OldRegular
Well-Known Member
But of course there is that Scripture:
Romans 12:1. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jepthath's vow
- Thread starter Brutus
- Start date
But of course there is that Scripture:
Romans 12:1. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service
You think that you can define God by listing his attributes? You are, I believe, in a minority…but maybe that’s just based on my experience. Either way…I disagree. “We” do not “define” God. What we do is understand God as He has revealed Himself to us. God has “defined” Himself to the extent that we can know Him.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Judges 11:31 seems to indicate that Jephthah had a human in mind when he made the vow to God. Now how is this any different than the Moabite king's action in 2 Kings 3:27, just substituting the true God's response (who grants success for such devotion?) for that of a false god (who doesn't)? And then Jephthah is praised in 1 Sam 12:11 and especially Heb 11:32 as being exemplary as to faith? Then obey the word and go and do likewise? For crying out loud!
It was a rhetorical statement. I agree with you entirely.
The masculine gender used includes both male or females. If animals were meant it would have been stated in a feminine form - Jephthah could have been more specific - but the text leaves so much unsaid and unexplained.
The focus of the chapter is on the lost, never to be had, inheritance rather than on the unnamed daughter.
Perhaps some posters here should make vows that whoever bothers them with a negative comment after they post will be the Lord’s, or they will be sacrificed as a silent ignore offering. :laugh:
Rob
I don't understand why you interpret Judges 11:31 to indicate Jephthah had a human in mind when he made the vow to God (and I may be severely misunderstanding your post...if so I am sorry). I understand the interpretation which acknowledges "and I will offer" could also mean "it shall be the Lords OR I will offer it up as a burnt offering" (regardless of which interpretation is chosen)...but how do you get the implication that Jephthah expected a human to either "be the Lord's" or "offer as a burnt offering"...or both?
The difficulty to me is that it is so foreign to the Israelite's worldview (if you are implying a human "burnt offering." We are speaking of a time after the Law was given, after the wilderness, and when the Israelites had entered the "Promised Land." I could perhaps understand if the narrative were contemporary to Abraham...but even prior to the Law the Israelites did not offer human sacrifices. If you could explain how you arrive at your interpretation I'd appreciate it.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
It also seems that Jephthah vowed his vow when the Spirit of the Lord was upon him (Judges 11:30). And why this weird obsession with his daughter's virginity in 11:37,38,39? Maybe weep and wail for your imminent slaughter, but for your virginity? The placement of the clause "and she knew no man" in 11:39 right after the fulfillment of the vow (whatever it was) almost seals the deal for me.
:thumbs: I know. I just thought I'd play on the "we" part.
But this is the context in which I (and I believe OldRegular) views the text. If it were a "human burnt offering" then it would be uncharacteristic to leave it at that. It is in that sense contrary to the nature of God as He has revealed Himself to us. Neither of us, I believe, were going to the point of "boxing in God," rather we were discerning Scripture with Scripture (using God's own revelation to determine the best interpretation of the passage). You and I (and OldRegular) simply disagree. I'm actually more concerned about the "wild" God part more than the subject of this thread.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Basically, elsewhere the expression "come out of the doors of the house" refers to an individual, never to an animal (cf. e.g. Josh 2:19; Judg 19:27), and also using the word יצא with an animal seems to be always in the Hiphil (i.e. cause to go out, i.e. "drive out"), but here in 11:31 it is in the Qal (i.e. go/come out on one's own), indicating that Jephthah was speaking of and intending an individual when he spoke the words. (BTW, if this verb יצא ever is used of animals in the Qal I'd like to be made aware of it. I've done some searches but may have missed some, since the verb is used some 1000x in the OT.) Also, the verb קרא (here, who "meets" me) never to my knowledge is used to indicate meeting up with an animal, although it does have negative connotations, e.g., meeting people in battle, etc.
Thank you for your explanation, I had not heard that before.
BTW...for the ancient Israel, both forthcoming death and being "given to God"/never bearing children...would be a cause for wailing. We do need to be careful not to take the passage out of it's context. These people had a different worldview than ours...it was a big deal to be a young woman never to be given in marriage.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
I never said it wasn't, only that the text mentioning only virginity as the cause for weeping and nothing about one's imminent death as the cause -- nothing at all! -- seems misplaced not in light of my worldview but in light of the sequence of the text itself.
I agree. It does seem misplaced if she was sacrificed as a "burnt offering." In the sequence of the text itself, however, it does not have to be "misplaced," depends on one's interpretation. But even within Jewish tradition there are multiple interpretations (some have the daughter dying at her father's hands...with, I'd add, God being pleased with the sacrifice; others with her being "given to God" as consecrated). What I did not realise was the view that it was a human he expected to come out of his home.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
It was at least the view of Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 7.49.
Below is the relevant quotation of Augustine from the note in Keil and Delitzsch in that place:
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Another good point, as Keil/Delitzsch show, is that it would be a weightless vow if only an animal were intended, since sacrificing animals were a given, and vowing to sacrificing such, even the most costly animal one possessed, would have meant very little.
The placement of the "virgin" statements are not so unusual.
The stories in Judges, like much of Genesis and many other Hebrew writings were chiastic in form.
Look back at the outline of the text in post #13. (and that was developed from the English text!).
You can see a mirrored ABCD
The stories in Judges, like much of Genesis and many other Hebrew writings were chiastic in form.
Look back at the outline of the text in post #13. (and that was developed from the English text!).
You can see a mirrored ABCD
D'C'B'A' chiastic pattern.
The daughter's virginity and unmarried status parallel Jephthah's mother's unwed, prostitute status.
This pattern was often used in ancient literature as a memory devise for both the story-teller and listeners.
Often the same words were used in the patterns: sometimes opposites were employed like in this particular case.
The Book of Judges for some strange reason most often uses synonyms – words meaning the same thing but different.
As the story progresses you see the importance of it bears upon the inheritance of Jephthah – no daughter – no heirs - no inheritance.
The sacrifice, whether spiritual or physical makes no difference to the outcome.
Well. I've spent the week in Judges rather than Deuteronomy 29 – I've got work to do for Sunday's lesson! Got-to-go.
Rob
The daughter's virginity and unmarried status parallel Jephthah's mother's unwed, prostitute status.
This pattern was often used in ancient literature as a memory devise for both the story-teller and listeners.
Often the same words were used in the patterns: sometimes opposites were employed like in this particular case.
The Book of Judges for some strange reason most often uses synonyms – words meaning the same thing but different.
As the story progresses you see the importance of it bears upon the inheritance of Jephthah – no daughter – no heirs - no inheritance.
The sacrifice, whether spiritual or physical makes no difference to the outcome.
Well. I've spent the week in Judges rather than Deuteronomy 29 – I've got work to do for Sunday's lesson! Got-to-go.
Rob
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Rob,
While I admit that I'm not one who sees chiasm behind every bush (partly because its determination is so subjective and partly because it's like the Bible Code -- one tends to find what one's looking for), it's obvious that the technique does exist and is helpful for exegesis (when it exists). Your post and those before it are instructive. But I must ask, wouldn't it make more sense from your chiasm to have Jephthah being driven away in A (11:2) and Jephthah's daughter being driven away (not senselessly slaughtered) in A' (11:39)? Just sayin'!
Jonathan
While I admit that I'm not one who sees chiasm behind every bush (partly because its determination is so subjective and partly because it's like the Bible Code -- one tends to find what one's looking for), it's obvious that the technique does exist and is helpful for exegesis (when it exists). Your post and those before it are instructive. But I must ask, wouldn't it make more sense from your chiasm to have Jephthah being driven away in A (11:2) and Jephthah's daughter being driven away (not senselessly slaughtered) in A' (11:39)? Just sayin'!
Jonathan
Jonathan, it was a first attempt done at work between cardiac stress test patients.
It was the contrast between the prostitute and the virgin that first alerted me that there was a chiasm in the section.
It still looks okay, a few adjustments may be necessary - I need to look deeper in to the Hebrew and when/if I spend more time on it I'd expand it to include the verses in chapter 11 which probably correspond to the later section of chapter 12.
I'll admit it, chiasms are a weakness for me.
I see them throughout OT scripture
Tomorrows session on Deuteronomy 29 includes one.
Deuteronomy 29:10–15
10 All of you are standing today
in the presence of YHWH your God—
your leaders and tribes, your elders and officials,
all the men of Israel,
11 your children, your wives, your sojourner living in your camps,
from your wood chopper to your waterhauler.
12 For you to cross over into the covenant of YHWH your God, and into his oath
that YHWH your God is cutting with you today,
13 to confirm you this day as his people, with him being for you as God
as he promised you
and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.
14 Not with you, you-alone
do I cut this covenant, with its oath,
15 but with the one that is here, standing with us today
before the presence of YHWH our God,
And (also) with the one that is not here with us today.
I'd encourage you to look at The Literary Structures of the Old Testament, a Commentary on Genesis-Malachi by David Dorsey, recently promoted into the Lord's presence.
Rob
It was the contrast between the prostitute and the virgin that first alerted me that there was a chiasm in the section.
It still looks okay, a few adjustments may be necessary - I need to look deeper in to the Hebrew and when/if I spend more time on it I'd expand it to include the verses in chapter 11 which probably correspond to the later section of chapter 12.
I'll admit it, chiasms are a weakness for me.
I see them throughout OT scripture
Tomorrows session on Deuteronomy 29 includes one.
Deuteronomy 29:10–15
10 All of you are standing today
in the presence of YHWH your God—
your leaders and tribes, your elders and officials,
all the men of Israel,
11 your children, your wives, your sojourner living in your camps,
from your wood chopper to your waterhauler.
12 For you to cross over into the covenant of YHWH your God, and into his oath
that YHWH your God is cutting with you today,
13 to confirm you this day as his people, with him being for you as God
as he promised you
and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.
14 Not with you, you-alone
do I cut this covenant, with its oath,
15 but with the one that is here, standing with us today
before the presence of YHWH our God,
And (also) with the one that is not here with us today.
I'd encourage you to look at The Literary Structures of the Old Testament, a Commentary on Genesis-Malachi by David Dorsey, recently promoted into the Lord's presence.
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
REVIEW: by Robert G. Bloing, McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ii, 60637 in JSTOR, Hebrew Studies 31 (1990) 210
JEPHTHAH AND HIS VOW. By David Marcus. Pp 77. Lubbock: Texas Tech Univesity, 1986.
This essay is a singularly focused pursuit of the question: what happened to Jephthah's daughter at the conclusion of the story in Judges 11:29-40? What Marcus calls the "traditional" or "sacrificialist" interpretation hold that Jephthah rashly vowed his daughter to death. A minority opinion, also with some deep roots in rabbinic interpretation, regards the sacrifice as metaphorical: Jephthah's daughter was consecrated to God to remain a virgin for the rest of her life.
After briefly recounting the history of exegesis, which rather massively favors the traditional interpretation, Marcus proceeds to a rehabilitation of the dissenting view. He is convinced that while the sacrificialist case is less than iron-clad, the alternative is not without merit. The result, he concludes, is a story shot through with intentional ambiguity. The effect of the ambiguity is to focus attention away from the unanswerable question about the fate of the daughter and on to the rashness of Jephehah's vow. There is considerable merit to the argument, and so we "sacrificialists" may well have to be less decisive about certain matters in our second editions.
JEPHTHAH AND HIS VOW. By David Marcus. Pp 77. Lubbock: Texas Tech Univesity, 1986.
This essay is a singularly focused pursuit of the question: what happened to Jephthah's daughter at the conclusion of the story in Judges 11:29-40? What Marcus calls the "traditional" or "sacrificialist" interpretation hold that Jephthah rashly vowed his daughter to death. A minority opinion, also with some deep roots in rabbinic interpretation, regards the sacrifice as metaphorical: Jephthah's daughter was consecrated to God to remain a virgin for the rest of her life.
After briefly recounting the history of exegesis, which rather massively favors the traditional interpretation, Marcus proceeds to a rehabilitation of the dissenting view. He is convinced that while the sacrificialist case is less than iron-clad, the alternative is not without merit. The result, he concludes, is a story shot through with intentional ambiguity. The effect of the ambiguity is to focus attention away from the unanswerable question about the fate of the daughter and on to the rashness of Jephehah's vow. There is considerable merit to the argument, and so we "sacrificialists" may well have to be less decisive about certain matters in our second editions.
I was reminded of this thread while reading a blog from BibleStudyMagazine.com
Rob
Righting a Wrong by Michael Heiser (May 16, 2017)
The Story Repurposed
The tragedy of Jephthah is repurposed in the New Testament story of Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:40–56). The details are subtle but theologically powerful.
COMMON ELEMENTS
Jephthah Story
Jairus Story
CONTRASTING ELEMENTS
Jephthah Story
Jairus Story
As was the case in the original Jephthah story, this repurposing is about which god is king, and what territory is his rightful domain. Jesus is showing that Gilead is being taken back by the true God.
Rob
Righting a Wrong by Michael Heiser (May 16, 2017)
The Story Repurposed
The tragedy of Jephthah is repurposed in the New Testament story of Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:40–56). The details are subtle but theologically powerful.
COMMON ELEMENTS
Jephthah Story
- Jephthah’s only daughter
- Preceded as judge by Jair (spelled in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, as Ιαϊρ)
- Land of Jephthah = Gilead (Judg 11:1)
- Land of Jair = Gilead (Judg 10:3–5) Gilead = east of the Jordan, ruled by the Ammonites in Jephthah’s day
Jairus Story
- Jairus’ only daughter (Luke 8:42)
- Jairus (spelled in Greek as Ιαϊρος)
- Jairus encounters Jesus on the shore of the sea of Galilee, after Jesus’ return from Gerasa/Gadara = Gilead in the Old Testament
CONTRASTING ELEMENTS
Jephthah Story
- An Israelite leader who worships Yahweh in the manner of false gods
- Selfish vow results in the human sacrifice of his daughter
- An Israelite girl is sacrificed to a foreign god Daughter dies
Jairus Story
- A Jewish leader who embraces Jesus
- Unselfishly pleads to Jesus for the life of his daughter
- A Jewish girl is raised by the true God incarnate Daughter raised to life
As was the case in the original Jephthah story, this repurposing is about which god is king, and what territory is his rightful domain. Jesus is showing that Gilead is being taken back by the true God.
The verses seems to clearly indicate that Jephthah murdered his daughter and made her an unacceptable sacrifice to God, given the Law did not allow for human sacrifice. The Law states clearly the only creatures that make for an acceptable sacrifice. This is reminiscent of the child sacrifices to Moloch or Baal later in the bible, which God hated with what seems like special hate (Leviticus 20:2-5, Jeremiah 19:5).
The story is no less horrible than many in the book of Judges such as in Judges 19.
The story is no less horrible than many in the book of Judges such as in Judges 19.
Last edited:
Think that he put her up in their version of the nunnery, as she remained a virgin for life, and thus his family line ended!