthah vowed a vow of absolute handing over to God - nothing would be reserved. But how that vow is carried out, is dependent on the nature of the item being given, as has been shown on this thread from several different passages. The language of "burnt-offering" has the pictorial flexibility to convey entire devotion, and the fulfilment of that vow then proceeds according to the nature of the item devoted. Any other interpretation renders some features of the text rather inane.

My arguments don't seem very sophisticated to me; but short of presenting the text to people who don't know it, educated and uneducated, and getting their first impressions, I suppose we're going to have to stick with instinct. My instinct is that the largely uneducated people I know are less likely to trip up over vivid, pictorial language than the more educated.


----------



## JennyG

> My arguments don't seem very sophisticated to me; but short of presenting the text to people who don't know it, educated and uneducated, and getting their first impressions, I suppose we're going to have to stick with instinct. My instinct is that the largely uneducated people I know are less likely to trip up over vivid, pictorial language than the more educated.


when it comes to theology and hebrew, I'm as uneducated as the next idiot! 
but on sticking with instinct, I agree.
Perhaps this thread is becoming an ex-thread


----------



## py3ak

Education in Hebrew or theology isn't really relevant to that question - it's a matter of how you've become accustomed to think about words and expressions. Part of education is learning how to be more precise, more technical with our words; and since that involves using them with more exactitude, it's not surprising that it often comes with the cost of forgetting how pictorial language functions. It's not Hebrew that's required - it's listening to old farm laborers argue over Domino's.


----------



## py3ak

They do now, Your Cuteness. If we're listening to them, they're presumably still alive, after all.


----------



## py3ak

Pizza is very popular among farm laborers.


----------

