Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I didn't see the old thread.There’s a previous thread on the topic done quite a while ago.
For now I’ll just say I agree.
Rob
...that which makes me think Jephthah did not go about thus to satisfy his vow, or evade it rather, is that we do not find any law, usage, or custom, in all the Old Testament, which does in the least intimate that a single life was any branch or article of religion, or that any person, man or woman, was looked upon as the more holy, more the Lord’s, or devoted to him, for living unmarried: it was no part of the law either of the priests or of the Nazarites.
Besides, had she only been confined to a single life, she needed not to have desired these two months to bewail it in: she had her whole life before her to do that...
I say yes. Your thoughts?
She was not made a burnt offering. But she could though have been put to death according to Leviticus 27:28-29. Otherwise according to Judges 11:39-40 is what we are told.He did not kill her.
I think that he gave her up to perpetual virginity, and so ended his family line!I say yes. Your thoughts?
Aarron, I believe you presume too much about the Israelites of that time.What did Jephthah think would come forth through the doors of his house to congratulate him for his victory? A bull?
The law of the burnt offering says that the offering must be a male, so his daughter is disqualified, number one (and God is not going to bend the rules of the sacrifices because of a foolish vow).
It must be an animal, of the herd or of the flock, second of all, so his daughter is disqualified, number two.
Anyone who knows the law, and knows God's manner with the elect according thereto, at this point will have to concede that Jephthah's vow, if it was to kill the first thing that came to him from the doors of his house, would have been an illegal and invalid vow. He might as well have said, "I promise to rape the first thing I see."
But there's more.
The law states that the burnt offering must be killed, skinned and dismembered at the door of the tabernacle, in the presence of the priests and other worshippers. Even if the priests were so ignorant of the Big Ten as to allow murder at the door of the tabernacle, they wouldn't accept the burnt offering on account of the technicalities of Jephthah's offering not being a male of the herd or flock.
But let's say they did. Now you've entered La La Land to think that God would have let this melee go on in tabernacle worship with nary a peep, killing a woman, flaying her, cutting off her head, burning her entrails and body parts on the brazen altar and thinking it was acceptable, because Jephthah vowed a vow.
No. You have to concede that "Burnt Offering" became a metaphor in common usage for something wholly dedicated to God. And that's what Jephthah meant, and that's what happened to his daughter.
He did not kill her.
And had it been an animal unsuited for a burnt offering, what does the Law command?"whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me" for a burnt offering.
Did Jephthah actually kill his daughter? The word of God does not tell us he did.
Indeed that might mean he did have her to die. But the written word of God does not say she had died because of that vow. That is the whole reason for this thread. The truth of Judges 11:39 is not at issue.Wrong.
[30] And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, [31] then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” (Judges 11:30–31 ESV)
[39] And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel (Judges 11:39 ESV, emphasis mine)
The Archangel
Indeed that might mean he did have her to die. But the written word of God does not say she had died because of that vow. That is the whole reason for this thread. The truth of Judges 11:39 is not at issue.
Ok. What is the clear justification in Law for a human burnt offering?How does “he did to her...” get the eisegeted “maybe?” The text seems quite clear.
The Archangel