Weeping about virginity - Judges 11:34-40

[AThornquist]

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

34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” 36 And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” 37 So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” 38 So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. 39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel 40 that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

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

What do you think?

 

[au5t1n]

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

 

[riceman]

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

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

 

[riceman]

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

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

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

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

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

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

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

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. =]

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

It was certainly a foolish and rash vow.

 

[OPC'n]

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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-----

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

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

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

 

[riceman]

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-----

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-----

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

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

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!

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

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

Veeeeerrrrryyyyy interesting, Rev. Buchanan.

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

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

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

30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

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

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

 

[JennyG]

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[riceman]

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

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

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

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

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

I don't know if that's a

 

[christiana]

I was involved in an earlier thread on this topic.

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

 

[Romans922]

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-----

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

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

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-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

Anna was not from the tribe of Levi.

 

[TimV]

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

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