Jephthah

[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?

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-----

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)

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]

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.")

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.