Jephthah's daughter, fate of
For more than one hundred years this question has been before
the Brotherhood: Did Jephthah actually sacrifice his only daughter, or did here
merely dedicate her to a celibate service, perhaps at the Tabernacle? The
earliest discussion of the subject of which I am aware occurs in the 1875
Christadelphian, in a brief article by JJ Andrew (Vol 12, May, pp
236,237). It is a measure of the "popularity" of this debate that there are no
less than 32 separate articles -- and these in the Christadelphian and
Testimony magazines along -- over the intervening 105 years. A fuller
index of other periodicals would surely increase this number considerably. (One
is tempted to inquire if a like number of words have been written on many other
subjects of far more importance).
There has never been a Christadelphian "party line" on the
question. In such respects as this our community compares very favorably with
others, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses" -- who make a great show of devotion to
individual Bible study, but who scarcely, if ever, deviate from the official
interpretation of "headquarters" on any subject? A review of our writings
on Jephthah's vow, just as one minor example, reveals a great stress on private,
personal, independent thinking along Scriptural lines. Surely it is a small
price to pay for our community's freedom from "learning by rote" that, once in a
while, a question of secondary importance is allowed to overlap the bounds of
"cut-and-dried", canned (or "potted" -- for the English) reasoning.
Robert Roberts is first on one side, then the other, of this
subject. [His last thought on the subject favors the death of Jephthah's
daughter (Law of Moses, 1984 edition, pp 290,291) -- but his argument is very
brief and far from air-tight.] And CC Walker follows him in the same course --
first favoring a dedication and then vacillating between the two and finally
expressing "no doubt that Jephthah's daughter was really slain in
sacrifice" [Xd 64 (Jan 1927), p 28]. But his defense of that view seems
curiously flippant, as, for example, his question: "What is a daughter more or
less?" (Ibid, Feb, p 77) -- certainly not designed to win the sisters over to
his view, to say the least! Then, "making all due allowances", as he expresses
it, he reproduces a portion of a Tennyson poem which catches the "spirit of the
maiden" -- in which the poet sees her coming in a vision and then returning
"toward the morning star"! (Ibid, p 86). Not much "proof" in that,
certainly!
The next editor of the magazine, John Carter, weighs in on the
other side of the issue, with an article by G. Buckler to the effect that the
girl's life was not taken -- to which he appends his own note of approval [Xd,
Vol 78 (June 1941), pp 260,261].
The Testimony Magazine also presents, at different
times, both views. PH Adams, for years the editor of "First Stages" and then the
"Problems" sections, has a real "problem" with this question! Issue after issue,
he advances and repeats arguments for sacrifice instead of devotion -- but his
readers (if one may judge by the printed response) are overwhelmingly of the
other school of thought. So, patiently and with good humor, he answers as best
he can their objections. Reading these exchanges (In Volumes 11, 12, 13, 22, 23,
and 27) is certainly a good lesson in the fine art of "disagreeing without being
disagreeable", something most of us could do with more of!
One of the most curious contributions on the subject is a
"Trial in the Court of Historical Research" -- before "Lord Penetrating
Impartiality" (in the style of Robert Roberts' "The Trial: Did Christ Rise from
the Dead?"). Both sides of the question are argued out at length by counsels
with such names as "Noble Acceptor-of-all-Truth", after which the reader is left
to decide for himself (Testimony, Vol 28 (April, 1958), pp 121-127).
What are the arguments, pro and con? The
following is a summary of the more cogent points in favor of each side, for the
benefit of those who do not have access to back numbers of our
periodicals:
First, in favor of the theory that Jephthah did indeed
offer his daughter as a burnt offering:
- We cannot say that anything God does or allows is inconsistent with His
declared character. It is not for us to sit in judgment of Him.
- This view
was never called in question by Jew or Christian until about 1200 AD. The
Septuagint and Vulgate -- and Josephus -- have always conveyed the idea of a
literal sacrifice.
- Just because Jephthah is elsewhere described as a
righteous man does not mean everything he did was righteous! To believe
that he offered up his daughter does not require believing that he was right in
doing so!
- The AV text (if not the margin), RV, RSV, and most other versions
favor the "and" in v 31 -- giving strong support to the idea that the vow called
for the burnt offering of whatever or whoever came out first, since (no matter
how we understand its terms) it is beyond any doubt that Jephthah did perform
his vow (v 39).
- Would Jephthah's sorrow have been so overwhelming, and would
an annual memorial have been called for, if the only "fate" his daughter
suffered was perpetual virginity and service at the
Tabernacle?
And, secondly, for the alternate theory:
- Human sacrifice was expressly forbidden by God (Deu 12:30,31; Psalm
106:37,38; Isa 66:3; Jer 32:34,35).
- Jephthah, being one who "wrought
righteousness" and "obtained a good report through faith" (Heb 11:32,33-39), can
hardly be expected to have been so seriously ignorant of what was and was not
acceptable to God in this matter. It is very improbable that a man like that
would make a vow that would likely call for him to do something which the Law
expressly forbade.
- The "vow" Jephthah made (Jdg 11:30) was a "nadar" -- for
which the Law allowed the possibility of redemption upon payment of money. (Lev
27:1,8). Considering this, it is almost unthinkable that the distraught father
would not have availed himself of this "escape" if the vow had meant death for
his daughter. (The Hebrew for "devoted" things, which could not be
redeemed, was "cherem", as in Lev 27:29, but that word does not appear in this
narrative.
- "Whatsoever" of v 31 can be translated "whosoever", as applying
to persons. This is a reference, probably, to the custom of women coming out to
meet victorious warriors, with timbrels and dancing (v 34). The women who met
David returning from battle (1Sa 18:6) and Miriam also (Exo 15:20) were
following this custom. It seems very unlikely that Jephthah would have
been vowing to put to death "whomsoever" of the young men or women came
out first, as he would surely have realized beforehand how likely it would have
been for a human rather than an animal to come out first!
- "I will offer it
up" (v 31) can be translated "I will offer Him (ie, God) a burnt
offering" -- making the pronoun masculine, with God the One to whom the offering
was to be made.
- "And I will offer it up": The AV margin suggests "or"
(though the preponderance of translations favors "and"), so that Jephthah may be
expressing an alternative; ie, If a person comes out first, he or she shall be
dedicated to God, or if an animal comes out first (and if it possesses
the suitable qualities) it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering.
- If there
had been any illegality in the vow, that is, if in fact the outcome had been a
human sacrifice, then someone like Jephthah -- who feared God -- would have had
good reason to forbid the breaking of His law.
- The burnt offering of the
damsel, if such it was, would have to be carried out be a priest at the
Tabernacle -- who would then be knowingly participating in an improper offering
and a criminal act!
- Furthermore, the specific rules of the burnt offering
(Lev 1:1-17,7:8) provided that a male be offered, the skin to belong to the
priests, and the blood to be sprinkled round the altar!
- In lamenting her
misfortune, Jephthah's daughter did not bewail the loss of life; she simply
bewailed her "virginity". This deprivation of the opportunity to bear children
was considered a great calamity among Jews, and would be especially hard to bear
for Jephthah also -- since he was an important man in Israel and she was an only
child. The word "lament" (Hebrew "lethanoth") in v 40 is not the common word for
such, which would have been most appropriate if the grief of death were
intended. Instead, it is a word which can have the meaning "to rehearse" or "to
talk with" -- as the margin shows. It is used only here and in Judges 5:11,
where the daughters of Israel retell and celebrate the righteous acts of God.
The young women evidently went up to the Tabernacle to talk with Jephthah's
daughter year by year.
- "She knew no man" (v 39) seems foolishly redundant if
she were put to death. It rather seems to express her entering upon a state of
complete dedication to Yahweh -- in some special service. (Compare Hannah
offering Samuel during the same period). Though similar to Roman Catholic nuns
and "holy orders", such a dedication should not be objected to on that score
alone, since this would be a dedication in truth, not error. Paul says that the
unmarried may more easily care for the things of God (1Co 7:34). Such an order
of virgins devoted to Tabernacle and Temple service is at least implied in such
passages as Lam 1:4 and Exo 38:8.
- It is not explicitly stated that she was
actually offered -- which is rather remarkable in so singular a case. This seems
so unusual an omission that even the commentators who favor the idea of
sacrifice are compelled to admit that a "veil" is drawn over the actual
bloodshedding. But is it not more reasonable to assume that there was nothing in
the narrative so embarrassing to Jephthah's character that a veil was even
needed?
***
A quick reading of the points compiled above might seem to
favor one opinion over the other by sheer weight of numbers. But no doubt much
could be said in rebuttal of various points on either side. It is possible that
this writer's leanings are by now obvious, but he has made a conscious effort to
state fairly the arguments for both sides. This is of course not a matter of
"first principle" consequence, so perhaps the best conclusion is this:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good".
