Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 752.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	Since when does the God of Israel accept a human being for a burnt
> offering?  Why didn't God intercede as God did when Abraham's son, Isaac
> (Genesis 22.11-12)?

        From time to time I read things in the Bible that get me as
        angry as any atrocity I hear on the evening news -- this
        certainly is one of them.

        Bob

In the Genesis 22 case, God commanded Abraham to show his obedience,
and then intervened to stop the sacrifice.

The case here is different.  Nowhere does God command the sacrifice
of a human.  Nowhere is there evidence that the victory was given by
God.  This is an example of someone making a stupid vow, a vow that
violated the law prohibiting human sacrifice, and having evil come
of it.

/john

    .2  A well thought out excuse for an inexcusable murder.
    
    Richard

The murder is inexcusable; but don't blame it on God.

	Richard,

	Burning persons as a sacrifice, especially ones children, was against 
	God's Law (Deut 18:10, Jeremiah 7:31).

	Would you like to know what really happened to Jephthah's daughter?.
	

	Phil.

.4

>The murder is inexcusable; but don't blame it on God.

God was amazingly silent.  I suspect it might have turned out differently if
the child had been a male rather than a female.

.5

>	Would you like to know what really happened to Jephthah's daughter?.
	
Is it something other than what the author of Judges states?

Richard

Note that the vow was to kill "whatever" comes out of
the door (NIV).  Animals lived in the house with the
Jews; this was a vow meant to offer an animal as a
burnt sacrifice.

Personally, if I made a vow intending to sacrifice an
animal, I wouldn't change it to mean a person simply
because that is what it may literally be taken to mean.
But then, I'm no literalist.

Collis

    .7
    
    Yeah, animals!  That's what I was talking about when I mentioned
    attorneys and insurance salesmen.
    
    ;-}
    
    Richard

>    Yeah, animals!  That's what I was talking about when I mentioned
>    attorneys and insurance salesmen.

    Now now, Richard.  We must value differences.... even if they
    *are* cold blooded and often invertebrates.

    Tom

    re .6 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>>	Would you like to know what really happened to Jephthah's daughter?.
>	
>Is it something other than what the author of Judges states?
    
    	I'm going to jump in here because I know what Phil is getting at.
    In the NWT, at Judges 11:40, it says that every year the "daughters of
    Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jepthah", and
    makes a note on the word "commendation" that that translation is
    arrived at by an emmendation to Heb. verb in the Masoretic text,
    presumably by assuming slightly different vowel points [which is the
    sort of things that translators actually do from time to time, since
    the vowel points are only traditional, having been introduced in
    medieval times]. The note says the same verb occurs in Judges 5:11 and
    Psalm 8:1, and is translated "recount" [NWT].
    
    	Since the text doesn't come right out and say Jepthah took the
    knife to his daughter (it says, "at the end of two months, she returned
    to her father, who did with her according to his vow..." RSV), it's
    left to the reader to conclude how the vow was carried out.
    
    	By law, there was a very legal way for Jepthah to carry out his
    vow.  He could have taken his daughter to the sanctuary and dedicated
    her to service for the rest of her life (as was done years later to
    Samuel, who was left at the temple as a child to fulfill his mother's
    vow -- at which time, btw, an animal was sacrificed), or he could have
    redeemed her for a monetary sum, under the laws regarding "a special
    vow of persons" (Lev 27:2ff RSV).  The NWT translators assume the
    former, and that the "daughters of Israel" made it a custom to visit
    her 4 days a year, to commend her for her sacrifice.
    
    	Human sacrifice was QUITE illegal (Deut 18:10).  Since Jepthah made
    his vow while the "spirit of the LORD" was upon him (Jg 11:29), and
    Jehovah evidently accepted his vow and showed him favor, it's
    inconsistent, to say the least, that Jehovah would have approved of
    such an illegal vow.  Since it was illegal to offer as a sacrifice
    things associated with immoral acts, like money from "the hire of a
    harlot or the wages of a dog ... in payment for any vow" (Deut 23:17
    RSV; ftn on "dog": "sodomite" -- perhaps having the connotation of male
    prostitution), there really weren't any loopholes in the law which
    would have made a human sacrifice acceptable to God.  And again, all
    indications are that Jepthah's vow/sacrifice was acceptable to God.
    
    	On other thing that is odd about the story, if we assume Jepthah
    DID intend to kill his daughter, is that no one in the land rose up
    against the idea.  In King Saul's day, Saul made a vow that would have
    cost his son Jonathan his life.  Saul vowed that no one should eat
    during a battle, lest they die, and Jonathan ate honey having not heard
    the vow.  Since Jonathan was a hero of the battle, the people rose up
    and redeemed Jonathan from the price of the vow, namely death, by their
    support for him.  Two months went by between Jepthah's homecoming and
    his offering up his daughter, and no one uttered a peep of outrage?
    That's hard to imagine.
    
    	A final point, based upon the limits of my research (I looked into
    this a long time ago), was that sacrifices given as vow offerings were
    to be brought to the temple, with the actual slaughter being performed
    by the priest.  If Jepthah had brought his daughter to the sanctuary
    for sacrifice in fulfillment of his vow, the priest would have been put
    on the spot to perform the sacrifice, and surely no priest would have
    done so.
    
    ==*==
    
    	Having said the above, I have to admit that I haven't found any
    other sources which assume Jepthah's daughter was NOT killed; but it
    doesn't seem to be a topic that was given a lot of write-up, either.
    It's one of those topics that I keep on the back-burner, and look into
    when the opportunity arises.
    
    
    								-mark.

    .10
    
    I commend you on your thoroughness, Mark.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re .11 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>    I commend you on your thoroughness, Mark.
    
    Thanks, Richard.
    
    Actually, I did a *little* more research on this last night, and found
    out that some editions of the KJV contain a note in the margin at
    Judges 11:40 with an alternate rendering indicating the women of the
    land came to talk to Jepthah's daughter (I just forgot to bring in the
    reference).
    
    I also discovered that Bullinger's _Companion Bible_, which is a KJV
    with Bullinger's commentary (from the 1800's) -- which I happen to have
    a copy of -- also takes the view that Jepthah's daughter was NOT
    killed, but dedicated to serve in the sanctuary.  (I also forgot to
    bring this in to type in the references.  If any one is interested in
    the exact quotes, let me know and I'll definitely post them.)
    
    -mark.

    re .2 (COVERT::COVERT)
    
    	This discussion is still in my mind for some reason ...
    
>The case here is different.  Nowhere does God command the sacrifice
>of a human.  Nowhere is there evidence that the victory was given by
>God.  This is an example of someone making a stupid vow, a vow that
>violated the law prohibiting human sacrifice, and having evil come
>of it.
    
    	According to the RSV, "the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jepthah"
    (Jg 12:29); he made his vow in vs 30 & 31; and then:
    
    		... Jepthah crossed over to the Ammonites
    		to fight against them; and the LORD gave
    		them into his hand.
    
    Assuming this means exactly what it says, this is very direct evidence
    that the victory was given by God.  Therefore, since God himself is not
    evil, there must be a righteous aspect to the story [and again, that
    his daughter was devoted to sanctuary service would harmonize with
    God's righteousness].
    
    	==*==
    
    	I haven't researched this myself, but the wording of Jepthah's vow:
    
    		"I will offer him up for a burnt offering" (11:30 RSV)
    
    could have been a figure of speech for something given up permanantly,
    like a real burnt offering, since (as I mentioned before) the Law 
    allowed for "a special vow of persons" (Lev 27:2 RSV) which could be
    fulfilled by a monetary donation.
    
    	Except for this special form of vow offering (Lev 27:1-8), all
    other forms of vow offerings were given up permantly (9-27).  The Law
    said:
    
    		"But no devoted thing that a man devotes to the
    		LORD, of anything he has, wheher a man or beast,
    		or of his inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed;
    		every devoted thing is most holy to the LORD." 
    		(Lev 27:28,29 RSV)
    
    At least at a glance, this indicates that in a way different than the
    "special vow of persons," a person could be completely given over to 
    God by a vow, and with no provision for redemption.  This may have been
    the sort of vow Jepthah had in mind, since giving up whoever came out
    of his house forever was as permanant a loss as a burnt offering.
    
    
    
    								-mark.

	I'm a little late replying to this topic. Thanks to Mark to for
	responding and covering the material well. What I hadn't realised
	was that some Bible scholars actually viewed that Jephthath had
	killed his daughter.

	Some other things that might be worth considering regarding this
	Bible account. Firstly, Jephthah is mentioned in Hewbrews 11:32
	as faithful. Secondly, the importance that the Israelites held
	in continuing their family line. Jephthah's daughter was an only
	child and shows how big the sacrifice was on their part, for 
 	being devoted in service to Jehovah meant that Jephthah's daughter 
	would remain a virgin and the family line would then end. Hence verses
	37-39 in Judges 11 discuss Jephthah's daughter going away to "weep
	over her virginity" with her girl companions.


	Phil.

re Note 752.14 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

>         Secondly, the importance that the Israelites held
> 	in continuing their family line. Jephthah's daughter was an only
> 	child and shows how big the sacrifice was on their part, for 
>  	being devoted in service to Jehovah meant that Jephthah's daughter 
> 	would remain a virgin and the family line would then end. Hence verses
> 	37-39 in Judges 11 discuss Jephthah's daughter going away to "weep
> 	over her virginity" with her girl companions.
  

        Is this another example of women (or children) in the Bible
        being treated as property (apparently with God's sanction)?

        Bob

re .15

	Bob,

	Verses 35-37 seems to indicate that Jephthah's daughter treated	
	her father as lord. Verse 36 NWT reads "My father, if you have
	opened your mouth to Jehovah, do to me according to what has gone	
	forth from your mouth.". Verse 35 showed Jephthah's feelings
	regarding his daughter and yet she with hesitation accepted the
	vow Jephthah had made to Jehovah. She viewed her father as head
	of the household and accepted it.  

	1 Peter 3:6 indicates that Sarah refered to the Patriach Abraham
	has her "lord" (Genesis 18:12).

	But to the point you are making, rather than children beeing seen 
	as property I feel that the Bible shows that family heads are 
	accountable before God for the upbringing of their children,
	eventhough the Patriachal system has long gone. Some Scripture
	that comes to mind is Deuteronomy 6:7, Ephesians 6:1-4. Also
	Ephesians 5:21-25 which shows the relative subjection involved.

	From a Biblical standpoint husbands are NOT to be despots, 
	subjection is relative for we *all* belong to God (Psalms 24:1).
	Almighty God, alone has absolute authority.

	Phil.

    The point is not that children are treated as property.  The point is
    that women are treated as property.
    
    Patricia

re Note 752.17 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     The point is not that children are treated as property.  The point is
>     that women are treated as property.
  
        Or is it that women are treated as children?

        Bob

    No as property.
    
    Boy children were treated better than women.
    
    

re Note 752.19 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     No as property.
>     
>     Boy children were treated better than women.
  
        I treat my car better than my wheelbarrow, but both are
        property.

        (Or are you suggesting that this passage suggests that if
        Jephthah's son had walked from the house instead of his
        daughter, that the son's treatment would have been markedly
        better?)

        Bob

    752.20 Bob,
    
    	That was the speculation I put forth in 752.6.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Yup, I agree.  The Boy would not have been sacrificed. 

re Note 752.22 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     Yup, I agree.  The Boy would not have been sacrificed. 
  
        You certainly may feel that way, but this passage alone in no
        way supports such a conclusion.

        Rather, this passage shows Jephthah making a rash vow, and
        then fulfilling the vow even though it is something which in
        no other circumstances he would have considered.  So I would
        conclude that even if under normal circumstances he would
        have treated a son MUCH better than a daughter, normal
        circumstances did not apply here.

        Besides, I have accepted Phil's analysis above that the girl
        wasn't in fact "sacrificed" (in the sense of killed) but
        rather devoted as a perpetual celibate in service to God.  My
        understanding is that sons also were sometimes devoted in
        service to God.

        Bob

re .24

	Bob,

	;My understanding is that sons also were sometimes devoted in
	;service to God.

	Such an example would be the prophet Samuel, the account of
	Hannah fulfilling her vow is found in 1 Samuel 1:11 &
	1 Samuel 1:24-2:11 in that she brings the boy Samuel to be
	devoted perpetually in service to God.

	Phil.

>             <<< Note 752.17 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>
>
>    The point is not that children are treated as property.  The point is
>    that women are treated as property.
    
    	For that matter, I believe all of Israel was treated by God as his
    'property'.  References in the RSV to God as the "husband" and "master"
    of Israel (Isa 54:5; Jer 3:14) are rendered in the NWT as "husbandly
    owner".  This suggests a line of research into the term "owner" when in
    conjunction with husbands and wives.  Perhaps the term in Hebrew has a
    sense somewhat more endearing than how we in modern times think of 
    owners and the thing(s) owned.
    
    
    								-mark.