Thread: Jephthah

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

http://christcovenantreformedpc.org/...bid=66&mid=381

Listen to the last few minutes, where the Pastor comments on Jepthah's vow.

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

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.

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

Elimelek,

1. Please fix your signature according to the rules (you can find the link in my sig line)

2. Jephthah is mentioned in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews (11, I think).

3. His actions were nowhere condemned in the book of Judges, whereas others' foolish actions were.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skyler

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.

And each of those folks were condemned for said sins (with the exception of Rahab, but she was still identified as a Prostitute), but Jepthah is never once identified or condemned as a murderer of his daughter.

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Elimelek

I just wonder, what whould be the reason for the lamentation (if that is how the Hebrew should be translated)?

Have you listened to that Reading I linked to yet? The Pastor reads the whole Chapter then gives a brief exposition. The last few minutes deal with this "controversy."

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)

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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".

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.

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, IMO. 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

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!

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!!

Originally Posted by 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".

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. )

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-----

Originally Posted by TimV

Welkom by ons board, Dominee!

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

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?

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.

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-----

Originally Posted by Wanderer

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Originally Posted by 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".

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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-----

Originally Posted by Wanderer

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.

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.

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.