Weeping about virginity - Judges 11:34-40

[py3ak]

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.

 

[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?

Anna was not from the tribe of Levi.

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.

 

[py3ak]

You have to distinguish between different parts of the temple.

 

[Augusta]

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.

 

[christiana]

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

 

[christiana]

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

 

[Augusta]

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.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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/Dispensational 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?

 

[TimV]

Great work, Traci.

 

[christiana]

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.

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[Augusta]

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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,

 

[riceman]

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.

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 =]

 

[JennyG]

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

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.

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,

Concerning this and some other such passages in the sacred story, which learned men are in the dark, divided, and in doubt about, we need not much perplex ourselves; what is necessary to our salvation, thanks be to God, is plain enough.

 

[christiana]

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.

 

[py3ak]

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?

 

[JennyG]

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.

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.

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);

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?

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[bug]

Does the scripture ever actually pass a judgment 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.

 

[christiana]

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?

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[JennyG]

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.

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!

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[JennyG]

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".

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.

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.

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[JennyG]

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

 

[py3ak]

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.