“. . . [Jephthah] did with her according to his vow that he had made” (Judges 11:39b1). The tragedy and confusion of the account of Jephthah lie in the fact that Jephthah, not only fulfilled his unfaithful vow, but the fulfillment of that unfaithful vow resulted in the killing of an innocent life, his daughter. To provide further background into the account, a brief summary of the problem text from the book of Judges will follow. Jephthah, a man appointed leader of Israel by the Gileadites2 to defend the nation against the Ammonites in wartime, made a vow to Yahweh. “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace
…show more content…
. . many highly respected Jewish commentators were unwilling to tolerate the concept of a human sacrifice in the Scripture” (Reiss 60). Therefore, the more preferable conclusion that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter took place as a figurative sacrifice into a life of celibacy took form. Millar elaborates on this interpretation, first by proposing the idea that Jephthah’s vow remains not only justifiable, but a vow made with the purest of intentions through Jephthah genuinely seeking the will of God (452,455). Secondly, Millar claims that Jephthah never intended for the sacrifice to be human, rather an animal of some kind, but God himself chose the sacrifice while remaining justifiable in this because the sacrifice was one of spirit, not a bodily sacrifice (456-57). Lastly, Millar concludes with the argument that Jephthah’s daughter could not have literally underwent sacrifice as a burnt offering, because that would contradict the previous depiction of Jephthah as a mighty and wise leader of Israel, as well as contradict the character of God, leaving the only possible conclusion that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter took on a figurative form, not a literal one …show more content…
However, there is a significant variation between the two interpretations regarding the justification of Jephthah’s actions. As mentioned previously, the first interpretation brings Jephthah into a positive light by claiming his vow displayed pure intentions (Millar 452). In contrast, the second interpretation claims that Jephthah’s “. . . extremely desperate vow . . .” (Allen 435) led to the saddening and unnecessary sacrifice of his only daughter as a burnt offering. How then does this action find justification? Allen claims that “. . . the vow was considered immutable . . . “(436), and that “[i]t was only with the passing of years that Israel realized the true Yahweh utterly repudiated such practices” (437), like human sacrifice. The ignorance of Jephthah in regards to the significance of the vow he made, as well as the cultural norms surrounding him, kept him from understanding that the vow he made and the sacrifice he performed would never have come from the will of God. Additionally, God could not intervene in the situation, because the vow remained binding, regardless of the consequences (Allen 436-37). Therefore the “. . . pathetic and tragic story . . .” (Allen 436) of Jephthah and his daughter took place as a result of faultless ignorance, not one of pure intentions as the first interpretation suggests, or one of declining immorality as the next
. . many highly respected Jewish commentators were unwilling to tolerate the concept of a human sacrifice in the Scripture” (Reiss 60). Therefore, the more preferable conclusion that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter took place as a figurative sacrifice into a life of celibacy took form. Millar elaborates on this interpretation, first by proposing the idea that Jephthah’s vow remains not only justifiable, but a vow made with the purest of intentions through Jephthah genuinely seeking the will of God (452,455). Secondly, Millar claims that Jephthah never intended for the sacrifice to be human, rather an animal of some kind, but God himself chose the sacrifice while remaining justifiable in this because the sacrifice was one of spirit, not a bodily sacrifice (456-57). Lastly, Millar concludes with the argument that Jephthah’s daughter could not have literally underwent sacrifice as a burnt offering, because that would contradict the previous depiction of Jephthah as a mighty and wise leader of Israel, as well as contradict the character of God, leaving the only possible conclusion that the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter took on a figurative form, not a literal one …show more content…
However, there is a significant variation between the two interpretations regarding the justification of Jephthah’s actions. As mentioned previously, the first interpretation brings Jephthah into a positive light by claiming his vow displayed pure intentions (Millar 452). In contrast, the second interpretation claims that Jephthah’s “. . . extremely desperate vow . . .” (Allen 435) led to the saddening and unnecessary sacrifice of his only daughter as a burnt offering. How then does this action find justification? Allen claims that “. . . the vow was considered immutable . . . “(436), and that “[i]t was only with the passing of years that Israel realized the true Yahweh utterly repudiated such practices” (437), like human sacrifice. The ignorance of Jephthah in regards to the significance of the vow he made, as well as the cultural norms surrounding him, kept him from understanding that the vow he made and the sacrifice he performed would never have come from the will of God. Additionally, God could not intervene in the situation, because the vow remained binding, regardless of the consequences (Allen 436-37). Therefore the “. . . pathetic and tragic story . . .” (Allen 436) of Jephthah and his daughter took place as a result of faultless ignorance, not one of pure intentions as the first interpretation suggests, or one of declining immorality as the next