Great work, Traci.

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
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

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

__________________
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

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

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

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

__________________
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

I've been looking up old threads and thinking hard I would dearly like to believe she wasn't sacrificed after all (when I saw that interpretation first, it was a case of yesss! that must be it!)......but I found like Christiana in the end I really, really can't get by what the text says:
whatsoever cometh forth.....I will offer it up for a burnt offering,
..........and [he] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.
Joshua you said but Scripture sure seems to say that he did, plus I'm unsure that charity (however necessary in real-life judgments) is demanded of us towards Jephthah here.

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

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

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

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

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

I'm not going to answer for Nancy here, but it seems to me that what you say could well be the case. The only thing is that since scripture does not assert it, neither should we.
This doesn't strike me as a reason to, really.
After all who would not indignantly repudiate the idea that David (going by his known character) could ever have dealt with Uriah as he in fact did.........if we didn't just happen to know the truth?

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

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

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

__________________
Jonathan
Deacon (full time)
Independent Reformed Baptist (BCF 1689)
Tinshill Free Church, Leeds, UK.

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

And yet (respectfully), Ma'am, your lack of charity toward your brethren is shown in this statement when you assume that those of us who disagree with you are "seek[ing] ways to avoid it and find more palatable ways of conforming it to [our] tastes."
When a noted godly man realized that to offer up his daughter as a human burnt sacrifice would be an unlawful vow to keep. And with many other passages folks have argued for such.

__________________
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do they have pizza often? Or did you mean dominoes/dominos (no apostrophe)?

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

Who presumed they were dead?

Pizza is very popular among farm laborers.