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:

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?

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

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.

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

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.

__________________
Joseph
Non-denom
Florida

Be Thou my vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art.
Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light

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?

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. =]

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-----


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.

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.

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

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

IMO 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.

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-----

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.

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!

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-----

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?"

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!

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.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Veeeeerrrrryyyyy interesting, Rev. Buchanan.

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

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.”

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

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

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

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.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

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!

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.

__________________
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Pastor, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCGA)
Wylie, TX
www.christcovenantreformedpc.org

Our best marks can contribute nothing to our justification, ...that is proper to faith. Faith cannot lodge in the soul alone, and without other graces; yet faith alone justifies before God.--G. Gillespie

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?

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

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

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.

__________________
Nancy L./ www.foundersbaptist.org
Spring, TX

Your will, Lord Jesus Christ! Nothing more... nothing less... nothing else.

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-----

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.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

Anna was not from the tribe of Levi.

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?

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

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.

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.

You have to distinguish between different parts of the temple.

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.

__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC
"I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."--David Dickson

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

David's murder, adultery, etc. were clearly addressed in the Scriptures. They were also repented of, and they do not include David keeping an oath that was an unlawful oath in the first place (i.e. human sacrifice to the "glory of God"). On the other hand, whatever did happen with Jephthah is not explicitly clear, and he is not condemned for it, either.

Thus, since we:

1. Should place the best construction on what's going on, and

2. Have evidence and support from the rest of scripture (i.e. folks being devoted to temple service, etc.) along with the explicit mention of Jephthah's daughter's bewailing of her virginity, and not her death

Then maybe we ought be more charitable in assuming that Jephthah did not make and keep a foolish vow, but made and kept a lawful vow. We shouldn't assume that he compounded sin with sin, if Scripture itself doesn't make such clear.



I do appreciate what Henry says at the conclusion of this passage:

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

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

By saying, "I cannot go back on it," I believe that Jephthah is clearly saying that he made a vow. What would have been clear to him, however, is that human sacrifice would require him to go back on his vow because it would have been unlawful to carry out. So, then, since he obviously carried out a vow, he would have acclimated said vow to be executed in a lawful manner (i.e. perpetual virginity and temple service for his daughter). Any man would be brought low to know that he would not be able to further his family line (because of her perpetual virginity) due to a vow made. 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. It would be more in line with keeping with his reputation, especially since said vow-keeping was not condemned or called sinful, wicked, or displeasing to the Lord.

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.

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/dispy 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 unlimited 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?