The book of Hebrews has a whole chapter about Old Testament men (and women) who achieved great things by faith.
One of them had his daughter killed--as a human sacrifice.
What are we to make of this?
Hebrews on Jephthah
NOTE: This post is part of a series on the "dark passages" in the Bible. Click here to see all of the posts in the series.
Hebrews 11 discusses various Old Testament figures who had faith in God and did amazing things. Toward the end of the chapter, we read:
And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets--who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions . . . [Heb. 11:32-33].
It continues in the same vein.
The point is: These men, together with some notable women the chapter also mentions, did amazing things as a result of their faith.
One of the people mentioned in this passage is Jephthah.
Who was he?
The Stage Is Set
The stage for Jephthah's first appearance is set in Judges 10, where we read about how the Israelites have been worshipping foreign gods and, as a result, they have become oppressed by a group of foreigners: the Ammonites.
The Israelites repent, and God is moved to have mercy on them.
So God will make sure that they are delivered from the persecution, but what historical form will this deliverance take?
The leaders of Gilead (part of the territory of Israel) start consulting about how they can free themselves from the Ammonite oppression.
Specifically, they decide that if they can find a man to lead the fight against the Ammonites, they're willing to let him be the leader of Gilead.
Meet Jephthah
Turning the corner into chapter 11, we meet Jephthah:
[1] Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior, but he was the son of a harlot. Gilead was the father of Jephthah.
[2] And Gilead's wife also bore him sons; and when his wife's sons grew up, they thrust Jephthah out, and said to him, "You shall not inherit in our father's house; for you are the son of another woman."
[3] Then Jephthah fled from his brothers, and dwelt in the land of Tob; and worthless fellows collected round Jephthah, and went raiding with him.
So already, Jephthah has had a hard life. Think about his family situation!
He's the son of a prostitute, but his father took him (as a boy) to dwell in his own house anyway, with the sons of his wife.
Ouch! Think about how painful that must have been for everyone involved!
Then when his half-brothers are grown up, the legitimate sons drive Jephthah out so that he can't inherit anything (meaning: he leaves penniless or close to it).
Jephthah then descends into a life of banditry.
So: Hard life. Social and familial outcast. Enters a life of crime.
But he does have one thing that people need . . .
Men at His Command
As the leader of a group of armed bandits, Jephthah has at his disposal potential military power. This was in short supply in Israel at the time, since there was as yet no king or standing army.
The elders of Gilead thus come to him and promise that he can be their leader if he will beat back the Ammonites.
To Jephthah's praise, there follows an extended parley which explores the historical roots of the conflict, in which Jephthah argues that the Ammonites should not trouble Israel.
This effort fails, and Jephthah makes ready to do battle.
He is uncertain of victory, though, so he makes a promise to God . . .
Jephthah's Vow
[30] And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand,
[31] then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering."
Wow!
This is Not Good.
The ancient Hebrew audience knew that God had rejected human sacrifice as a means of worshipping him.
That's part of the point of the story of the (non-)sacrifice of Isaac: God rejects human sacrifice and allows animal sacrifice in its place.
What's more, child sacrifice was explicitly forbidden by the Law of Moses (which was already in effect at this point):
There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering [Deut. 18:10a].
The early audience, hearing this story read aloud, would have been chilled to the bone at this point.
While Jephthah may have imagined an animal would come out of his door first (animals were often housed indoors in Israel), he's made an extremely rash and foolish vow, because it could easily be a human being, even a child, who comes out first.
This is madness on his part!
(Note: I mention the possibility of an animal because some commentators have suggested it, but it is not obvious that he is thinking of an animal as fulfilling the vow; he may have full well meant it to apply to a human being.)
What Happens Next?
Ultimately, God does allow Jephthah to drive back the Ammonites and deliver Israel from oppression.
He has been merciful to Israel.
But then the horrible folly of Jephthah's vow is made explicit--both to the audience and to Jephthah himself:
[34] Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
[35] And when he saw her, he rent 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."
So Jephthah's daughter--his only child--is the first one to come out to meet him, and in celebration of her father's victory!
But his vow requires her to die.
That means, among other things, that if he fulfills his vow, his line ends here. He will have no descendants, which was a great tragedy for Israelites.
Jephthah has doomed his daughter and brought shame and disgrace on himself.
And--the text makes sure we know--he carried out the vow.
Some have suggested that this only meant he had his daughter consecrated to God, not actually killed, but this goes contrary to the text.
While it was possible to consecrate children to the service of God, as workers at the Tabernacle (like Samuel's mother did for him when he was a boy), that is not what is happening here.
The vow specifically stated: "I will offer him up for a burnt offering."
So Jephthah, in his madness, put himself in a position where, in order to fulfill his vow, he would have to violate Deuteronomy 18:10 and commit the sacrilege of child sacrifice.
GAH!
This is the epitome of the rash vow, and the author of Judges expects us to realize that.
What Are We to Make of This?
It's become clear that Jephthah isn't a knight in shining armor. He is not, fundamentally, a heroic figure.
He's a tragically flawed individual. Like many flawed individuals, he was dealt a bad hand of cards early in life, and--unfortunately--he never fully overcame that.
But despite this, he was able to serve as an instrument of God's mercy in delivering Israel.
It would have been better if he had more faith--if he had trusted in God for victory without making his foolish and immoral vow.
Should Jephthah have kept his vow?
From our perspective, the answer is an obvious NO!
For the ancient audience, the matter would have been less clear, but even for them it was clear that Jephthah should never have made the vow in the first place.
It was even clear to Jephthah himself in the end.
We thus do not have the book of Judges endorsing Jephthah's behavior.
From the perspective of the author of Judges, God will be faithful to his promise to deliver Israel when they repent of their sins, but he does so in a way that allows humans to still make mistakes and sin.
Many of the judges are depicted as extremely flawed individuals, but God still uses them as instruments of mercy.
Jephthah is one of those: He does deliver Israel, but he is also extremely flawed, and his daughter dies as a result.
And that brings us back to the place where we started . . .
Hebrews on Jephthah
What did the author of Hebrews think about Jephthah's vow?
Does the fact that he's mentioned in Hebrews 11 mean that the author approves of the vow, or that he considers it unimportant?
No.
The author of Hebrews is intent on showing the importance of faith and how those who have faith can achieve great things.
Jephthah did that. He had the faith in God to put his life on the line in battle, and he delivered the Israelites from foreign oppression.
He gets credit for that, and that's the only credit Hebrews is giving him.
We can be sure of that in two ways . . .
Gideon, Barak, Samson, David, and Samuel
First, what about those other guys who are named along with Jephthah? Were they paragons of virtue?
Hardly.
There is fault that can be found with these figures.
To cite just one example: David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then arranged for her husband to be killed in battle.
This is explicitly regarded, in the Old Testament itself, as a grave sin on David's part, for which he suffers.
The author of Hebrews hardly thought David was sinless--or even that he was free of grave sin--and he didn't think the other people he names were sinless, either.
Hebrews on Sacrifice
Second, the idea that Hebrews would have regarded Jephthah's vow as a good thing is simply not credible.
First, Hebrews was written by a Christian, and Christ was rather cool toward making vows in the first place (Matt. 5:33-37, though that's a subject that would take us too far afield for this post).
Second, the author of Hebrews doesn't even want people to sacrifice bulls and goats any more! His whole letter is oriented against the idea of continued blood sacrifices, and . . .
Third, he was a Jew, and there is no way that he would have regarded child sacrifice as a legitimate thing to do (per Deut. 18:10, among others).
So if we had asked him, "Do you think Jephthah was right to make his vow?" we can be entirely sure that he would have said no.
And if we asked him why he did mention Jephthah, we can be sure he would have mentioned other factors.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Horrible and not totally unrelated to the unconscious depreciated value of females in Lot offering his daugthers for rape rather than the guests being raped by townsmen in Sodom and a similar offer being made in Judges 19:22 by another host to aggressive sodomites….offering his daugthers and the concubine of his guest to rapacious townsmen although the actual death after rape of the concubine at their hands was valued with extreme consequences of warfare. But that she was offered in place of a male being abused is the opposite of our concept of chivalry.
This situation continues even today by proponents of abortion in cases of rape and incest. They say it is better to kill the innocent child to pay for the sins of the rapist. This is a morally despicable position that is always wrong regardless of time and the circumstances.
Note that Jephthah did NOT vow “the best of my flock.” That would have been a more worthy vow, not unlike the vows of Catholics through the ages to go on pilgrimages. I have a nagging suspicion he may have hoped to get off cheaply through the sacrifice of an inferior animal.
Also note that he did not, as so many had both before and after him, “inquire of the Lord” what he should do.
There is a decent analysis of rash vows in Scripture at http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2009/02/rash-vows.html.
Jimmy, what do you think of the explanation, based on Judges 11:36-40 emphasis on her virginity, that Jephthah didn’t offer his daughter as a burnt offering, but sacrificed her by keeping her a virgin and forbidding her to marry. There is also some thought that the Hebrew prefix translated “and” in v 31 (*and* I will offer it as a burnt offering)could be translated “or”.
Jimmy,
.
I very much appreciate this series of posts on the “dark passages” of Scripture. Please keep them coming.
Whenever people start criticizing the Bible and Christians by shouting about the bad things the Bible describes, I want to ask them, do your daily newspaper’s owners approve of everything that appears in the paper? Do they advocate tornadoes, crime and accidents on the highway? No? Then why assume that God, the prophets who wrote the Bible, and Christians advocate everything anyone in the Bible does? Especially when it’s obvious that the whole point of a passage is to cry out against the action described, or when the outcome of a decision is explicitly described as tragic, or when God explicitly says the person shouldn’t do it, as when the angels urge Lot not to offer his girls to the mob. How can anyone read these passages and walk away thinking we advocate such crimes when it’s so clearly spelled out that we don’t?
Human sacrifice was typical of the Canaanite religion (Lev20:1-3) but was abominable in the sight of God. God would never ask such a thing from us. When he asks Abraham to take Isaac to Mt Moriah, God was testing Abraham’s faith about God. God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac at the last moment.
IMHO, Jephthah’s daughter was dedicated to God as a LIVING SACRIFICE; dedicated to living out her life in service to God rather than to marrying and having children.
She went into the hills to mourn v,11:38
v, 11:31 indicates “OR” I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering
There is nowhere in Judges 11 that God condemns Jephthah for his vow.
Jephthah is also honored with Samson and David, etc., in Hebrews 11:32
From our pov it was kind of a silly thing to vow since we understand that it usually is a member of our family that runs out to greet us when we have come come after a long absence, but we must remember that this is biblical ancient time and living conditions were not as they are today :)-
I don’t buy the idea that Jephthah’s daughter became, in essence, a nun. Jephthah probably understood her to fall under Leviticus 27:28,29—“Any thing that is devoted to the Lord, whether it be man, or beast, or field, shall not be sold: neither may it be redeemed. Whatsoever is once consecrated shall be holy of holies to the Lord. And any consecration that is offered by man, shall not be redeemed, but dying shall die.”
Perhaps this is a clear, Old Testament example of the dangers of private interpretation of Scripture.
I’m absolutely loving this series on the dark passages! It clears up so much for me. I hope you keep them coming! :)
There is one thing you have not addressed: Verse 29 says, “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah…” Verse 30 follows as quoted above: “And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD…” The close proximity of these verses and the apparent continuation of 30 from 29 implies that Jephthah made his vow in the Spirit of YHWH. The Spirit of the LORD could NOT inspire anyone to make a vow that is expressly against the will and command of the God whose Spirit is doing the inspiring.
Also, why is her virginity so emphasized at the end of the chapter; why is it this that is bewailed and not her death?
Sloppy, sloppy!! You have the mentioned the seeds of reconciling the account in Judges with the Hebrews letter citing Jepthah as an example of a faithful man! So, let us follow it through.
This has nothing to do with human sacrifice or rash judgement—except (1) when we approach the accounts solely in English and solely from a Westernized point of view, and (2) when we somehow believe there is a mysterious element called the ‘perspective of the author of..’ and if we could understand that we could understand the the conundrum.
It is simply incredible to accept a view that Jepthah would sacrifice his daughter and that the Holy Spirit (the True Author, here) would not offer even one reprobation about this human sacrifice anywhere in Scripture. Instead, the Holy Spirit offers us Jepthah - without criticism - as a hero and exemplar in the New Testament litany of the faithful.
What we have is a scarred warrior who makes a sacred vow to God to ensure his success in the coming battle. His vow is according to the Law (Lv 27). Jepthah will either dedicate his stated offering (masculine, in Hebrew) to the Lord OR offer it as a burnt offering. [“OR”, this is a common use/rendering of the Hb “vau” - a disjunctive - and occurs many times in the Hb Scripture.] What issues from the house is feminine and not, properly or literally, what was offered in the vow. Jepthah remains faithful to his word. He redeems his daughter (again, part of the Law in Lv 27) and sacrifices his progeny. Thus, we have nothing to do with a human sacrifice, but with a dedicated life.
This makes sense in light of verses 39, 40—the so-called ‘lamenting’ of his daughter by the ‘daughters of Israel.’ The same Hebrew expression for lament is used in Judges 5.11 (the only other time in the Hebrew portion of the Bible) and is rendered ‘rehearse.’ Thus, every year the friends of Jepthah’s daughter went out to talk with her, to remember, to rehearse, the act of faith that resulted in her perpetual virginity—and NOT to mourn over her death!
This also makes sense in the context of Hebrews ch 11—where men and women are commended for their single focus on hearing God’s Word and then spending exceptional parts of their lives DOING what God’s Word says, no matter the consequences to their mortal existence. And so should we do likewise.
Have you written yet about Samuel telling Saul (in the Name of the Lord) to slaughter the Amalekites: man, woman, and child? I’m engaging in a difficult discussion about it right now, and have my own ideas, but would love to see your take on it.
James Kurt,
I would suggest that in the Old Testament the descent of the Spirit of YHWH upon someone does not imply that person is going to be necessarily “inspired” to act in a moral fashion as if he could not act wrongly. Such descent does not override free will.
The Spirit, after all, is described as coming upon David in his anointing, but that did not prevent him from committing adultery and murder. That same Spirit is described as descending upon King Saul and, in fact, causing him to enter an ecstatic frenzy or prophetic state (like an Delphian oracle, if I may make the comparison). Yet he obviously did not obey God in everything, and, in fact, he made decisions which subsequently caused the Spirit to leave him and be rushed upon by evil spirits instead.
Finally, the Spirit also is described as descending upon Moses whereupon in a wrathful fury ordered the Levites to assault the makers of Golden Calf.
The Spirit of YHWH doesn’t necessarily prevent evil actions or thoughts today either. I mean, we receive in the Eucharist both the Creating Word and the Spirit imbued in the Word as the Incarnate Lord Jesus, but that doesn’t stop us from sinning.
Perhaps her virginity is emphasized to give an idea of her youthful innocence in face of this tragedy.
Sorry I couldn’t give verse numbers.
Brian Sullivan and James Kurt have, I believe, hit the proverbial nail on the head: this man gave his daughter into a life of consecrated virginity.
God is Sovereign or He is not. A sovereign God would not have allowed a Holy Spirit-filled man to murder his own daughter, for a vow made to God, in haste. It would not benefit God, and it would be an empty gesture that would go against everything else written in the Old Testament word.
This is why we must take “vows” & “promises” made to God seriously, and PRAY first, for God’s direction. Somewhere it is written that we are to just say YES & NO and not even make any “vows” to God. That, or keep it.
Everything written in God’s word may not be TO us, but everything in His inspired word is written for our benefit.
to Dante -
Your point is certainly well taken, but you must notice the specificity with which the declaration is made - it is purposely said of him, and then in the next breath speaks of his vow. I do not think there is a corollary, no where else the Spirit’s anointing is pronounced on a person, and then he immediately commits a heinous crime. I think your only possible argument would be that time has passed since his vow and what you are interpreting as his sacrifice of his daughter in fire. But since the vow mentions the “burnt offering”, it doesn’t seem the two can really be separated. (I am not a scholar of ancient languages - it would be interesting to know something of the original texts, exactly what the words are here (re the sacrifice), and what possible interpretations there may have been to them.) God Bless!
Julianne Wiley,
I apologize for not having verses cited.
However, if I can remember correctly, not all of the Canaanites received ritual execution. Some were given peace treaties and alliances. Originally, prior to the Golden Calf episode, the Conquest was not necessitated by God at all. Only after that did the Law become extended and herem warfare mandated in certain cases. I think Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre wrote something on that although I first heard about it in John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus (pg. 80-81). Yoder made the point that this ritualized form of warfare, in some ways, pointed towards a higher form of pacifism because the Old Testament makes it very clear that the children of Israel did not succeed in battle through force of arms but through the power of God alone. In fact, the attack (which Yoder claims God did not order) on the Amalekites fared badly until Moses raised up his hands to God over the course of the battle.
I might also note that shedding blood, even enemy blood, made one ritually impure so that King David, for example, could not build the Temple because he was a “man of war.”
The case of the Amalekites is a extra-ordinary one. If I am wrong, someone, please correct me on this. As far as I understand, the Amalekites attacked Israel when they were traveling in the desert - unarmed, unprovoked - as they were moving away from Egypt and the Amalekites towards Egypt. Personally, I believe the Amalekites to be connected to the Hyksos marauders who devastated Egypt. Yoder points out that God never explicitly ordered the first counterattack, but Moses did in a moment of rage. After that point, the Israelites were instructed to have no mercy on the children of Amalek who attacked them, unprovoked, at their weakest hour. Admittedly, this does have undertones of racism to it. Jewish commentators have struggled with this - and the Conquest narrative - since at least the Greco-Roman period. This is one reason why the Talmud provided a lot of “oral Torah” regarding Jewish standards of warfare such as Joshua always left one side of the city open for noncombatants to escape the conflict. Personally, I choose to accept much of it as valid because, quite frankly, it helps me believe that the God of both Testaments is the same One.
I might recommend, in addition to Yoder (By the way, I can’t endorse him entirely because he is a strict pacifist and not a just war theorist as well as having a great distrust of Tradition) the book “Judaism and the Ethics of War” by Norman Solomon and “Fighting War and the Peace” by Michael Broyde.
Looking back on this, I apologize additionally for the long, rambling reply.
With Brian Sullivan and others here…I thought that the correct interpretation of this was that Japheth actually offered her as a Temple virgin?
Julianne Wiley,
I apologize for not having verses cited.
However, if I can remember correctly, not all of the Canaanites received ritual execution. Some were given peace treaties and alliances. Originally, prior to the Golden Calf episode, the Conquest was not necessitated by God at all. Only after that did the Law become extended and herem warfare mandated in certain cases. I think Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre wrote something on that although I first heard about it in John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus (pg. 80-81). Yoder made the point that this ritualized form of warfare, in some ways, pointed towards a higher form of pacifism because the Old Testament makes it very clear that the children of Israel did not succeed in battle through force of arms but through the power of God alone. In fact, the attack (which Yoder claims God did not order) on the Amalekites fared badly until Moses raised up his hands to God over the course of the battle.
I might also note that shedding blood, even enemy blood, made one ritually impure so that King David, for example, could not build the Temple because he was a “man of war.”
The case of the Amalekites is a extra-ordinary one. If I am wrong, someone, please correct me on this. As far as I understand, the Amalekites attacked Israel when they were traveling in the desert - unarmed, unprovoked - as they were moving away from Egypt and the Amalekites towards Egypt. Yoder points out that God never explicitly ordered the first counterattack, but Moses did in a moment of rage. After that point, the Israelites were instructed to have no mercy on the children of Amalek who attacked them, unprovoked, at their weakest hour. Admittedly, this does have undertones of racism to it. Jewish commentators have struggled with this - and the Conquest narrative - since at least the Greco-Roman period. This is one reason why the Talmud provided a lot of “oral Torah” regarding Jewish standards of warfare such as Joshua always left one side of the city open for noncombatants to escape the conflict. Personally, I choose to accept much of it as valid because, quite frankly, it helps me believe that the God of both Testaments is the same One.
I might recommend, in addition to Yoder (By the way, I can’t endorse him entirely because he is a strict pacifist and not a just war theorist as well as having a great distrust of Tradition) the book “Judaism and the Ethics of War” by Norman Solomon and “Fighting War and the Peace” by Michael Broyde.
Looking back on this, I apologize additionally for the long, rambling reply.
@Terah James
So, if Jephthah had vowed to have sex with the first thing to run and meet him, he would have to do it, right? After all, it *might* be his wife. Or his neighbor’s wife, or his daughter, or a man, or a sheep. An evil act does not become good because someone has said, “I vow to the LORD…” in front of it.
The existence of “nuns” in ancient Israel is conjectural at best. There is no need to imagine them to explain why her virginity was bewailed: she was cut off from experiencing the fullness of life, and her line, even more surely than that of her father (who could marry again, after all) was brought to an end.
Does anyone really think that Jephthah was intending to pledge a sheep to a long life but with perpetual virginity? Remember, he was NOT planning to sacrifice his daughter; he appears to have had in mind some animal (or, as Jimmy darkly hints, maybe some other human, but NOT his daughter).
What would have been the plan if his cleaning woman, mother of two sons and three daughters, had run out? “Sorry, lady, but you can’t go in to your husband anymore. I know it’s rough luck for you both, but I’ve sworn a vow to the LORD, and you have to suffer the consequences of it now.” That would have been almost as bad as trying to sacrifice his cleaning woman as a burnt offering, and in neither case could her cooperation be expected.
Julianne Wiley,
I apologize for not having verses cited.
Originally, prior to the Golden Calf episode, the Conquest was not necessitated by God at all. Only after that did the Law become extended and herem warfare mandated in certain cases. I think Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre wrote something on that although I first heard about it in John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus (pg. 80-81). Yoder made the point that this ritualized form of warfare, in some ways, pointed towards a higher form of pacifism because the Old Testament makes it very clear that the children of Israel did not succeed in battle through force of arms but through the power of God alone. In fact, the attack (which Yoder claims God did not order) on the Amalekites fared badly until Moses raised up his hands to God over the course of the battle.
The case of the Amalekites is a extra-ordinary one. If I am wrong, someone, please correct me on this. The Amalekites attacked Israel when they were traveling in the desert - unprovoked. Yoder points out that God never explicitly ordered the first counterattack, but Moses did in a moment of rage. After that point, the Israelites were instructed to have no mercy on the children of Amalek who attacked them. Admittedly, this does have undertones of racism to it. Jewish commentators have struggled with this. This is one reason why the Talmud provided a lot of “oral Torah” regarding Jewish standards of warfare such as Joshua always left one side of the city open for noncombatants to escape the conflict.
I might recommend, in addition to Yoder, (I can’t endorse him entirely because he is a strict pacifist and not a just war theorist as well as having a great distrust of Tradition) the book “Judaism and the Ethics of War” by Norman Solomon.
Looking back on this, I apologize additionally for the long reply.
Just a questions; why do your recent posts have only one sentence per paragraph?
“First, he was a Christian, and Christ was rather cool toward making vows in the first place (Matt. 5:33-37, though that’s a subject that would take us too far afield for this post).”
Typo, perhaps? Old Testament was definitely before the birth of Christ and founding of Christianity.
Insightful, though!
Mary, “First, he was a Christian, ....” refers to the writer, probably Paul, of the Letter to the Hebrews where the list of flawed heroes of faith, including Jephthah are listed (Heb.11:32,33).
I think this is an extremely interesting discussion, by the way! I never could - still can’t - wrap my mind around these horrible actions, and why on earth they were EVER included in the Bible.
I would propose that Isaac’s story and the story of Jephtah’s daughter should be read in light of the Passion. Did God grant Jepthtah victory because of his vow? It seems unclear from the text, but if so, then the cost of victory was the blood of an innocent person.
Tragic as it was, the Holy Spirit saw fit to have the story of Jephtah’s daughter to be included in Scripture, so it is possible that her death may be a foreshadowing of Calvary.
Like so many others (Amy), I can struggle when reading these dark passages but do not have a problem with them being included in the Bible as a whole. The Bible is meant to always, always point us to Christ and His saving action on the cross. He came to save everyone - even horrible men as Jephtah seems to be.
-
If the Bible were only to include stories of those people who did everything perfectly, wonderfully and in total agreement with God’s will we would only have the names of Jesus and his Mother. Even those who appear to do most things well slip in the end such as Moses or Peter’s repeated failures.
-
Instead, we have stories that encourage us to act in a different manner (such as this one - don’t make a promise you cannot fulfill) and stories of sinful redemption such as the forgiveness of David in the OT or the woman caught committing adultery in the NT.
-
We are after all just a bunch of sinners striving toward heaven. Reading about others in the same boat - some who fail miserably and those who get back up and then succeed are an opportunity to learn something about the human condition and therefore, ourselves.
I would like to hear a response (from Jimmy?) to FranR’s post, which seems rather definitive.
Brian Sullivan on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013, Mary Blouin on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013, James Kurt on Tuesday, Jan 8, FranR on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013, Terah James on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013, Marie on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013.
Put these together and we have an answer that is a) sensible, b) palatable, c) logical and [most important] d) scriptural in all respects.
BTW, as to the ‘wailing’, some Bibles use “recounting” or similar; i.e. “telling the story”. In any case, tell a Jewish maiden or her mother that she can’t ever marry and you WILL hear some wailing!
Thank you, James Kurt & Doug, for mentioning FranR’s Post on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 5:37 PM (EDT). I re-read it, and yes, hers is a very detailed comment, giving a plausible and God-honoring interpretation of this event.
As we just celebrated Christmas & Jesus’ infant dedication in the Temple, this Old Testament story now reminds me of the elderly Prophetess Anna, that lived in the Temple, having dedicated her own life to prayer, from the time she was widowed after seven years of marriage.
Thank you to all commenters that put this Old Testament reading into its proper perspective for us!
Terah, OTOH Christmas isn’t in either testament. And neither is Santa. Sorry. :-)
Doug - I didn’t understand the point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could elaborate upon it?
I do know that what we know as “Christ-Mass”, is the celebration of the Nativity that was promised in Genesis and is mentioned throughout the prophets, described in detail in the Gospels. This was originally Christmas Day Mass, where the faithful has gathered together in churches for several hundred years, to remember. That’s how it got its name. Christmas was not celebrated by the early church at all. It was much later.
“Santa Claus” is a distortion of many fables, made huge with a poem from 19th century America, where Santa lived in the North Pole and had reindeer that flew. Hope no child is reading this…: Spoiler alert!!
The commercial aspect of Christmas, with umpteen gifts and decorations, began in downtown USA across America, as a way for department stores to cash in on the Christian season. It was department stores that were the first to go all out on decorations of their store windows too.
The original gift-giving came from the celebration of St. Nicholas’ feast day on Dec. 7. But after the Reformation, those that left the Roman church did not want to celebrate feast days of saints anymore, because of the “Catholic” aspect of it. But parents wanted to keep the tradition that their children loved, so they co-mingled St. Nicholas’ feast day (of giving gifts) with Christmas, and Dec. 25th became THE day to celebrate.
When Europeans began immigrating to America, they brought their own Christmas traditions with them, like “Father Christmas” (England), “Kris Kringle” (Germany, Austria, I think) and “Kinder Claus” (can’t remember the country, Poland? But this is why the Baby Jesus is dressed up to look like St. Nicholas, I believe, as the legend in that country was the Baby Jesus brought toys for kids…)
When kids were frolicking through the streets of America, happy about
“Kinder Claus” coming soon - it sounded like “Santa Claus” to neighbors that did not know about him, and that’s how Santa got his name.
You’re right that neither the fictional Santa nor St. Nicholas, who lived centuries after Jesus’ resurrection, are in the Bible. :)
For more details about “Why do we call it Christmas?” - see the book written by Phil (forgot his last name)—he’s the creator of Veggie Tales.
After reading the previous comments here, I think it makes some sense that Jephthah was originally depicted Biblically not as murdering his daughter, but just as sacrificing his own desire for descendents by keeping his daughter a virgin for life. But then, what about Ch. 11’s verses 37 thru 39, where she asks her father to “spare” her for two months to go off and mourn with friends her perpetual non-maternity? Couldn’t she have mourned it AFTER she was “dedicated to the Lord”? And from what was she asking to be “spared” for two months?
Subsistent, it always seemed to me a formal period of mourning, shared with her friends, before being cloistered away. But I am not very familiar with what the circumstances surrounding such a dedication might be.
I noticed FranR’s very detailed argument on this issue, and it does seem rather convincing; however, I do have a few issues with his belief that Jephthah’s daughter was not literally sacrificed. Let me preface my comments by saying I recently had to write a research paper on this topic for an Old Testament theology class I was taking at an orthodox Catholic university. I am not, and do not claim to be, a professional scriptural scholar, and my comments follow from my personal studies. First, in my research I did not find any Church father, doctor, or ecclesiastical writer that understood Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter as anything other than a human sacrifice. St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Origen among others all interpreted the text to mean that Jephthah’s daughter was killed, not offered as an ancient Jewish nun. Secondly, in St. Jerome’s Vulgate, Jephthah offers “quicumque” (whosoever) (11:31 Vulgate) first comes out of his tents to the lord, and even though “qui” is masculine, when speaking of mixed groups of males or females it is common in Latin (just as in other languages such as Spanish) to refer to the group in the masculine sense; therefore, it seems that Jephthah would have still been offering his daughter in spite of the masculine gender in which his vow is phrased. Lastly, Jephthah is not presented to biblical readers without criticism, albeit implicit criticism. One important aspect of Judges is its description of the moral and theological decay of the Israelites in the time leading up to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy. This is evinced by the author’s frequent assertion that the “children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord” (6:1; 13:1 Douay-Rheims), and that “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself.” (17:6 Douay-Rheims). Jephthah is near to the bottom of Israel’s downward spiral. His time as judge is consumed with civil war, and a few chapters later all of Israel will unite to destroy the tribe of Benjamin for its disgusting crimes (they end up sparing some of the tribe). Jephthah is presented to the reader as a man who did defend God’s people, hence his being listed among the great servants of God, but also as a man who, as Mr. Akin said, was deeply flawed.
quotes taken from the online Douay-Rheims bible at drbo.org
To Dmac - Thank you for your post - it allows me more so to accept the possibility she was killed. I am surprised to hear about the Church Fathers - I thought there was a pretty even split… Guess I should research that. (Maybe someone else can confirm what Dmac says?) And your comments about the state of Israel at the time are persuasive, too. Sounds like you did a good job in your class!
While I do appreciate you bringing up this topic (Biblical topics like this are largely ignored), I cannot understand why people would take such a story literal. There is obviously a deeper meaning here that has nothing to do with the literal death of his daughter. The Bible stories reveal deeper truths about us.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.