Story Of Jephthah - Human Sacrifice?

[Era Might]

So I read the daily readings today for the Queenship of Mary and was a little...surprised at the Old Testament reading, which I had never read before. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this. I'm not really one who needs to "explain away" difficult things about God...but I was jolted a bit by this story, maybe that was the whole point. God's ways are not our ways. But, thought others might have some thoughts on this.

 

 

http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/082213.cfm

 

The Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah.
He passed through Gilead and Manasseh,
and through Mizpah-Gilead as well,
and from there he went on to the Ammonites.
Jephthah made a vow to the LORD.
“If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,” he said,
“whoever comes out of the doors of my house
to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites
shall belong to the LORD.
I shall offer him up as a burnt offering.”

Jephthah then went on to the Ammonites to fight against them,
and the LORD delivered them into his power,
so that he inflicted a severe defeat on them,
from Aroer to the approach of Minnith (twenty cities in all)
and as far as Abel-keramim.
Thus were the Ammonites brought into subjection
by the children of Israel.
When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah,
it was his daughter who came forth,
playing the tambourines and dancing.
She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her.
When he saw her, he rent his garments and said,
“Alas, daughter, you have struck me down
and brought calamity upon me.
For I have made a vow to the LORD and I cannot retract.”
She replied, “Father, you have made a vow to the LORD.
Do with me as you have vowed,
because the LORD has wrought vengeance for you
on your enemies the Ammonites.”
Then she said to her father, “Let me have this favor.
Spare me for two months, that I may go off down the mountains
to mourn my virginity with my companions.”
“Go,” he replied, and sent her away for two months.
So she departed with her companions
and mourned her virginity on the mountains.
At the end of the two months she returned to her father,
who did to her as he had vowed.

[Seven77]

This passage of Scripture also shocked me when i first read it. Here are my thoughts about it:

 

Jephthah was incredibly foolish to make such a vow. It's like he forgot about his family and reduced his household to the one servant whom he hated!

 

Nowhere is it indicated that God was pleased with the vow and its fulfillment. There's no way that God could not have been displeased by it. So, it comes down to---why didn't God stop Jephthah from killing his daughter. Well, i think he allowed it as a example of the foolishness of impulsive vows. 

[Fr. Antony Maria OSB]

The priest at Mass this morning had an interesting take on this passage. He started by pointing out the two themes of this passage: death and sex. Both of these are very human experiences (if you want to get really technical in part because we are able to reflect on them and their meanings). In OT times, to die as a virgin was seen as a terrible thing because the fulfillment and purpose of life was found in having children. This is why Jephthah's daughter went out to mourn her virginity for two months. Unfortunately, I don't remember how he made the transition to the next part, but he went on to say that for religious (the Mass was at a monastery) Jephthah and his daughter could be seen as the same person: sacrificing him/herself and their virginity for the sake of the Kingdom. I thought that put an interesting, uplifting spin on a passage that would otherwise be almost entirely saddening/shocking.

[Seven77]

Nazfarmer, that's an interesting spiritual interpretation. But in the case of Jephthah, he didn't count the cost before carrying his cross. A valid sacrifice must not be made rashly, at the spur of the moment. And--"is it God's Will that I actually do this?"

 

You know, I think Jephthah sinned against the Lord in at least 3 ways:

 

He treated God as if He were an imaginary pagan deity who took pleasure with human sacrifice.

 

He thought God was a rigid and vindictive bureaucrat would punish him if he didn't keep his vow. A son would ask his Father for forgiveness and for release from his vow.

 

He put God to the test (presumably) by making a presumption that God would stop him like Abraham. Or maybe in a warped kind of way Jephthah wanted to outdo Abraham.

 

[Fr. Antony Maria OSB]

Seven77, I'm not saying that Jephthah didn't sin against God by making that vow or that his vow wasn't rash. I was merely stating what the priest said in his homily at Mass yesterday morning. Just another way to understand the passage.

Edited August 23, 2013 by NazFarmer

[Basilisa Marie]

I think it's also good to point out that it shows that God doesn't always intervene when humans do bad things. It shows us that God isn't going to magically stop us from hurting others. 

[Luigi]

Several years ago when this reading came up, the priest didn't even give a homily. He said, "This is not at all in keeping with the loving God that I know and worship. I have no idea what to say about this, so I think we should all just sit in silence and meditate on it for a few minutes." (BTW, that guy left the priesthood shortly after this event.)

 

But the thoughts that occurred to me as I was sitting in silence and meditating (and wondering that I should know more about the reading than someone trained in theology) were:

 

1. The father made a foolish promise. It's the kind of prayer I've heard referred to as "God as a vending machine" - If I put enough quarters (prayers, rosaries, sacrifices) into the machine, then I'll get my preferred selection.

 

2. The father and his daughter suffered because of the foolish promise/approach-to-asking-favors-of-God.

 

3. The father did, at least, stick to his promise. He didn't reneg or try to back pedal.

 

4. He negotiated with the daughter - he told her what he had vowed (and he seems to have regretted the vow at that point). She asked for some time, and he allowed it - he didn't say, "No, it has to be now" so it wasn't like he treated her completely like a thing. She made a conscious decision to cooperate with her father's vow, even if it was rash. And because she hadn't made the rash vow, her decision to offer herself in sacrifice was a free giving of herself to God.

 

5. In some ways, it's the same as the story of Abraham and Isaac. Father-son vs. father-daughter; God demanding the sacrifice vs. father offering to sacrifice. God spared Isaac because he was testing Abraham, but he didn't spare Jephthah's daughter because it wasn't a test (or because of the rash vow).

 

6. So both Isaac and Jephthah's daughter are prefigurings of Jesus' sacrifice (which he hade against his own will but at his Father's request).

 

 

But then I'm not trained in Biblical exegesis, so, in the end, I dunno.

[Apteka]

From Haydock's commentary:

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id575.html

---------------

 

"Whosoever, &c. Some are of opinion, that the meaning of this vow of Jephte, was to consecrate to God whatsoever should first meet him, according to the condition of the thing; so as to offer it up as a holocaust, if it were such a thing as might be so offered by the law; or to devote it otherwise to God, if it were not such as the law allowed to be offered in sacrifice. And therefore they think the daughter of Jephte was not slain by her father, but only consecrated to perpetual virginity. But the common opinion followed by the generality of the holy fathers and divines is, that she was offered as a holocaust, in consequence of her father's vow: and that Jephte did not sin, at least not mortally, neither in making nor in keeping his vow; since he is no ways blamed for it in scripture; and was even inspired by God himself to make the vow, (as appears from ver. 29, 30.) in consequence of which he obtained the victory; and therefore he reasonably concluded that God, who is the master of life and death, was pleased, on this occasion, to dispense with his own law; and that it was the divine will he should fulfil his vow. (Challoner) --- St. Thomas [Aquinas] (2. 2. q. 88. a. 2.) acknowledges that Jephte was inspired to make a vow, and his devotion herein is praised by the apostle, Hebrews xi. 32. But he afterwards followed his own spirit, in delivering himself, without mature deliberation, and in executing what he had so ill engaged himself to perform. This decision seems to be the most agreeable to the Scripture, and to the holy fathers. St. Jerome (in Jer. vii.) says, non sacrificium placet, sed animus offerentis. "If Jephte offered his virgin daughter, it was not the sacrifice, but the good will of the offerer which deserves applause." Almost all the ancients seem to agree that the virgin was really burnt to death; and the versions have whosoever, which intimates that Jephte intended to offer a human victim; particularly as he could not expect a beast fit for such a purpose, would come out of the doors of his house to meet him. (Calmet) --- Yet many of the moderns, considering how much such things are forbidden by God, cannot persuade themselves that Jephte should be so ignorant of the law, or that the priests and people of Israel should suffer him to transgress it. The original may be rendered as well, "whatsoever proceedeth....shall surely be the Lord's, and (Protestants) or I will offer it up for a holocaust." (Pagnin. &c.) --- The version of Houbigant is very favourable to this opinion. See Hook's Principia. --- It is supposed that the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which took place about this time, (Aulis. v. 26,) was only in imitation of this of Jephte's daughter. But the poets say, that Diana saved her life, and substituted a doe in her place; (Ovid, Met. xii.) which, if true, would make the conformity more striking, if we admit that the sacrifice of Jephte's daughter was not carried into effect. Iphigenia was made a priestess of Diana, to whom human victims were immolated. The daughter of Jephte, whom the false Philo calls Seila, was consecrated to the Lord, and shut up (Haydock) to lead a kind of monastic life; as the wives of David, (2 Kings xx. 3.; Grotius) after they had been dishonoured, were obliged to live in a state of continency. Although (Haydock) forced chastity be not a virtue, (Calmet) yet Jephte had no reason to believe that his daughter would not enter into the spirit of his vow, and embrace that state for God's honour and service. We know that she gave her entire consent to whatever might be the nature of his vow; and surely she would be as ready to refrain from marriage, however desirable at that time, as to be burnt alive, which would effectually prevent her from becoming a mother, ver. 37. To require this of her, was not, at least, more cruel in her father than to offer her in sacrifice. The Chaldean paraphrast says, "Jephte did not consult Phinees, the priest, or he might have redeemed her;" and Kimchi gives us a very mean idea, both of Jephte and of the high priest, the great Phinees, whom the Rabbins foolishly suppose was still living, and of course above 300 years old, ver. 26. --- "Phinees said, He wants me, let him come to me. But Jephte, the head of the princes of Israel, shall I go to him? During this contest the girl perished." To such straits are those reduced who wish to account for the neglect of Jephte in redeeming his daughter, as the Targum observes, was lawful for a sum of money, Leviticus xxvii. 2, 3, 28. --- But (Haydock) his vow was of the nature of the cherom, which allowed of no redemption, and required death. (Calmet) --- On this point, however, interpreters are not agreed, and this manner of devoting to death, probably, regarded only the enemies of God, or such things as were under a person's absolute dominion. (Haydock) --- If a dog had first come out to meet Jephte, could he have offered it up for a holocaust? Certainly not, (Grotius) because it was prohibited, (Deuteronomy xxiii. 18,) to offer even its price, (Haydock) and only oxen, sheep, goats, turtles and doves, were the proper victims. If, therefore, a person made a vow, of a man, he was to be consecrated to the Lord, (Grotius) like Samuel, and he might marry. But a woman could not, as she was already declared the servant of the Lord, and was not at liberty to follow her husband. (Amama) --- We need not herein labour to defend the conduct of Jephte. The Scripture does not canonize him on this account. If he did wrong, his repentance, and other heroic acts of virtue, might justly entitle him to be ranked among the saints of the old law. (St. Augustine, q. 49) --- "Shew me the man who has not fallen into sin....Jephte returned victorious from the enemy, but in the midst of his triumph, he was overcome by his own vow, so that he thought it proper to requite the piety of his daughter, who came out to meet him, by parricide. In the first place, what need was there of making a vow so hastily, to promise things uncertain, the event of which he knew not, instead of what was certain? Then why did he perform so sorrowful a vow to the Lord God, by shedding blood?" (St. Ambrose, Apol. Dav. i. 4.) --- This saint adopts the common opinion that Jephte really immolated his daughter. But he is far from thinking that he was influenced by the holy spirit to make the vow, otherwise he would never represent it in such odious colours. If God had required the life of Jephte's daughter, as he did formerly command Abraham to sacrifice his son, the obedience and faith of the former would have been equally applauded, as the good will of the latter. But most of those who embrace the opinion that Jephte sacrificed his daughter, are forced to excuse or to condemn the action. They suppose that he was permitted to fulfil his vow, that others might be deterred from making similar promises, without the divine authority. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xiv. ad pop. Ant.; St. Jerome, contra Jov. i.) "I shall never, says St. Ambrose (Off. iii. 12,) be induced to believe that Jephte, the prince, did not promise incautiously that he would immolate whatever should meet him,...since he repented of his vow," &c.  We may observe that this great Doctor supposes, that Jepthe promised to sacrifice the first thing that should meet him "at the door of his own house;" whence he seems to take whosoever in the same latitude as we have given in the Hebrew. He concludes, "I cannot accuse the man who was obliged to fulfil his vow," &c. We may imitate his moderation, (Haydock) rather than adopt the bold language of one who has written notes on the Protestant Bible, (1603) who says, without scruple, that by this rash vow and wicked performance, his victory was defaced; and again, that he was overcome with blind zeal, not considering whether the vow was lawful or not. (Worthington). --- If Jephte was under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost in what he did, as Salien believes, and the context by no means disproves, we ought to admire the faith of this victorious judge, though he gave way to the feelings of human nature, ver. 35. We should praise his fidelity either in sacrificing or in consecrating his daughter to God's service in perpetual virginity: but if he followed his own spirit, we cannot think that he was so ill-informed or so barbarous as to murder his daughter, nor that she would consent to an impiety which so often disgraced the pagan superstition, though she might very well agree to embrace that better part, which her father and God himself, by a glorious victory, seemed to have marked out for her. Amid the variety of opinions which have divided the learned on this subject, infidels can derive no advantage or solid proof against the divine authority of the Scripture, and of our holy religion. The fact is simply recorded. People are at liberty to form what judgment of it they think most rational. If they decide that Jepthe was guilty of an oversight, or of a downright impiety, it will in the first place be difficult for them to prove it to the general satisfaction; and when they have done so, they will only evince that he was once a sinner, and under this idea the word of God gives him no praise. But if he did wrong in promising, as many of the Fathers believe, he might be justified in fulfilling his vow, as God might intimate to him both interiorly, and by granting him the victory, that he dispensed with his own law, and required this sort of victim in order to foreshew the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins, (Serarius and Salien, in the year of the world 2850) or the state of virginity which his blessed Mother and so many nuns and others in the Christian Church embrace with fervour. --- Peace, with victory. --- Same. Hebrew, "it shall be the Lord's, and (or) I will make it ascend a whole burnt-offering." (Haydock) --- The particle ve often signifies or as well as and, and it is explained in this sense here by the two Kimchis, by Junius, &c. See Exodus xxi. 17. Piscator says, the first part of the sentence determines that whatever the thing was it should be consecrated to the Lord, with the privilege of being redeemed, (Leviticus xxvii. 11,) and the second shews that it should be immolated, if it were a suitable victim. (Amama)