Just Wishful Thinking
Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 8:55PM 
The Return of Jephtha
by Giovanni Antonio Pellegrini Mario’s objects to my statement that we should not hold Jephthah up as an example of someone who behaved honourably for keeping his vow to the Lord even though it meant sacrificing his daughter. His comments are in quotes and my responses follow.
If Jephtaphs example should not be followed, why doesn’t it say so?
Ah, but it does. First of all, the law, which had been given previously to the nation of Israel, forbids sacrificing one’s children (Deut. 12:30, 31; 18:10). Jephthah should have known it, and so should someone reading the book of Judges in the context of the Old Testament.
Secondly, the whole book of Judges is summed up like this: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) This statement is repeated elsewhere in the book, too. It’s sort of a blanket statement covering the whole book, and should serve as a warning to the reader that the things the people do in this historical account are, as a general rule, not given to us as examples to follow.
Moreover, why does god keep his end of the bargain, knowing that Jephtaphs daughter would be the first to greet her father?
Where does God enter into a bargain with Jepthah? God doesn’t have an “end of the bargain” to keep. Instead, his deliverance of his people was because of his faithfulness to them in spite of their downward spiral—and in spite of Jephthah’s sinful vow—and not because God was doing his part in a negotiated deal.
What more, it wasn’t as if God delivering his people forced Jephthah to go ahead and sacrifice his daughter. There were provisions in the law for people who made rash vows that they didn’t keep. They could confess their sin and bring a sin offering (Leviticus 5). There were also provisions for annulling vows (Leviticus 27). Jephthah had good and right options that he didn’t use, but rather, he chose to keep a sinful vow—a vow to do something specifically forbidden in the law God gave to Israel.
Why would [God] let people include that story in his book, if he would want to be clear that he would never take a human sacrifice?
He includes the story as part of the true history of Israel. It’s part of the historical record given to show how bad things were, spiritually and otherwise, at this time in Israel’s history. The story of Jephthah helps make the key point of this particular historical narrative—that without a godly king, everyone did what they judged to be right instead of what God judged to be right.
And God’s hatred of human sacrifice is set out clearly in his law. There’s no lack of clarity from God on this point.
I think your interpretation is just wishfull thinking.
You think so? I’d say it’s the way someone considering Jephthah’s story as part of the whole of the book of Judges and in light of God’s previously given law would interpret it.
Reader Comments (6)
Thanks for the quick and detailled response, but I'm not entirely convinced yet...
It is real history? So this Jephthah makes his vow, that he would sacrifice the first person to come out of his house if God would help him and his army in war. God helps him - but not because of the vow? Would you agree that Jephthah could think it was?
And if it was so clear that this is not normative, why does the bible say so?
Hebrews 11:32-33:
11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.
Make up your mind, Mario. First you doubt the historicity of the story of Jephthah and then you question my statement that Jephthah's actions are not normative. All within a few sentences.
Here's the thing: If you think Jephthah's story is not historical, why are you concerned about whether it's normative or not? You can argue that the story's not historical, or you can argue that it's normative, but you can't argue both, because a fairy-tale wouldn't be normative.
When someone's objections contradict each other, I begin to wonder if there's even a coherent positive argument behind all the objections. Is there? What is it? Or are you just objecting for the sake of objecting? Or objecting because you object to Christianity and are willing to use any arguments whatsoever against it even if you end up using arguments that are contradictory?
I suspect you're just a teeny-tiny bit disingenuous.
It would seem that God honored Jephthah for his faith not his foolish vow..."who by faith conquered kingdoms..."
Sharon,
Exactly. The same way David is commended for his faith, but not for his sin in the Bathseba/Uriah affair.
"It would seem that God honored Jephthah for his faith not his foolish vow..."who by faith conquered kingdoms...""
It would seem like that if you stop reading where you put the "...". However it clearly says that they also "wrought righteousness". All I want to say that it is far from clear that Jeph did anything wrong in the eyes of the bible authors. You mentioned David.In 1 King 15:5 it says "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
It explicitly says that god didn't like the Uriah affair. And god also kills Davids son for that (by the way, was that also not normative behaviour of the LORD?).
What you are saying about David and Uriah is grounded in the biblical text - the thing about Jephthah is not.
Let's say the author of Hebrews wanted to praise Jephthah for his faith and rightiousness, save only in the matter of murdering his only daughter. Would it be so hard to say so? Or to just not mention him on the great man list?
So I really don't think there is "no lack of clarity", even if it does mean what you are proposing.
Really? If you really think this is true, then you really haven't read the Bible:
See also Deut 12: 29-32.
There was no need to say so. The book of Hebrews is written to people who had been faithful Jews and were now Christians. As faithful Jews, they would have been very, very familiar with all of God's law. There's no way they wouldn't have known that God considered child sacrifices to be an abomination. They would have automatically known that any commendation of Jephthah absolutely, positively did not include him carrying out his rash vow.
The Bible is to be read and interpreted as a unified whole. What it says concerning Jepthah is clear enough to be understood by anyone who is reading the whole thing in good faith.