In an age where many in my age cohort are rapidly losing faith in the Word of God, part of the problem is not just the question of whether the Bible is historically accurate, but increasingly, whether one would want to believe it was true. Whether or not those stories reveal the character of a God that we can fall in love with based on what He does or doesn’t do in His own story. That said, just like the Gospel and God Himself, I believe His word has infinitely more positive to say about Him than we typically understand. So this quick paper is to demonstrate the facts of His goodness in a story that I believe is frequently misunderstood. Originally this was researched for a Sabbath School lesson a few years back but it bears good news: The preponderance of evidence in the scriptures point out to us that Jephtah’s daughter was not sacrificed through immolation but rather, she was dedicated to a life of celibacy.
(NOTE: The bad news is this is not an academic paper and the good news is that’s it’s not trying to be.)
ORDER OF POINTS:
1)The Dual Nature of The Vow
2)The Laws Forbidding
3)God’s Reaction To Child Sacrifice
4)Israel’s Reaction To Child Sacrifice
5)The Object of Her Mourning
6)The Result of The Vow
7)Spiritualism?
8)The Scholarly Consensus
1)The Nature of The Vow
The first thing to note in Jephthah’s vow itself is the dual nature of the vow. The RSV renders Judges 11:30 & 31 as follows:
“And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, 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.”
In this translation and most others we would not see two options being expressed clearly here but the critical word we wish to focus on is the Hebrew word for the English conjunction “AND” (Inscribed in Hebrew as וְ). This conjunction which is translated as “AND” in most other translations (also seen in the margins) is also translated as “OR” in many other texts and other translations as we find here Young’s Literal Translation of the same verse:
“And Jephthah voweth a vow to Jehovah, and saith, ‘If Thou dost at all give the Bene-Ammon into my hand vs31 then it hath been, that which at all cometh out from the doors of my house to meet me in my turning back in peace from the Bene-Ammon—it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it—a burnt-offering.”
At first glance this might seem like a trivial difference, but it is greatly significant to our discussion. When read the conjunction as OR it hints at the idea that Jephthah was a little less flippant than previously thought. Particularly because not every offering to The Lord was a burnt offering and thus, he stated the difference between something being dedicated to God and something to be offered as a burnt offering. Also, because knowing that the thing would be coming from his house doors, he knew it possibly could have been a person as animals didn’t typically live inside homes. Also, certain food items were not burned (Leviticus 2:12) and precious metals from spoil were dedicated to God and stored as treasury of the Sanctuary (Joshua 6:24).
Furthermore, one realizes that Jephthah’s statement would be entirely redundant if he were simply using the word “AND”. The purpose of a conjunction is to say that something is in addition to what is there and in the Hebrew understanding, speaking to God and saying something would be offered up for a burnt offering automatically implies that it would be The Lord’s. In other words, why would I say “I’m going to pay my tithe AND I’m going to drop in the collection plate”??? In most cases the two are synonymous! Whichever sort of offering was being given had typically only one way to offer it to God so the use of “AND” is quite redundant unless the correct translation is “OR”. Something being given/dedicated to God or something to be offered as a burnt offering.
2) The Laws Forbidding
Coming to the legal issues with this story, most people assume that Jephthah was simply a morally dubious character and that Judges was the a “formative” and “wild west” period for Israel and therefore their laws were simply not observed but that is a problematic view. Particularly because the sheer number of legal breaches that Jephthah would have had to engage in are simply put, highly unlikely:
God commanded only animal sacrifice: Leviticus 1:2
God commanded only sacrifice at the Sanctuary: Leviticus 17:5
Burnt sacrifices were to be only males: “a male without blemish.” Leviticus 1:3.
God commanded no burning of offspring: Deut 12:31; Lev 18:21; Lev 20:2; Lev 20:3; Lev 20:4; Lev 20:5;
So many logistical problems present themselves that it seems highly unlikely that human immolation would have taken place. Which priests would have assisted in good conscience? Why fulfill a vow to honor God that would dishonor Him? Do they collect her blood in the sanctuary? Who amongst the people or God would help him in such a foolish and legally sinful endeavor? This last question is partially answered in the following points.
3) God’s Reaction To Child Sacrifice
The timing of this story is also interesting when it comes to precedent, because we already have evidence of not only God’s opinion of this subject but also His actions in such a scenario through the story of Abraham and Isaac. God miraculously intervenes to stop Abraham from sacrificing his child through the angel. Now most would counter this point by stating that in this case, Jephthah made the rash vow and not God. This is true! However, the point is that Abraham’s story is in the backdrop of Jephthah’s mind as it happened previous to his own, and so why would He seek to proceed where God had previously miraculously intervened?
4) Israel’s Reaction To Child Sacrifice
In a much less known but equally relevant story, Saul, the then King of Israel also makes a rash vow prior to a major military victory (1 Samuel 14) to sacrifice his son Jonathan! Interestingly, in this case the people intervene to stop Saul from fulfilling his rash vow (1 Samuel 14:45) because of the victory obtained that day… why would it be different in Jephthah’s story, unless the vow was not a vow of burn his child? If precedent is a thing, Jonathan’s experience would serve as evidence that such a thing would never be allowed in Israel, not even for the King!
5) The Object of Her Mourning
A few more points of interest stand out in the narrative that weigh heavily in favor of the idea that the daughter was dedicated to celibacy. In the King James, Judges 11:38 reads:
“And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.”
Many individuals are aware of the concept that motherhood was viewed as among the highest attainments a young Jewish woman could attain because it brought the possibility of bearing the Messiah. But the idea that the text says she bewails her virginity and not her life is telling! If someone is sentenced to death, yes, missing out on a sexual relationship would be big for a virgin, but in no way is that the first thing ANY rational person is thinking when you tell them that they must be burned alive! She mourns her virginity and not her life because that is the crux of the vow.
6)The Result of The Vow
When we read the conclusion of the story as to what happens to Jephthah’s daughter, the resolution of the story is extremely telling. When it comes to the execution of the vow the NASB in verse 39:
“At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man.”
In the positive sense, the formulation of the text is that he executes his vow and as a result, “she had no relations with a man”. We were already aware of the virginity issue so if she was to be immolated, why mention this again here and not mention that she was “burned up at the tabernacle”? We suggest that the actual execution of the vow was that she had no relations with a man! Simple and straightforward.
The logical argument from silence can also be made. NOWHERE does the text say that she was burned alive or sacrificed. Not a single verse says so and therefore this writer merely suggests that the burden of proof is on those who suggest a conclusion that is clearly not expressed in the text.
7)Spiritualism?
The last bit of evidence to provide is that of the conclusion of the narrative which reads in verse 40 of the ESV:
“…that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.”
Again, the problematic piece here is the choice of words for translation because the Hebrew word for “lament” ( תּנָה = Tanah) here actually has multiple meanings. Specifically, to recount, to rehearse, or to
talk as is listed below in Young’s Literal Translation. Interestingly, the word “lament” in relation to mourning has many other Hebrew variants, but Tanah, which is used only one other time in the Old Testament is used in relation to communication as is seen here in verse 40 with the ESV version:
“…from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.”
So either the daughters of Israel were talking to the ghost of Jephthah’s daughter or they were visiting her annually and talking with her where she resided. The Hebrew word for “go” or “went” in other translations (yalak {yaw-lak’} is also telling because there is no need for displacement to mourn for someone unless you are going to actually visit and talk with them. Hebrews typically mourned in their homes so why the need to travel for mourning when it wasn’t typical of women to do so?
Moreover, the talking scenario makes far more sense because verse 39 says it became a custom in Israel and yet no such four-day custom is observed today… If this was a custom to commemorate her death, why wouldn’t the commemoration continue for years after her demise? Reason would dictate that when she and her friends would have lived out their natural lives that custom would have expired because their lifetimes did… because it involved communication.
(Side the traditional wording for days of mourning when the likes of Sarah, Moses and Aaron died was this word here: אֵבלֶ or ‘ebel. This Hebrew word is interestingly absent from the narrative.)
8) The Scholarly Consensus
Outside of the above facts, there are scholars and respected individuals in the Jewish, Christian and Adventist persuasions that hold to the stance that Jephthah’s daughter was dedicated to a lifelong celibacy:
Jewish scholars:
CHABAD.org:
“Based on this idea, many of the biblical commentators maintain that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a sacrifice. In fact, his original vow, “whatever comes forth . . . shall be to G‑d, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,” had a dual intention: if it will be a person, then it “shall be [consecrated] to G‑d”; and if it should be an animal, then “I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/638426/jewish/What-happened-to-Jephthahs-daughter.htm
Rabbi Levi B. Gershom / Kimhi:
“According to some commentators, among whom were Ḳimḥi and Levi b. Gershom, Jephthah only kept his daughter in seclusion.”
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8584-jephthah
Christian scholars:
Matthew George Easton:
“(Judg. 11:30, 31). After a crushing defeat of the Ammonites, Jephthah returned to his own house, and the first to welcome him was his own daughter. This was a terrible blow to the victor, and in his despair he cried out, “Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low…I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back.” With singular nobleness of spirit she answered, “Do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth.” She only asked two months to bewail her maidenhood with her companions upon the mountains. She utters no reproach against her father’s rashness, and is content to yield her life since her father has returned a conqueror. But was it so? Did Jephthah offer up his daughter as a “burnt-offering”? This question has been much debated, and there are many able commentators who argue that such a sacrifice was actually offered. We are constrained, however, by a consideration of Jephthah’s known piety as a true worshipper of Jehovah, his evident acquaintance with the law of Moses, to which such sacrifices were abhorrent (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31), and the place he holds in the roll of the heroes of the faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:32), to conclude that she was only doomed to a life of perpetual celibacy.” (Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Jephthah’s vow)
Adam Clarke:
“And she knew no man” – She continued a virgin all the days of her life.”
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejud11.htm
Adventist pioneers:
JAMES WHITE:
“We believe that Jephthah did not take away the life of his daughter. From the narrative we are led to regard the vow as implying that the object designated was to be offered to God in such a manner as circumstances would permit; had it been an animal not prohibited, then, in fulfillment of the vow, it would have been presented. As human sacrifices were in the highest degree offensive to God, Jephthah’s daughter, who was the destined offering, was set apart for religious duties in her unmarried state, and as such she passed the remainder of her days unaffianced; and as by this seclusion her hope of establishing a household and ranking among the mothers of Israel, and also of being among the progenitors of the promised Messiah, was destroyed, her companions were accustomed yearly to visit her, to express we may presume their sympathy with her seclusion, and their esteem of her filial obedience.” {January 13, 1863 JWe, ARSH 50.8}
We must not allow this inquiry to terminate without some remarks on the obligation incurred by vows. Men are not at liberty to perform unlawful acts in consequence of having bound themselves by oaths or by vows. They are prohibited by the fact that they were under a prior obligation, which precludes the right of making unlawful vows, or taking such oath. The sin, therefore consists in making unlawful vows, and not in breaking them. Men may deem it their duty to fulfill an unrighteous vow, but they ought to know that God will accept no action that comes into His presence charged with the murder of other duties. – Sel. {January 13, 1863 JWe, ARSH 50.9}
URIAH SMITH:
Skeptics are often very uncharitable in treating of Jephthah’s vow. We offer our solution of it. 1. Vows were not commanded of the Lord, but laws were given to regulate them. 2. Some vows are better broken than kept – as the case of the forty Jews who bound themselves under a great curse to kill Paul, and Herod’s vow which cost John Baptist his head. 3. When Jephthah vowed that he would offer the first thing that met him on his return, it implied if it was a thing suitable for an offering. Would he offer a dog, or cat, or camel, or horse, or a neighbor’s child if either of these had met him? Certainly not. All these were forbidden in the law. The last part of this verse is thus rendered by Dr. Adam Clarke, and generally sanctioned by Hebrew critics: “I will consecrate it to the Lord, OR I will offer it for a burnt offering;” that is, if it is a thing suitable for a burnt offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him.” But even if Jephthah had sacrificed his only daughter, Christianity would not be amenable for it – for so rash a deed, resulting from a plain misunderstanding of his own duty. {September 11, 1860 UrSe, ARSH 129.8}
HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDENTS PG. 288:
Jephthah’s Vow.—The story of Jephthah’s vow is celebrated by artist and poet, and most writers say: “There is no sadder story in the Bible;” but have not some considerations been overlooked? {1922, HBS 288.4}
Jephthah was a believer in Jehovah. He says to the elders when they come to request him to be leader: “The Lord deliver them before me.” Again: “The Lord shall be witness between us,” in his message to the king of Ammon; “And the Lord the God of Israel delivered Sihon into the hand of Israel:” “The Lord our God;” “The Lord the judge be judge this day.” He contrasts Jehovah with Chemosh. “Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah.” From his message he was evidently well acquainted with the Mosaic books. He would know that a human sacrifice was an abomination to Jehovah. Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5. Was it therefore likely he would propose a human sacrifice? {1922, HBS 288.5}
He would know by the Mosaic law that burnt sacrifices were to be males: “a male without blemish.” Lev. 1:3. When the Lord says: “All the first-born are mine,” “mine they shall be” (Num. 3:12, 13), there is no suggestion ever made that they were offered as burnt sacrifices: they were dedicated to God. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was not a literal burnt offering; he was redeemed. Jephthah says: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house.” He is met by his only child-a maiden! She the only chance of his name and blood to be perpetuated. This is the agony to him: that his name and race must die with himself. As for the daughter, she asks to bewail her virginity. Why? Because now she never could be the mother of the hoped-for Messiah-that hope which from the earliest time had ever been the most cherished dream of every Hebrew woman; to fulfil the promise “that the seed of the woman should ‘bruise the serpent’s head.’” Gen. 3:15. The daughter asks for two months to bewail her virginity; she is celebrated four times every year by the maidens. Would they have praised a human sacrifice? Remember her father was no worshiper of Molech. He offers her as a spiritual offering-a lifelong virginity. Like those Gibeonites in the days of Joshua, whose lives were spared, she would be a servant in the sanctuary all the days of her life. {1922, HBS 288.6}
And lastly, where was the altar to Jehovah on which she could be sacrificed? Altars in plenty to Chemosh; but neither Jephthah nor she worshiped that false god! {1922, HBS 289.1}
Jephthah dies. He had known no father’s home; he had been “driven out” (Judges 11:2), and no child, no grandchildren, are there to cheer him in his old age, or close his dying eyes. Would his name have been included by Paul in Hebrews 11:32, as one of those of whom it is said, by “faith” they did their great works, and “wrought right-eousness,” if he had slain his daughter? Impossible!-“The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” Henry A. Harper, pp. 192-194. London: Printed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. {1922, HBS 289.2}
L.T. NICOLA:
And so, as seems to the writer most probable, Jephthah’s daughter was devoted to God, in substantial fulfillment of his vow to sacrifice the first object which met him on his return from a victory the Lord gave him. Had she been a creature that could have been offered acceptably to God as a burnt offering, she would have been so offered. But human sacrifice is an abomination to him when so offered. Hence she was devoted to a life of seclusion, and the daughters of Israel came “to talk with” her four days in the year. Judges 11:30-40, margin. {December 23, 1895 LTNe, GCB 606.2}
