Today's reading, Jephthah

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

on_the_hill

Guest
In today’s first reading, Jephthah offers his daughter as a burnt offering to God? I never saw this reading before. God accepted a human sacrifice? This is very troubling to me. Is it to be taken literally? Jephthah really did this? God didn’t stop him the way he stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac?
 
Thanks for the explanations. I understand it more now.

That being said, if it were me, I’d have broken the vow and handed my fate over to God.
 
I was going to post the same question! I read the reading this morning and I was like “WAIT, WHAT JUST HAPPENED!?”

Thank you both for the post. 👍
 
I just read this on another thread, what do you think of this interpretation?
Both Jewish and Christian scholars have several interpretations. One popular interpretation is based on a close reading of the text, which translates the word “and” as “or,” a justifiable interpretation based on other scriptural verses. Thus if the first entity that Jephthah encounters is an animal, he vows it shall be offered as a burnt sacrifice; however, if it is a human being, the vow is that the latter shall be consecrated to G-d. Jephthah’s daughter is subsequently sent to the mountains in seclusion, not being permitted to marry and having to retain her virginity, but not killed by her father. This is still a harsh punishment but at least it falls short of human sacrifice.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=974748
 
(name removed by moderator) has a great explanation, unfortunately almost no one at mass today will hear it. At best most people will go “Oh that must be one of those things that’s allegorical…”

I have heard, from a Catholic Answers apologist, though, that the rendering of it can mean he gave her to the Temple as a Temple Virgin.

I know someone put up something that is against that idea, but given that the Church has not made an official declaration on this passage - that I’m aware of anyway - I think we’re on solid ground going either way, or looking for meaning in both.

Just my 0.02,
God Bless, :signofcross:
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church
 
Not necessarily. Judaism has a long tradition of arguing with G-d. On Yom Kippur Eve, all vows made in the coming year are dissolved in advance. As I mentioned in the other thread devoted to this topic, there is an interpretation of the Abraham and Isaac trial which states that Abraham did NOT do the morally right thing by obeying G-d; IOW, he FAILED his test. Instead, he should have informed his wife, Sarah, of his intention to kill their son and wrestled with G-d regarding the morality of what G-d commanded of him. The lesson in both instances–Abraham and Jephthah–is that blind obedience, even to G-d, is NOT admirable.
 
I must disagree. This is indeed one of the Jewish interpretations of the story and is a justifiable translation based on the Hebrew text, in accord with other similar language constructions in the Hebrew Bible.
 
Not necessarily. Judaism has a long tradition of arguing with G-d. On Yom Kippur Eve, all vows made in the coming year are dissolved in advance. As I mentioned in the other thread devoted to this topic, there is an interpretation of the Abraham and Isaac trial which states that Abraham did NOT do the morally right thing by obeying G-d; IOW, he FAILED his test. Instead, he should have informed his wife, Sarah, of his intention to kill their son and wrestled with G-d regarding the morality of what G-d commanded of him. The lesson in both instances–Abraham and Jephthah–is that blind obedience, even to G-d, is NOT admirable.
I can certainly understand a Jewish interpretation this way. I don’t think Catholics can necessarily take this interpretation. Not because any text in the Jewish scripture argues against it, but because of our understanding of the new testament books we use. Catholics place a lot of importance on the sacrifice of Isaac being a type of Jesus’ passion, and generally assert that Isaac was a willing and obedient son, who carried the wood for his own sacrifice up the mountain.

Of course God does not want human sacrifices, but Catholic understanding based on our own beliefs generally require that Abraham and Isaac passed this test.
 
I can certainly understand a Jewish interpretation this way. I don’t think Catholics can necessarily take this interpretation. Not because any text in the Jewish scripture argues against it, but because of our understanding of the new testament books we use. Catholics place a lot of importance on the sacrifice of Isaac being a type of Jesus’ passion, and generally assert that Isaac was a willing and obedient son, who carried the wood for his own sacrifice up the mountain.

Of course God does not want human sacrifices, but Catholic understanding based on our own beliefs generally require that Abraham and Isaac passed this test.
Fair enough. And there are also Jewish interpretations which disagree with this one.
 
I think what really bothers me about this reading, is that such an idea of human sacrifice was even mentioned…as though it were a commonplace thing.

Where would he have made the sacrifice?

The place of sacrifice was already established. The tabernacle–the people were commanded to only offer sacrifice in the place where God would show them. Abraham was told to offer his son in the place where God would show Him. So for Abraham to offer Isaac on a hill someplace was totally acceptable, because it was the place where God would show him.

But in today’s reading, God did not show him the place, because it was not God who ordained this. So he could have hardly taken his daughter to the Tabernacle and asked the priest to slay her.

I really like (name removed by moderator)'s explanation, but what really bothers me, is since it was mentioned at all, was it a common practice for Israelites to sacrifice their children to “God”? God had already told them not to engage in the practice of sacrificing their sons/daughters to Molech–a false God. But why would Jephthah even think of such a thing as sacrificing a living person to God?
 
Here’s the passage from the Douay-Rheims 1899 version, which is not modern. The focus is on her virginity, and they mourn her virginity, but not her.

36 And she answered him: My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth to the Lord, do unto me whatsoever thou hast promised, since the victory hath been granted to thee, and revenge of thy enemies.

37 And she said to her father: Grant me only this which I desire: Let me go, that I may go about the mountains for two months, and may bewail my virginity with my companions.

38 And he answered her: Go. And he sent her away for two months. And when she was gone with her comrades and companions,** she mourned her virginity **in the mountains.

39 And the two months being expired, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed, and she knew no man. From thence came a fashion in Israel, and a custom has been kept:

40 That from year to year the daughters of Israel assemble together, and lament the daughter of Jephte the Galaadite for four days.
 
I think what really bothers me about this reading, is that such an idea of human sacrifice was even mentioned…as though it were a commonplace thing.

Where would he have made the sacrifice?

The place of sacrifice was already established. The tabernacle–the people were commanded to only offer sacrifice in the place where God would show them. Abraham was told to offer his son in the place where God would show Him. So for Abraham to offer Isaac on a hill someplace was totally acceptable, because it was the place where God would show him.

But in today’s reading, God did not show him the place, because it was not God who ordained this. So he could have hardly taken his daughter to the Tabernacle and asked the priest to slay her.

I really like (name removed by moderator)'s explanation, but what really bothers me, is since it was mentioned at all, was it a common practice for Israelites to sacrifice their children to “God”? God had already told them not to engage in the practice of sacrificing their sons/daughters to Molech–a false God. But why would Jephthah even think of such a thing as sacrificing a living person to God?
Perhaps because Jephthah was not learned in the teachings of Judaism. Here is where Phinehas, the learned High Priest, enters the scene and refuses to voluntarily advise Jephthah, who also refuses to receive Phinehas’ advice. Both are later punished by G-d for being stubborn due to their pride.
 
Perhaps because Jephthah was not learned in the teachings of Judaism. Here is where Phinehas, the learned High Priest, enters the scene and refuses to voluntarily advise Jephthah, who also refuses to receive Phinehas’ advice. Both are later punished by G-d for being stubborn due to their pride.
really good answer. Thank you!
 
And that could be understood as dedicating that person to perpetual service to God as a virgin, since human sacrifice was outlawed. They mourned her virginity, not her death.
 
I think a lot of scholars have doubted the historical nature of this story. But it is worth noting that God never demanded the sacrifice or even condoned it. The best that can be said is that God did not use supernatural means to prevent it. Lots of people throughout history have done bad things in the name of God, or believing God demanded it. The fact that this particular act is recorded does not, to me, mean that God wanted or approved of it.
 
Jephthah is with Abraham in the faith hall of fame (Hebrews 11:32). Since Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead (Heb 11:19). Might Jephthah have had a similar faith? Jephthah did not utter the vow until after he was made head over Israel so a Judge (Judges 11:31) and until after the Spirit of the LORD had come upon him (Judges 11:29). God was with each judge all the days of their life (Judges 2:18). So, a careful reader sees God prompt that vow. Now Jephthah returned as a great conqueror to a woman with timbrel and dance like Miriam after the Red Sea (Ex 15:20-21) and the women to David after he killed Goliath and defeated the Philistine Army (1 Sam 18:6). Jephthah left his father’s house, kin and homeland (like Abram in Gen 12:1-3) and David when he went to live in Ziklag and Jesus when He left heaven and later when He was driven from Nazareth. So from the context we see the strong link to Jesus. Jephthah’s daughter was called only begotten (monogenes Judges 11:34 LXX); as Isaac was in Gen 22 and Jesus was in John 3:16.
Since the Bible does not tell us the details of the sacrifice, it could be that God allowed Jephthah’s daughter to be slain, maybe in revenge by one of the Ammontes, that Jephthah had defeated. And then Jephthah put her on an altar made of unhewn stones on the top of the hill on which his house was built (the place is called Mizpah meaning watchtower so it is up high), and then God send lightning to consume her body because all sacrifices require holy fire.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
And that could be understood as dedicating that person to perpetual service to God as a virgin, since human sacrifice was outlawed.
That reading could hold – if what was promised was that he would place whomever greeted him ‘under the ban’ (or ‘herem’). But, that wasn’t the promise: the promise was to offer that person as holocaust – that is, an offering completely consumed / burnt up. Nevertheless, there is precedent for what you’re suggesting: after all, every first-born belonged to God, and a substitute could be offered to the Lord to redeem the first-born. Yet, we don’t see any indication of that here; rather, we simply know that the vow was made and fulfilled.
Bruce Killian:
Since the Bible does not tell us the details of the sacrifice, it could be that God allowed Jephthah’s daughter to be slain, maybe in revenge by one of the Ammontes, that Jephthah had defeated. And then Jephthah put her on an altar made of unhewn stones on the top of the hill on which his house was built (the place is called Mizpah meaning watchtower so it is up high), and then God send lightning to consume her body because all sacrifices require holy fire.
Bruce,

All sacrifices also require that the sacrificial offering be killed by the person (i.e., priest) offering the sacrifice; if an animal were killed by other means, it could not be offered up. 😉
 
In today’s first reading, Jephthah offers his daughter as a burnt offering to God? I never saw this reading before. God accepted a human sacrifice? This is very troubling to me. Is it to be taken literally? Jephthah really did this? God didn’t stop him the way he stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac?
Yes, Jephthah really did this, that is what the scripture says and there is no reason that we shouldn’t take this literally or historically and there is no indication that the inspired writer is not setting down historical fact here, that is, real events that happened in Israel’s history.

The offering of Jephthah’s daughter in sacrifice is troubling though. It is written in the law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses:
“When you come into the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you, you shall not learn to imitate the abominations of the nations there. Let there not be found among you anyone who causes their son or daughter to pass through the fire of sacrifice” (Deut. 18: 9).

And, “When the LORD, your God, cuts down from before you the nations you are going in to dispossess, and you have dispossessed them and are settled in their land,
be careful that you not be trapped into following them after they have been destroyed before you. Do not inquire regarding their gods, “How did these nations serve their gods, so I might do the same.”
You shall not worship the LORD, your God, that way, because they offered to their gods every abomination that the LORD detests, even burning their sons and daughters to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12: 29-31).

It is also written in the Law "When you make a vow to the LORD, your God, you shall not delay in fulfilling it; for the LORD, your God, will surely require it of you and you will be held guilty. Should you refrain from making a vow, you will not be held guilty.
But whatever your tongue utters you must be careful to do, just as you freely vowed to the LORD, your God, with your own mouth.(Deut. 23: 22-24).

So, when Jephthah saw his daughter as the first to come out of his house he was kind of between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, God commanded not to offer your son or daughter in sacrifice as some of the other surrounding peoples did. On the other hand, the Law says to make good your vows to the Lord. I think here we have a case of religious ignorance or bad judgement on Jephthah’s part though he thought he was doing the right thing because the law of God forbade human sacrifice and even certain animals were not to be sacrificed such as donkeys. St Thomas Aquinas says that vows which are freely and voluntarily made should always be about a better good and the very nature of a vow is that it is about something that is not strictly commanded by God as in the ten commandments. Vows are about something over and above what we are required to do such as the counsels of Jesus Christ and the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience which religious make.

St Thomas says that if a vow entails an evil result, such as was the case with Jephthah, then we must not keep it because the very nature of a vow concerns good or more specifically, a better good and not something sinful. Accordingly, St Jerome in commenting on Jephthah says: “In vowing he was foolish, through lack of discretion, and in keeping his vow he was wicked.”
Jephthah did not have to keep this somewhat rash vow he made to the Lord as it entailed an evil result, namely, human sacrifice which is against God’s law. He blindly followed what is written in the Law concerning vows through lack of good judgement and in so doing transgressed the Law concerning the sacrifice of your own sons or daughters.

St John Chrysostom as one of the posters here remarked appears to be of the same mind as St Jerome. Jephthah made a rash vow.

In Judges 11:29, it says " The spirit of Yahweh was on Jephthah." Someone might argue that Jephthah was moved by the Holy Spirit to make the vow although the scriptures do not explicitly state this. It says " And Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh." Even if Jephthah was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make a vow which is a good thing, the scriptures do not say He was commanded by God to make such a vow and as the Law says “Should you refrain from making a vow, you will not be held guilty” (Deut. 23:23). The type of vow which Jephthah voluntarily made was also one which lacked discretion as St Jerome and St John Chrysostom say. And as St Thomas says, he should not have kept it as it involved an evil result, a sin, a transgression of the Law itself, namely, he sacrificed his own daughter.

The Holy Scriptures do not appear to blame Jephthah for offering his daughter in sacrifice although he was not commanded by God to do this as was the case with Abraham and Isaac. It involved a transgression of the Law itself. The emphasis of the story appears to be concerned with the faith and devotion of Jephthah toward God and the Law of Moses and the fulfilling of vows once made. Thus Jephthah is considered as one of the saints of the Old Testament in Hebrews 11:32. It appears from the story that Jephthah thought he was doing the right thing and God allowed it to happen and thus it probably mystically foreshadows something good, namely, the sacrifice of God’s Son for the salvation of the world. For God is able to draw good out of evil. Again though, Jephthah blindly followed the law concerning vows and according to the fathers and doctors of the Church I mentioned above, made a bad judgement on keeping a vow that was rashly made through lack of discretion. Again though, Jephthah through religious ignorance we might say, thought he was doing the right thing and so the scriptures do not appear to blame him for his sinful deed of sacrificing his daughter.
 
I think what (name removed by moderator) said in Post 2 probably contributed to what you said in your post.
The idea being that he was to full of revenge toward his family which darkened his mind and clouded his right judgment which led him to carry out an evil vow. Who could come thru the door of his own house but someone of his own family that he disliked for his treatment by them. But instead…his daughter.

So now his predicament of fulfilling his vow that he felt was necessary or not fulfilling his vow which he thought would be wrong.

But your explanation by the early doctors sets this straight…that a bad vow is no vow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top