Jephthah's Vow

This was a strange and controversial passage. The controversy surrounds the fulfillment of Jephthah's vow... did he or didn't he sacrifice his daughter? There are very smart people on both sides of the issue. The most natural reading of the text itself would indicate a human sacrifice, but that interpretation does not synch up with the rest of scripture. God had already told the Israelites that human sacrifice was detestable to Him, so why would Jephthah promise something like that to honor a vow? He was a Judge, and surely knew the commands of God. And even if he hadn't known better and went through with the sacrifice of his daughter, he would never have been permitted by the priests to continue on as a Judge, but he did (6 years total service). Furthermore, Jephthah is included in the book of Hebrews' "Hall of Faith" in chapter 11, which lists the heroes of the Old Testament. He would not be regarded as a pillar of the faith if he had committed such an atrocity. And what about Jephthah's daughter? Would she have asked for two months in the mountains if she knew she were about to die? Wouldn't she want to spend her last days with loved ones? And why would there be such a focus on her never having children, and dying a virgin? Wouldn't she be more concerned with being burned alive?!

So what is the alternate explanation? I wish I was knowlegable about the Hebrew language to verify this for myself, but I read that the word "and" as a connecting participle, can also be translated "or" which would change the meaning of the sentence considerably. Our translation does not even use the word "and" to connect the two phrases, but instead creates a new sentence in verse 31. But if the word "and" used in other translations were replaced with "or", the reading would be as follows... "I will give to the Lord whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph OR I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." In this context, if greeted by an animal he could make the burnt offering, but a human would be dedicated to the service of the Lord. Leviticus 27:1-8 told the Israelites that if they vowed someone or something to God and then wanted it back they could pay a stated ransom price to do so. Therefore, if Jephthah had committed to a burnt offering, he could have undone the vow by simply paying the ransom. In keeping with this line of reasoning, Jephthah must have intended the sacrifice to be one of perpetual dedication to the Lord as a temple servant. Remember there were those who made lifelong commitments to God as Nazirites.

Why would the fulfillment of such a vow cause so much anguish in Jephthah? Because she was his only child and the only hope he had of continuing his lineage through grandchildren. As an unmarried woman, she would not be permitted to receive an inheritance, so his estate would have to go outside his immediate family. Furthermore, she would have been taken from his home to live among the Levites and priests at the temple. And surely he would have grieved for the pain his rash decision would cause his daughter. The cost of the sacrifice was great for her, as she gave up what was most prized among women of her day; child-bearing. Of the fulfillment of the vow, the text reads "her father kept the vow he had made and she died a virgin". This would be curious wording if she had been sacrificed, for what would it matter whether or not she was a virgin?

Admittedly, the text is ambiguous and as stated previously, at first glance lends itself to the human sacrifice interpretation. But taking into account the alternative explanation and it's congruence with the rest of Scripture, it seems the better choice. However, one of my favorite sources for this blog is www.soniclight.com, which is authored by a highly respected professor from Dallas Theological Seminary. He believes the other interpretation is true and does an excellent job on his website of outlining the pros and cons of both arguments.

Tomorrow's reading: Judges 16-18